Chamber and committees

I have nothing to add other than to confirm that I will press amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Section 3—Next climate change plan to follow setting of budgets

The First Minister will be aware that Stephen Flynn lobbied for an offshore wind project, which the Scottish Government approved, and that, one month later, he received a £30,000 donation from one of the beneficiaries of that project. A Scottish Government official acting on behalf of Gillian Martin appeared to fast-track a ministerial reply in response to Flynn’s request and, a few months later, the project was approved.

If the First Minister has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear, so will he order an investigation into the handling of that consent process by the Scottish Government?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. At decision time last night, Parliament was tied 62 to 62 on my colleague Alexander Burnett’s motion to annul the Local Services Franchises (Traffic Commissioner Notices and Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. With Deputy Presiding Officer Liam McArthur in the chair and the other Deputy Presiding Officer voting according to her party’s whip, the Scottish National Party was already granted an artificial boost in its voting numbers, compared with what the situation would have been if you had been in the chair, Presiding Officer. I also raised an eyebrow at the exact number of SNP MSPs voting, which was one more than I had thought there would have been, considering the pairing arrangements.

That aside, the Deputy Presiding Officer cast his deciding vote against the motion to annul and stated that the reason was to protect the status quo. As Alex Cole-Hamilton pointed out in his point of order yesterday, preserving the status quo would actually have been achieved by voting in favour of the motion. That is because a negative instrument—which is still a new law—is subject to less democratic scrutiny and can only be stopped by a motion to annul it.

If the vote had been on an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument, a legislative consent motion, an amendment at stage 3 of a bill or even the final vote on a bill, the Deputy Presiding Officer would have cast their vote against creating the new law. On this occasion, the Deputy Presiding Officer cast his vote to pass a new law and, in doing so, created a majority in Parliament where one did not exist.

I seek your guidance as to whether parliamentary protocol was followed correctly in the chamber last night. From where I am standing, it seems as if the SNP has passed new regulations against the clear will of both the relevant committee and the Parliament, with the backing of the casting vote from the chair.

Fast-tracked.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

I lodged a motion to annul the instrument so that, at yesterday’s meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, we would have the option to annul it once we had heard from the minister, Jim Fairlie. I did not expect to move that motion yesterday, but, after hearing from the minister, I was convinced that the instrument should be annulled.

Let me make a few points to start with. Annulling the SSI will not mean that franchising cannot take place, nor will it mean delay to transport authorities being able to bring forward their plans for franchising. It will not even delay the franchising process. Annulling the instrument will allow the Government to change the legislation, to enable us to have a process that works, and will permit bus franchising to take place if that is what our regional partnerships want.

For me, annulling the SSI is not about making a party-political point or derailing, in a backhanded way, legislation that has been approved by the Parliament; it is about the committee process and the Parliament working as it should do, by providing the post-legislative scrutiny that it is meant to.

The franchising process was put into legislation in good faith, but the Parliament should have the courage to accept that such a process has been tried in other parts of the country and has failed. It would be completely wrong of us to plough on regardless when we have taken evidence from people who have studied the franchising process and told us that we should simplify it.

Yesterday, the committee heard that the SPT—and for the minister’s benefit—

It is good that Graham Simpson spoke to SPT today, to hear from it exactly what the implications of annulling the SSI would be. If the panel appointment stage is more than two years away, we would have ample time to amend the legislation and get it right.

Personally, I would like to see the franchising process simplified. We can see from the flowchart provided by Transport Scotland that the process is pretty long, with audit of financial implications and consultation built into it long before any panel is appointed. The Government should take this time to review and improve the process. For me, that would show strength and not weakness on the part of the Government. It would show that it is willing to learn lessons and to implement good legislation that can work.

I will take an intervention.

Will Bob Doris take an intervention?