Official Report 468KB pdf
10:52
The next item of business is on the timing of the legislative consent memorandum for the United Kingdom Government’s Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. I refer members to paper 3.
I will provide background on the timing, clarify the committee’s position and explain to members why we could not consider the memorandum in committee and why the motion is going directly to the chamber. Last Wednesday, the issue of the referral of the memorandum was raised in the chamber. When it was first raised with me by the committee clerks, I took advice on the normal process for considering an LCM, which highlighted that it would not be possible for the committee to consider the LCM before recess.
Normally, an LCM is lodged by the Scottish Government and then referred to the committee. The committee considers the LCM during a formal meeting and decides whether to take advice and from whom. Once the committee has completed its work, a report is produced and debated in the chamber, with a conclusion from the committee on whether to recommend consent to the relevant provisions in the bill.
Last week, the Minister for Parliamentary Business made it clear that there would be no opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to consider granting legislative consent to the bill after the summer recess and that it had to be done before the recess, which meant that the first opportunity to discuss the LCM would be at today’s meeting.
Ordinarily, for a bill such as this to receive appropriate scrutiny, we would have had representatives from companies, such as that operating the Dalzell plate mill in Motherwell, and, potentially, representatives from Community, which is the union that represents steelworkers in Scotland. We would have had to give them notice to appear, which is normally 24 hours. We would have wanted to hear directly from the Scottish Government, probably at the same meeting or, more usually, the next day. We would then have needed to produce a detailed report summarising all the evidence and our views, which we would have needed to agree at a subsequent meeting. That would then need to be published and debated in the chamber by all MSPs, where the decision would be taken.
Even with the best will in the world, it would have taken two or three further meetings to achieve all that. I was content for the LCM to be referred to the chamber, as I was advised that the timeline was simply not considered possible. Ultimately, I was resigned to that fact. It was simply the case that the timing of the bill at Westminster and our summer recess meant that there was not enough time to undertake the level of scrutiny that the committee would normally take. Therefore, the decision was taken to refer the motion directly to the chamber.
I agree with everyone that the committee’s role is to effectively scrutinise these types of bills. I want to assure all members that, when future legislative consent memorandums come to my attention in the committee, we will discuss them as formal items of business and carry out scrutiny in the committee to the best of our ability.
That is the outline of the decision. I am happy to take questions on the matter.
The decision as set out makes a lot of sense. However, it is important to put a couple of things on record. First, we do not always get that much notice about LCMs, and there are various reasons for that. It is important that the committee takes the opportunity to scrutinise LCMs, even if we do not have time to take as much evidence as we would want.
There is a difference between practice and the requirements of the standing orders. The standing orders do not prescribe precisely the nature of the evidence. Sometimes, it is worth being fleet of foot so that we can at least undertake scrutiny, even if it is not as full as we might like, given the time afforded to us by the timing of the LCM.
The other thing for the committee to note on this LCM in particular is that, when it comes to the economy, the way in which the Scotland Act 1998 is framed and understood by the Scottish Government means that there is a degree of overlap as to whether such matters are devolved or reserved. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that we will have further LCMs that may straddle that understanding. I hope that my language is sufficiently diplomatic, especially given that the issue clearly touches on matters such as the security of supply chains and national security.
Those are just points to note. As I say, I am content, and I understand the approach that has been taken. However, such things—not being provided with the notice that many of us would like—have a habit of flaring up.
I welcome your explanation, convener. I was disappointed that we did not have an opportunity as a group to specifically discuss the suspension of standing orders because that would have set a good precedent for the tone and future focus of the committee.
As a committee member, I would like us to commit to ensuring that we scrutinise LCMs in the manner that we should—their parliamentary scrutiny should be much more robust than just holding the debate, which will happen very shortly. Even with the tight timetable, I feel that, because it relates to the steel industry, it is in the public interest that we have a good debate about the LCM.
I agree with Daniel Johnson that, in future, we could consider the timetable, expedite it and make it work. Stakeholders would have been willing to come in and give evidence so that we could be informed. As it is, we are not informed going into a debate in the chamber—it is not a subject that I know much about—and this committee needs to be informed. Convener, I ask that you stick to your commitment so that we practise fuller scrutiny.
11:00
I agree with what has been said. We should be providing scrutiny as far as possible. Rachael Hamilton made the point that we would have felt much more informed this afternoon if we had been able to take evidence and have a deeper discussion. I would like to see that happen in the future.
The other point is that, as Daniel Johnson said, we often do not get notice. Legislation does not happen overnight, so even if we have not been informed about legislative consent memorandums, are we looking at where they might come from? I am learning this process, but are we able to see where we might expect them so that we are perhaps a bit more prepared?
Does anyone have a comment on whether we are able to identify United Kingdom legislation that comes through Westminster?
Thank you, Ms Campbell. That was a very good point. Normally, we get a little bit more notice about legislative consent memorandums than we did this time. The first opportunity that we get to prepare is the publication of the King’s speech, which was given recently. Colleagues in Government and the Parliament identify which of the bills that the UK Government is proposing to introduce might require legislative consent. Normally, we then get an indication from the office of the relevant minister, who writes to us to indicate which bills he or she expects will trigger the legislative consent process. All that information is then circulated to members.
This time, we were caught by a bill that was passing very quickly through Westminster and by our own summer recess, but normally we would get a lot more notification and the committee would be able to do the scrutiny that it expects to be able to do. Clerks and colleagues in the research service will help the committee to effectuate that scrutiny.
Do you have anything to add, deputy convener?
I agree with everything that Stephen Imrie said. The other element to consider is that aspects of legislation that have not been seen in advance are sometimes spotted as touching on devolved competence—or there is emergency legislation. It is almost as if there is an 80:20 rule. There are the LCMs that are expected, but there are others—although perhaps the figure is not as high as 20 per cent. This is not necessarily the first time that we have had an LCM without getting the notice that we might want. Such issues and concerns were raised at least two or three times in the previous parliamentary session.
I am grateful, convener, for your explanation of the process. As a new member, this is the first time that I have had to look at the legislative consent process, so I put on the record that I think that you made the correct call at the beginning. We will have to be fleet of foot in order to deal with the circumstances as they arise.
I say this as a new member, but we might have been rabbits in the headlights looking at something with no timescale. Let us all hold our hands up and say that this is a learning process for us all, and I am grateful to be part of it. I look forward to getting stuck into these things over the coming period.
My point is similar to Martyn Day’s point, but not entirely. I understand that it was in your gift to make the decision that you did, convener. I understand why you made that decision, and I am grateful for your explanation today. I also agree that we have to be fleet of foot in relation to such matters in future. It would have been incredible if we could have been fleet footed enough to have been able to get through the usual LCM process by the end of today, but I think that that might have been beyond our abilities.
I am also grateful for your commitment to ensure that we scrutinise things properly as they arise. I think that the situation has been handled as well as it could be, and I thank you again for your explanation.
Thank you all for your comments. Before we move on, I advise members that we received a letter from the Scottish Government last night to advise us of its approach to the bill. It is now recommending consent to the bill, and, as we know, that will be dealt with in the chamber this afternoon.
The papers before us set out why the Government did not support the bill, but the letter that has come to us sets out that it now supports it. How can we speak in a debate if we do not understand why the Government has changed its mind in the course of two days?
That is a good point. The only thing that we can do is query the minister in the chamber this afternoon to try to gain an understanding of why the Government has changed its initial opinion. You make an excellent point about the fact that a last-minute change of opinion changes the debate somewhat.
I suggest that we write to the minister to ask about that, and say that we expect an answer before the debate this afternoon.
Do members agree with that suggestion?
I thought that Tom Arthur set out the reasons for recommending consent in the letter that we received. It says that the bill
“falls within the legislative competence of the Parliament”
and that the Parliament should agree to give consent its provisions. The letter also says that the Government would consult us on the matter at a future date. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I think that it sets out the reasons.
I think that the letter sets out that the Government has changed its position; it does not really set out why it has done so. It will be useful to hear the minister set that out this afternoon. If no explanation is forthcoming, it might be useful to get a response in writing.
The letter says:
“Given a political commitment by UK Government has been made to consult with Scottish Ministers, should the Bill’s powers extend into Scotland, the Scottish Government will therefore now be recommending consent to the Bill.”
If we are going to write to the minister, it should be to ask for that sentence to be elaborated on.
I am still slightly perturbed by the point in paragraph 18 of our papers. It says:
“While this response acknowledged the compressed timelines being worked to”,
the UK Government has not agreed to the request to enable ministers to consider whether the consent requirement applies. I therefore wonder how, since the Parliament dissolved after discussion of the matter, further discussions were able to take place. I would like to know what discussions took place and what the content of them was. I am not content to be told one minute by the business manager that there is no time to consider the LCM and that the UK Government did not consent to discussion with the Scottish Government on the specific devolved matters regarding the public interest in Scotland, and then to be told, on 22 June, that we are expected to roll over and accept that the UK Government has spoken to ministers. I do not think that the UK Government will have had time to do that. It has been dealing with elections and all sorts of things.
That is for the ministers to answer.
The Government raised a number of things in advance of this meeting. Although there is a broad explanation of the dialogue, some particular points arise. We will have an opportunity to debate the subject this afternoon, but if there are still questions after that, it may be that we will wish to write to the Government about them.
One issue that we encounter with LCMs is that, very often, the two Governments decide that they are happy, but there are still potential questions for Parliament, given its role in oversight and scrutiny. Maybe we should have a look at the answers that are forthcoming and then decide via an exchange of email whether further correspondence after this afternoon’s debate would be in order. That is my suggestion.
I am happy with that. We will have the debate this afternoon. I think that it is highly unlikely that we would get a response to any correspondence before then, but Rachael Hamilton make some excellent points about how the position has changed but we as parliamentarians have not had enough time to scrutinise that.
I am sorry, convener. I am showing my ignorance here, but where does this afternoon’s debate appear? I saw that the Business Bulletin did not include it explicitly, so I am slightly confused as to what the process in the chamber is.
I believe that it was decided on just this morning, so there is a revised Business Bulletin.
Ah—okay.
Are there any more comments?
Members: No.
Thank you.
Previous
Deputy Convener