Official Report 409KB pdf
17:40
The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motion S7M-00378, on suspension and variation of standing orders, and motion S7M-00379, on designation of lead committee.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) under Rule 17.2.1(b) to suspend and vary Standing Orders as follows for the purpose of Decision Time (or any other item of business which involves decisions being taken other than at Decision Time)—
for Rule 11.5.1 substitute:
“1. Subject to paragraph 1A, only members have a right to vote at a meeting of the Parliament. A member is not obliged to vote.
1A. A member who is participating in the meeting remotely (on a platform provided by the Parliamentary corporation) from outside the United Kingdom has the right to vote only if the member has, prior to the beginning of the meeting, obtained the permission of the Presiding Officer to do so.”
(b) that the suspension and variation set out in paragraph (a) shall have effect from 22 June 2026 and remain in effect until 31 January 2027 or such earlier date as the Parliament may decide, on a motion by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
That the Parliament agrees that the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on the Sporting Events Bill.—[Jamie Hepburn]
The questions on the motions will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S7M-00397, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on suspension of standing orders. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.—[Jamie Hepburn]
17:41
First, I acknowledge that the Scottish Government requested that the United Kingdom legislation be amended to require consent for the exercise of powers in relation to steel undertakings in Scotland, where those powers are exercised for a devolved purpose. That request was not accepted, and the Scottish Government has said that it cannot recommend legislative consent for the bill.
Suspending standing order rule 9B.3.5 would disapply the usual requirement for a lead committee to be designated to consider any legislative consent memorandum and report to Parliament. Therefore, Parliament is being asked to decide a legislative consent motion without that committee stage. In this case, that role would ordinarily fall to the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, on which I sit and which will convene next Tuesday.
Although we understand that the bill is being fast-tracked at Westminster for obvious reasons—the need to safeguard the steel industry—we are being asked to take a view without the fuller scrutiny that committee consideration would provide.
The Scottish Conservatives disagree with the decision to proceed without committee consideration and instead ask Parliament to make a determination on the LCM directly. No equivalent scrutiny process has been offered. A chamber debate is much less robust—that form of scrutiny is not as good as committee consideration here. Clearly, the best route to that scrutiny is through the lead committee, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which sits next week, as I said.
I understand that the timetable is tight, but time can be found for more focused evidence taking. Committee consideration of such an important sector would allow people to give evidence and members to ask focused questions and to gather and analyse evidence. That would be much more robust than the suggested alternative that is before us today.
Urgency without care dilutes the scrutiny, especially in areas that cut across devolved and reserved matters. It is with good faith that we raise those concerns—it is based on public interest.
17:44
I recognise that it is regrettable that I must stand before Parliament today and ask that it suspend standing orders to allow the first motion on legislative consent in this parliamentary session to come straight to the chamber.
By way of background, the UK Government introduced the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill on 14 May 2026. It had been announced in the King’s speech the previous day. There was no substantive engagement from the UK Government on the bill prior to its introduction—the Secretary of State for Business and Trade wrote to the First Minister only on 13 May, setting out the intent to introduce the bill the following day.
The timing of the bill’s introduction—it was after the Scottish Parliament elections and during the period of Government formation—was always going to be challenging, but that has been compounded by the lack of prior engagement from the UK Government, despite its intent to expedite the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill through the UK Parliament.
There will be no opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to consider whether to grant legislative consent to the bill after our summer recess—it is important to press that point. On the UK Government and UK Parliament timescale, we will not have the opportunity to consider whether to grant consent after our summer recess.
We are a powerful Parliament. The Parliamentary Bureau should consider that the committee can request to sit on another day. We have a full week left next week. The committee could request that witnesses give evidence on a day when it does not normally sit—that is entirely possible.
I was going to come on to that. I recognise that point, and it was considered, given Ms Hamilton’s concerns. There was engagement with the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, and the convener of that committee indicated that he was content for the committee not to consider the LCM in this case. With the greatest will in the world and the greatest respect, the Government can do only so much—indeed, the Parliamentary Bureau collectively can do only so much. The Government engaged with the committee to offer it that opportunity, recognising that it would not be an ideal timescale or ideal circumstances, but the committee said that it did not want to do that.
The member will appreciate that the Government cannot compel a committee to undertake scrutiny that it does not want to undertake, and I do not think that Parliament would want the Government to do that. That is why the Parliamentary Bureau has agreed to seek to expedite the vote on the motion on legislative consent to ensure that Parliament can take its collective view next week.
The minister will know that the committee has not yet met and that the committee members were not aware that the convener had rejected the possibility that we could bring in witnesses next week.
I believe that that was communicated to all business managers—that is my understanding—and it was certainly communicated to me. With the best will in the world, I can do only so much to try to facilitate committee consideration. At every opportunity that I have, I will seek to do so. However, the fundamental fact is that the timescale for the consideration of this UK bill is not in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.
The only consideration operationally in Scotland in relation to the bill would be the Dalzell steelworks in Motherwell, which is a critical industrial facility. Does the minister have an indication of whether the bill will have a direct impact on the operation of and efforts to restart the steelworks in Motherwell or of what the implications might be of the Parliament meeting extraordinarily to ensure that the facility is not affected?
With the best will in the world, I say to Mr Sweeney that that sounds very much like a matter for the substantive debate on the LCM next week, when Parliament decides to grant or withhold consent. The Scottish Government has taken a position and is presenting that to Parliament, and it will be incumbent on Parliament to consider that position. My fundamental point—this is inescapable—is that, if we do not agree to the variation in standing orders today, Parliament will not have that opportunity.
The minister will forgive me, because Liberal Democrats are not represented on the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, so we are unclear as to the process that has been followed on this occasion. Is he clear that, when he asked the convener of the committee, the convener had sought representations from each member and each party represented on that committee?
Again, I say with respect that it is not the Government’s place to handhold a committee and talk through the entire process of how it might want to consider such matters. There is a limit to how far I can undertake that exercise. The point is that the Government has engaged with the committee, we have had the feedback from the convener, and I have now lodged the motion to vary standing orders.
The Parliament should go into this with its eyes wide open and be aware that, if we do not agree to the motion, the Parliament will not have the opportunity to determine whether to grant or withhold consent. With the best will in the world, we all have to recognise, based on experience, that, if we do not take that opportunity, the UK Government will not halt its processes and will not withdraw its bill—it will go ahead whether or not we have had the chance to determine that. That is not in the spirit of the devolution settlement, so I ask Parliament to back the motion.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Decision Time