Chamber and committees

My sincere apologies, Liam Kerr.

However, this is not the full story. Over and above the build-out of our energy grid, Scotland can secure billions more in investment across onshore and offshore wind, battery storage and hydro schemes, as well as new sectors such as heat networks, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. Over the long term, forecasts estimate that up to almost 80,000 jobs could be supported by low-carbon energy sectors. We have the potential to harness that investment to make Scotland a leading exporter of renewable energy skills and innovative new technologies, and competitive in the global renewable supply chain. However, again—this is the crucial point—we need the skills, people and talent now if we are to seize this opportunity and build the foundations of our future economy and turn opportunity into jobs, wage growth and vibrant local economies.

That is why I am asking the Parliament to work together to create the conditions to deliver growth, and to back the Government’s amendment.

I move amendment S7M-00446.2 to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:

“condemns xenophobia, racism and hatred in society, including recent instances of intimidation, violence and disorder; further condemns the actions and language of those who seek to stoke such sentiments and division; agrees that such beliefs and actions do not reflect those of the vast majority of people living in Scotland, who value being a welcoming nation; welcomes the valuable contribution that migrants make to Scotland’s communities and economy; reaffirms the Scottish Parliament's commitment to human rights and equality for all; supports an economy that gives opportunities and helps to deliver investment through progressive taxation to sustain the public services on which everyone relies, and recognises the economic opportunity that a just transition can offer to Scotland through investment and innovation.”

The Sewel convention is fundamental to the functioning of relations between the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. All of us here, irrespective of our views on Scotland’s constitutional future, should be committed to upholding the rights of this Parliament and recognising the importance of the Sewel convention.

As I have said several times, this process does not meet the highest standards, but—recognising the unique set of circumstances that we face—we have sought to move forward in a way that acknowledges the significant implications of the legislation and to work constructively in doing so.

Mr Rennie raised a number of points about the Dalzell site. I confirm to him that we are keen to see the site restart. We continue to work closely with the GFG Alliance to understand how it can do that.

So far, the Scottish Government has not been formally asked to provide support, but I advise the member and the chamber that the issue was part of my discussions with the UK Government minister yesterday.

The legislation extends to Scotland, and the steel undertaking would capture the site.

The member is bringing information to my attention for the first time, and I appreciate his doing so. I will certainly follow that up with my officials following this debate.

We recognise the sustained interest in the site, and we collectively want it to be a success. The legislation, as it relates to British steel and the broader strategic picture of the steel industry across the United Kingdom, provides an opportunity to contribute to a sustainable future for the Dalzell site.

I am grateful to members for their speeches. I will be brief, because most of the substantive points have been covered.

Daniel Johnson was absolutely correct to highlight the overlap of powers in relation to devolved and reserved functions, which contributed to some of the procedural complexity in this matter and led to, as Mr Harvie described it, a deeply inadequate approach, particularly with the compressed timescales. However, it is a process in which we have sought to be pragmatic and get a constructive outcome.

Mr Johnson was also correct to highlight the growing importance of national security and economic concerns. Today, we are marking 10 years since the Brexit referendum. When this Parliament first reconvened, it had been fewer than 10 years since the fall of the Berlin wall, but we recognise that we now occupy a very different world. National security and the economy are important concerns that occupy the attention of ministers and form an important part of our considerations when it comes to engaging with UK ministers.

I will touch on the point that Rachael Hamilton made in an intervention. There is a sunset clause in the legislation, and UK ministers have the power to extend the legislation through the affirmative procedure, but that would obviously require a parliamentary vote. That is just a point of information in relation to the legislation—it will initially last for two years.

I welcome the support expressed by Mr Massey, but I want to emphasise that the transition to net zero will be dependent on the steel industry, which will be crucial. There will also be an opportunity: whether it comes from electric arc furnace transition projects or grid reinforcement and improvement, there will be significant demand for steel because of the move to net zero. Therefore, net zero is not just about our obligation to hand a better planet to the next generation; it presents a tremendous economic opportunity, which future generations would not forgive us for failing to seize.

I recognise the points that Mr Harvie made regarding the process. As I said previously, it is not the process that we would have liked to see—the UK Government knows my views on that through the engagement that I have had with it. However, I have sought to engage in a pragmatic and constructive way, given the compressed timescales in which we are operating. It is important for the UK Government that there is learning from the process and that the circumstances of our Parliament—for example, when we re-form following an election—are not an afterthought in relation to the UK Government’s formulation of its approach to legislation and when it decides to introduce it.

The early public consultation on strategic options for the M8 Woodside viaducts permanent works project concluded on 25 March 2026. As part of the Scottish transport appraisal guidance process for identification and appraisal of transport interventions, three strategic approaches were presented: repair, replace and remove. Since then, engagement has continued—with key stakeholders including Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, community councils, the Road Haulage Association and the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce—to inform the appraisal of potential options and associated costs. The work is ongoing and no final decisions have been taken.

I do not have at hand the details to answer the member’s question, but I am happy to ask officials to write to the member, to provide her with an update.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislative consent motion for the UK Government’s Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

The bill empowers the UK Government to bring steel companies across the UK into public ownership if a public interest test is met, safeguarding long-term production capacity and securing steel’s role in critical sectors, including national infrastructure, defence and clean energy. Domestic production capability is essential not only for economic growth and jobs but for our national security and resilience. The Scottish Government therefore supports the overall intention of the bill.

The Scottish Government had initially, on 15 June, lodged a legislative consent memorandum with the Parliament stating that we would not consent to the bill, due to the UK Government having not agreed to our proposals that it have appropriate regard to devolution. However, we have now changed our position on that, following a period of productive engagement with the UK Government.

I will use my time in the debate to update members on how we have got to this point. The bill, as introduced, included no formal role for Scottish ministers. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport therefore wrote to the UK Government, requesting that the bill be amended to include a statutory consent requirement for the proposed exercise of the powers in respect of steel undertakings in Scotland, where the exercise was for a devolved purpose. The UK Government would not agree to that request, due to practicalities around the operation of the bill.

However, since then, extensive productive engagement has taken place at both ministerial and official level. The UK Government has now given a political commitment that, should the bill’s transfer power be exercised in Scotland, it would “ordinarily consult” Scottish ministers. I met the minister Chris McDonald, from the Department for Business and Trade, and we had a very constructive discussion about the bill and our shared vision for a successful steel sector in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

I will give way to the member if he gives me a few more moments to progress.

That positive engagement and the position that we have settled at demonstrate positive intergovernmental relations and highlight the Scottish Government’s desire and willingness to work constructively and collaboratively with the UK Government where doing so will secure the best outcome for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government will now continue to monitor the passage of the bill and engage with the UK Government on the matter.

I can feel the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans’ eyes boring into the back of my head. It would not be for me to do that, and it would be for Parliament to decide that.

The member has registered his point, and his party is free to raise the matter through the usual procedures at the Parliamentary Bureau. I am happy to engage with the member on these matters.

I think that I have covered most of the points that were raised during the debate. I welcome members’ engagement. I recognise that, ideally, we would have had the opportunity to consider the issue at committee. Should the committee wish to explore the matter in more detail following summer recess, my officials and I would be more than happy to engage with it to do so.

I ask Parliament to support the motion that is before it this evening.

The member’s supplementary question further highlights the range of views that exist on the issue. It has been important to have a process of public engagement. I provide assurance to the Parliament that full and detailed consideration will be given to all the opinions that have been expressed to date, including the views that have been articulated by the member, before further action is taken.