Meeting of the Parliament 20 February 2025
No, not at the moment.
We did our best under the circumstances, and the report added usefully to the debate, but the committee should have been spared that white-knuckle ride. I make no apology for bringing that up again, because, to be frank, I do not feel that the cabinet secretary engaged with those points when we last debated the bill two weeks ago. They were raised in good faith by the whole committee to ensure that the process works better.
I turn to the second supplementary LCM, which the committee first saw late on Monday night. We then had to produce a report in time for today’s debate. That left us with no realistic prospect whatsoever to come to a considered position on the bill amendment that triggered the new memorandum—far less take any evidence. Therefore, as a committee, we can express no collective informed view on consent.
The concerns that we raised in our earlier report bear repeating. If there are delays in information reaching the Parliament, we end up as bystanders and not participants in the process, as we should be. We end up where we are today, whereby a committee has literally gone through the motions to produce a report that meets the formal requirements of standing orders but does not meaningfully contribute to the policy debate.
I said in the previous debate, and I repeat today, that the committee is all for constructive intergovernmental discussions aimed at hammering out agreement on legislative consent. I know that the Scottish Government can be blindsided, like the rest of us, by amendments that are tabled late in the day at Westminster, as we have heard. However, in the present case, I wonder aloud—especially given the dates that the minister has told us—when Scottish ministers were first told by a UK Government minister that the amendment would be tabled. We have been told that that was more than seven days ago, and there is a seven-day gap between an amendment being tabled and an LCM appearing.
With respect, the new LCM does not provide much analysis of the new clause and its implication for devolved competence. It mainly repeats observations about supporting the broad aims of GB Energy.
Getting the LCM a bit earlier would have given the committee more chance to do the job that standing orders have given us to do, and which we have every right to do. I urge both Governments to work together to ensure that this Parliament has as much time as possible to meaningfully scrutinise LCMs. Otherwise, the risk is that the committee’s role in the consent process is reduced to that of undertaking an empty ritual, which, as a parliamentarian and convener, I find totally unacceptable.
16:47