Hansard

As convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I stand with something of a sense of déjà vu to express my regret that the Parliament is once again being rushed into expressing a view on a legislative consent motion because of last-minute changes to a bill at Westminster. This is the third time this year that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, as reporting committee on the relevant legislative consent memorandum, has found itself in this position. The previous two times related to the Great British Energy Bill.

Nothing that I say today will therefore touch on the substance of the latest motion, which is mainly about the Eskdalemuir seismic array. My contribution will be about the process and the respect that there should be for it.

The UK Government amendment that triggered the LCM was tabled on 13 October, when we were in recess. Eleven days later, the Scottish Government posted the supplementary legislative consent memorandum that is being considered today. Apparently, the Scottish Parliament must express a view on the consent this week. That rendered it in effect impossible for the committee to take evidence on the matter and come to any form of formal or collective view. Therefore, the committee has reluctantly agreed to support suspending standing orders in this case, so that we do not have to report.

It would have helped if the Scottish Government had been able to lodge the supplementary memorandum a little bit earlier—not much, but a little. However, I recognise that the root cause of this case was the late tabling of the UK Government amendment. I cannot state with certainty whether there is a trend of this happening more often, but perhaps others, such as the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, are monitoring it.

Asking Parliament to agree to something without any real opportunity to take evidence devalues the principle of legislative consent. There may be rare occasions when that is truly unavoidable, but to have it happen three times in one year to just one committee does not seem rare to me. Whenever it happens, it leaves the Scottish Parliament as a bystander and not a participant—there should always be a three-way conversation between this Parliament and the Scottish and UK Governments.

When this last happened, in April, the committee agreed that I should write to the leader of the House of Commons. I received a reply that was civil but, with respect, it did not show much willingness to make meaningful change—and now here we are again. My next letter will be to the Speaker of the House of Commons to raise this as a cross-legislative matter of ensuring meaningful adherence to the Sewel convention. I hope that the Conveners Group will also discuss the matter in due course and I appeal to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to ensure that he and his officials continue working on an early warning system for late-triggering amendments at Westminster in order to allay, as soon as possible, the use of supplementary LCMs.

The memorandum largely states that the Scottish Government is reserving its position, so I take the opportunity to add that leaving the committee waiting for a substantive follow-up is not helpful. I had recent cause to write in the same way to the Scottish Government about a different UK bill.

Returning to the case in hand, I think that what would be most helpful would be to have a rule or convention that late-triggering amendments should stop the legislative clock at Westminster—not for long, but just for long enough to allow the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament to take stock, gather evidence and report to this Parliament so that we can make a meaningful decision about the process.