Meeting of the Parliament 17 June 2026 [Last updated 18:21]
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.