I will be brief, because this concerns a procedural issue.

The Social Justice and Social Security Committee considered a legislative consent memorandum on the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill in June. At that time, the Scottish Government advised us that it had not seen the full provisions of the bill until it was laid on 22 January and was consequently unable to meet the normal timings for lodging an LCM, which is important. Despite that, there was still time for the committee to scrutinise the LCM and come to a view on part of the provisions and we were able to recommend consent on that basis.

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice made us aware that, due to the on-going engagement that was required to understand whether the bill and its numerous amendments would impact on Scotland, she expected that there would be a requirement to lodge a supplementary LCM, which we now have before us. The committee was made aware that, as the LCM was lodged on Friday 3 October, there will be no time for the committee to consider it, because a decision on the motion is required ahead of the final Amendment stage at Westminster, which is due to commence on 15 October.

That is clearly less than satisfactory. The legislative consent process reflects a key principle that underpins devolution: that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters or on changes to the boundaries of devolution without the Scottish Parliament’s consent. The parliamentary committees play a key role in scrutinising provisions in UK Bills that legislate on devolved matters and in coming to a view on whether the Scottish Parliament should recommend consent. It is essential that committees are provided with sufficient time to carry out that scrutiny, irrespective of the merits of any individual LCM.

I very much hope that the Scottish Government will emphasise to the UK Government how important the scrutiny role of Scotland’s parliamentary committees is in considering LCMs in the future, in the hope that such situations do not occur again. However, in this instance, I can confirm that our committee agreed that the LCM should go directly to the chamber.

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice made us aware that, due to the on-going engagement that was required to understand whether the bill and its numerous amendments would impact Scotland, she expected that there would be a requirement to lodge a supplementary LCM, which we now have before us. The committee was made aware that, as the LCM was lodged on Friday 3 October, there would be no time for the committee to consider it, because a decision on the motion would be required ahead of the final amendment stage at Westminster, which is due to commence on 15 October. That is clearly less than satisfactory.

The legislative consent process reflects a key principle that underpins devolution: that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters or on changes to the boundaries of devolution without the Scottish Parliament’s consent. The parliamentary committees play a key role in scrutinising provisions in UK bills that legislate on devolved matters and in coming to a view on whether the Scottish Parliament should recommend consent. It is essential that committees are provided with sufficient time to carry out that scrutiny, irrespective of the merits of any individual LCM.

I very much hope that the Scottish Government will emphasise to the UK Government the importance of the scrutiny role of Scotland’s parliamentary committees in considering LCMs, so that such situations do not occur again. However, in this instance, I can confirm that our committee agreed that the LCM should go directly to the chamber.