Chamber and committees

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Annabelle Ewing)

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-18133, on suspension of standing orders. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.—[Jamie Hepburn]

14:01

Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

I oppose the motion to suspend standing orders in relation to the legislative consent memorandum on the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill. I begin by clearly stating that I support the principle of improving animal welfare, and I note that, on the surface, the proposals in the bill appear to support that aim.

In a letter that was received only a few hours ago, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, states:

“The proposals included in this Bill are strongly welcomed by animal welfare organisations ... as well as being supported by all political parties”,

and I agree with him. However, right now, we are not here to vote on principles, and I want to raise objections in relation to the opportunity of this place to scrutinise legislation.

In its letter to the minister, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee made it clear that it has not had the time or capacity to consider the legislative consent memorandum before the motion is due to be debated this afternoon. That is not a procedural inconvenience; it is a fundamental failure of parliamentary scrutiny. The Scottish Parliament is being asked to delegate powers in devolved areas to United Kingdom ministers without sufficient time to consider the implications.

The minister agrees that

“there has not been sufficient time and information for the Committee to review this.”

However, I question his view that

“the Scottish Government have brought this to the attention of the Parliament at the earliest opportunity”,

given that the Senedd in Wales was given twice as long to consider the same bill. Although we appreciate the minister’s response, it does not address the core issue of the limitation on the Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the matter properly.

The bill proposes to give regulation-making powers not only to Scottish ministers but to UK ministers in areas of devolved competence, which raises serious constitutional concerns. Questions on the matter have not been answered. Why is it necessary for UK ministers to have such powers at all? The bill will give the Scottish ministers powers, so it is not clear why UK ministers would need those powers, too.

What criteria should the Scottish Government use to determine whether regulations are to be laid by the Scottish ministers, who are scrutinised here, or by UK ministers, who are scrutinised at Westminster? In his latest letter, which we received this morning, the minister told us that there would be no set criteria and that decisions would be made on individual sets of circumstances, and he spelled out the guiding factors that would influence those decisions.

The minister has said that there may be circumstances where ministers will wish to give consent to UK instruments when policy objectives are aligned, but that is not a sufficient explanation. We need to know what those circumstances are. We need to know what specific criteria will be used to decide when it is appropriate for UK ministers to act in devolved areas, and we need to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is notified and given sufficient time to consider those decisions when they are made. The committee has asked for that information.

We have been told that any UK statutory instruments will be notified to us, but that is a political commitment, and we know that we do not always have time to consider UK SIs following notification.

We have also asked for a breakdown of whether powers in this policy area have been delegated to UK ministers or to Scottish ministers, under their competence. The questions that we have asked are not unreasonable; they are the basic requirements of democratic oversight.

I am speaking not to oppose the policy aims of the bill or the legislative consent memorandum but to defend this Parliament’s role. I do not want us to set a precedent whereby important decisions are rushed through without due process. I want to ensure that the Scottish Parliament retains its rightful role in scrutinising legislation that affects the people of Scotland.

Yes, Scottish legislation takes up parliamentary time, but that is the price of proper scrutiny, that is the price of protecting devolution and that is the price of ensuring that this Parliament—not Westminster—decides how devolved powers are exercised.

For those reasons, I cannot support the motion to suspend standing orders, and I urge colleagues to do the same.

14:05

The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Jamie Hepburn)

I recognise any member’s right to speak against any motion that has been presented before the Parliament, and I recognise any member’s right to vote against a legislative consent motion or against the varying or suspension of standing orders. I recognise the right of any committee to determine not to report on a legislative consent memorandum, but I highlight—this speaks to the point that has just been made by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s convener—the role of this Parliament.

I am concerned that, if we did not agree to the motion to suspend standing orders, we would be denying the Parliament the collective opportunity to consider whether to grant legislative consent to the UK Parliament. I do not think that we should deny it that opportunity. Let me be clear that the effect of not suspending standing orders in this instance would be to deny Parliament that opportunity, and it is almost inevitable that the UK Parliament would continue to press ahead with the legislation without our even having had the opportunity to say whether we grant consent.

Finlay Carson

I do not know whether the minister listened to my speech. The issue is not about this particular legislative consent memorandum; it is about the principle of the Government putting forward LCMs for the consideration of the Parliament and not giving sufficient time for the Parliament to undertake its duty to scrutinise those LCMs adequately.

Jamie Hepburn

I have heard the convener very clearly, but I do not know whether he was listening to me.

The fundamental point is that, in opposing the motion, he is seeking to deny the Parliament the opportunity to even consider whether we should grant legislative consent. I am not clear whether the convener realises that that is what he is doing, but that is what he is seeking to do.

I understand, and it is regrettable, that the committee feels that it has not had the time to fully consider the issue. I respectfully say that the matter is not entirely in the gift of the Scottish Government—the bill is being considered by the UK Parliament. The UK Parliament determines its own timescale; that is not determined by the Scottish Government.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

I think that we are somewhat puzzled that the Welsh Parliament considered a legislative consent memorandum on the bill some time ago, but we in this Parliament were not given the same notice. The issue is not the content of the LCM; it is very much about the process and giving committees of this Parliament time to consider legislation properly.

Jamie Hepburn

I recognise the importance of doing that and, as far as we can, we will always do that.

On the point that the Senedd may have granted consent, I respectfully say that that is because it is considering the legislation in the Welsh context. We must consider its practical application in the Scottish context. [Interruption.] I hear members laughing, but the fundamental responsibility of the Scottish Government, in the first instance, is to give the Parliament the opportunity to consider the matter in the Scottish context.

Stephen Kerr (Central Scotland) (Con)

How embarrassing.

Jamie Hepburn

I hear that Mr Kerr thinks that that is embarrassing. He is a great proponent of the Parliament having responsibility for considering such matters, but he wants to deny Parliament the opportunity to consider the matter today.

I will speak to the timescale to which we have had to operate. This is about a private member’s bill at Westminster. As such, this Parliament’s standing orders make it clear that a legislative consent memorandum can be lodged only when a bill has completed the first amending stage, which was the committee stage in the House of Commons on 14 May. The Scottish Government sought to lodge the memorandum as quickly as possible, and it did so on 3 June. The reason for that was precisely what I have just laid out—there had to be a process of engagement to clarify certain areas so that the Government was satisfied in saying to the Parliament that we think that legislative consent should be granted. Should we not have complied with that responsibility? Should we just have breenged in, having not even looked at the matter, and brought it to Parliament without considering it? I do not think that Opposition members would expect us to do that.

I urge Parliament to vote for the motion.