The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18080, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on a legislative consent motion on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. Again, I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:30
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to debate the motion on legislative consent for the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill.
The bill is primarily an enabling or framework bill, which gives the UK Secretary of State powers to regulate products in a range of sectors for certain purposes. Those include reducing or mitigating risks associated with products, ensuring that products operate efficiently and effectively, and reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products where the European Union makes such provision.
The bill also creates powers in relation to metrology, which is the science of measurement. That, however, is fully reserved, so those powers are not covered by the legislative consent process.
Much of the UK’s existing product regulation framework is derived from EU law, and the UK Government deems the creation of the powers in the bill to be necessary to close the regulatory gaps that have been caused by the UK’s exit from the EU.
The stated aim of the bill is to support economic growth, provide regulatory stability and deliver more protection for consumers. That includes enabling the UK Government to respond to new and emerging products being marketed, as well as to new business models in the supply chain, such as online marketplaces.
The UK Government has stated its wish to protect consumers by reducing the number of unsafe goods that are sold online. For example, there are fire safety concerns around products entering the UK market at times, such as e-bikes that have unsuitable lithium-ion batteries, which members will be familiar with. The Scottish Government agrees with the UK Government that regulatory stability is important for business confidence and that the correct regulatory framework should be in place to ensure consumer safety and support growth in our economy.
However, as I am sure members would expect me to say, it is essential that the UK Government’s regulatory framework adequately respects the devolution settlement and the legislative confidence of the Scottish Parliament. The bill was announced as part of the King’s speech on 17 July 2024 and was introduced soon after, on 4 September. Unfortunately, that rushed timetable allowed for limited engagement at the official level, and agreement in principle was not sought from Scottish ministers prior to the bill being introduced to the UK Parliament. That meant that the Scottish Government’s concerns about how devolved matters were covered in the bill were not reflected in its drafting.
Our primary concern was the proposal to grant powers to UK ministers to regulate products in areas of devolved competence without the oversight of Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament. For that reason, the Scottish Government lodged a legislative consent memorandum in the Scottish Parliament on 24 September 2024 and recommended that Parliament refuse to consent to the bill.
In February 2025, a UK Government amendment that extended the scope of the bill’s powers was introduced in the House of Lords. As the amendment did not address the Scottish Government’s fundamental concerns with the bill, our recommendation remained unchanged, as expressed in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum that was lodged on 3 March. My officials and I then continued to engage with the UK Government to secure changes to the bill that would allow us to change the recommendation.
In past months, I have met Lord Leong and minister Justin Madders to discuss the Scottish Government’s concerns. As a result of that engagement, the UK Government tabled an amendment on 15 May that provides that the UK ministers may use the powers in the bill to materially change devolved law only with the prior consent of Scottish ministers.
That is a key improvement to the bill, although we would have liked the UK Government to have gone further. For instance, it was not willing to remove certain devolved product categories from the scope of the bill, and neither was it willing to provide Scottish ministers with concurrent powers to regulate products to reduce their environmental impact, which is an area of interest for the Scottish Government and Parliament.
No adequate reason has been given for the decisions to deny those asks. That is, of course, regrettable. On our ask in relation to concurrent powers, I assure the Parliament that we have some similar existing powers in this area to take action should they be required. An example would be the powers in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that were recently used to ban the sale and supply of single-use vapes. That makes the UK Government’s refusal to include those concurrent powers in the bill a bit more puzzling.
However, that does not detract from the fact that the addition of the consent mechanism has removed our primary concern with the bill, which now better respects the devolution settlement. That amendment also means that the UK Government will be unable to use the powers in the bill to actively diverge from the EU in areas of devolved competence where doing so would not be within Scotland’s interests. It therefore represents a significant improvement on the bill as introduced, which enabled the Scottish Government to lodge a second supplementary legislative consent memorandum on 29 May recommending that the Scottish Parliament provide its consent to the bill.
I thank the Economy and Fair Work Committee for inviting me to discuss the bill in December 2024 and on 18 June, just a couple of weeks ago. I welcome the report that was published by the committee yesterday, which recommends that the Parliament agree to consent to the bill. The Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive had initially expressed similar concerns about the bill to those that were expressed by the Scottish Government. However, the Scottish Parliament will be interested to note that both the Welsh and Northern Irish have voted to grant consent to the bill as amended.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that all relevant provisions of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 4 September 2024, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
I call Murdo Fraser. You have around six minutes.
15:36
I am sure that the packed chamber and the many millions of people who are riveted as they watch at home will be disappointed to know that I will not be taking all of my six minutes—unless I get lots of interventions, of course, which I would welcome.
I will make a brief contribution to the discussion on the legislative consent motion relating to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, for which the third reading in the House of Lords was completed on 4 June. As we have heard, the purpose of the bill is to ensure a level playing field for businesses that operate online or on the high street, to ensure the maintenance of high product standards, and to support businesses and promote economic growth—a very worthy and positive set of intentions. The bill relates to public safety, efficiency, effectiveness, environmental impact and other standards, as well as metrology issues, and it applies to tangible products.
As the minister outlined, the Scottish Government initially did not recommend that the Scottish Parliament consent to the bill but has since had a change of heart. The LCM before us proposes that consent be granted.
We have a number of concerns about the bill as it stands. It gives very extensive powers to ministers in the UK Parliament. It is best described as a framework bill, and the full extent of those powers will not be clear until we see the relevant secondary legislation, perhaps some months or years down the track. Therein lies part of our difficulty with it. The secondary legislation that will be produced in the Westminster Parliament will not come to the Scottish Parliament for scrutiny and will not be subject to an LCM process. Scottish ministers have said that any lawmaking in this area by the UK Government will be subject to their consent. However, it will not necessarily come to the Scottish Parliament for consideration or scrutiny.
The bill allows UK ministers to introduce regulations that might align the UK more closely with the EU. Conversely, it also allows UK ministers to further depart from EU rules. Given that the Scottish Government’s stated position is to align more closely with the EU—which, incidentally, we do not necessarily believe is in the interests of Scotland or its economy—it is curious that Scottish ministers seem so relaxed about agreeing to grant legislative consent.
Part of the reason why they might be relaxed is that it is all just rhetoric and they are not in dynamic alignment with the European Union at all.
That might well be the case. I am sure that that is a debate that we could have at another time. I will simply reflect that the Scottish National Party Government seeming to be more willing than the Scottish Conservatives to pass powers to UK ministers is a rather odd position to be in.
We are concerned about the level of ministerial discretion that has been granted in the bill and about the role of this Parliament in providing adequate scrutiny. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee highlighted that there would be no scrutiny role for this Parliament and no need for Scottish ministers to consent to the making of regulations that fall outwith statutory instrument protocol 2. We believe that that issue should be properly addressed.
Given our concerns about the situation and specifically about the lack of scrutiny, Conservative members will not oppose the LCM, but we cannot support it.
15:40
This has been a fascinating debate on the legislative consent motion because, in quite amicable terms, it has highlighted one of the challenges that this Parliament and the Scottish Government have faced regarding legislative consent motions. By common custom, the matter is one for Governments to discuss between themselves, but, following discussions earlier in this session about legislative consent motions, Parliament is now taking the opportunity to look at the issue and to see whether we might do what I could call “assisting” a more generous and even discussion between Governments about how legislative consent should be dealt with.
To pick up on Murdo Fraser’s comments, there are concerns about framework bills. Those concerns have been expressed in this chamber and the chambers of other devolved Parliaments and, of course, at Westminster. There is also always the challenge of the interestingly named Henry VIII powers that can follow on from such framework bills. As we go forward, there is a question for Parliament about how to deal with that matter.
I turn to the legislative consent motion in front of us today. I omitted to do this in the previous debate, so I will put the record straight by thanking the committees that have provided information to members about the LCMs that are before us today.
We have here a bill that seeks to protect people. I thank Richard Lochhead for bringing some reality to a bill that may seem, to the millions watching us from the outside, to be strangely worded. We are talking about the world of e-scooters and other potentially challenging products that can put our citizens at risk, and the bill is a way of protecting them.
I also thank Richard Lochhead for the articulate way in which he described what I imagine may, behind the scenes, have been slightly more challenging discussions during the process of moving from the earlier legislative consent memorandums to the one that we have today. I welcome the amendment at UK level that has given the Scottish Government confidence to back the request for legislative consent.
I will leave it there except to say that this may be another part of the footpath that will lead this Parliament and others to look again at legislative consent at the right time.
15:43
This legislative consent motion has been discussed several times by the Economy and Fair Work Committee and I will place my concerns about it on the record.
The Scottish Government did not initially recommend that Parliament should consent to the LCM, due to the absence of a mechanism for the UK Government to seek consent from the Scottish Government when making regulations in devolved areas. That is not a trivial problem. The UK Government drafted a piece of legislation that covered devolved areas but did not ask the Scottish Parliament’s consent. At no point in the UK Government process did anyone—not the officials, not the ministers—recognise that they were legislating in devolved areas. It was either that or that they did not care. They entirely overlooked the fact that the Scottish Parliament has responsibility in devolved areas. Following two rounds of amendments, the legislation now at least requires the Secretary of State to seek the consent of Scottish ministers when making regulations in devolved areas.
I bring all that to Parliament’s attention because it is evidence of the creeping rollback of devolution and of the weakening of the powers of this Parliament. More and more powers are being seized by Westminster and this LCM demonstrates that. The matters covered by this LCM can be significant to Scotland’s devolved powers to protect its environment and to protect public health.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has effectively shut down Scotland’s ability to move faster than England in protecting our environment and our public health. Legal instruments such as the LCM that we are discussing reduce the Scottish Government to consenting to what the UK decides to do in areas that are covered by the bill, instead of the Scottish Parliament being able, as we should be under the Scotland Act 1998, to diverge from UK legislation and set our own legislation at our own pace to protect our environment and our public health.
The fact that the Scottish Government is reduced to only having the power to consent to what the UK Government decides also means that we depend on it respecting the Sewel convention, which it has failed to do 11 times with no consequences. There is absolutely nothing that we can do if the UK Government decides to ignore our lack of consent.
As members of the Scottish Parliament, we should be concerned about the creeping loss of power from this Parliament. As residents and citizens of Scotland, we should be concerned that our devolved powers become less and less effective in protecting our environment and public health as Westminster takes those powers back for itself.
Devolution is not working for Scotland. Only as an independent country will Scotland have all the powers that we need to protect public health and the environment. The Scottish Greens will not support the LCM and will abstain on it at decision time this evening.
I call the minister to wind up. You have around three minutes, minister.
15:46
I thank members for their contributions to the debate. As Murdo Fraser started his speech with the great news that he would curtail his remarks, I feel obliged to do likewise and say that I want to make only a few remarks in response to members’ contributions.
First, I note that Murdo Fraser’s argument that the Scottish Government is giving powers away to the UK Government is strange, given that the whole purpose of us coming to Parliament with the LCM today is that, after a bit of a battle with the UK Government, we eventually got an amendment that will require Scottish ministers’ consent on devolved issues in the UK bill. That is the reverse of what Murdo Fraser said. This Government has protected devolution and ensured that, as far as possible, power is retained by this Parliament.
Will the minister give way?
I am happy to allow Murdo to extend the debate.
I remind the minister to use full names.
I am very grateful to the minister. Will he address the concern, which I outlined in my speech, that although ministers might need to give their consent, there will not necessarily be an opportunity for this Parliament to scrutinise the legislation?
As I explained to the committee, if, under the protocol, the UK Government approaches us for consent in relation to any impact on devolved issues, we will write to the relevant parliamentary committees, which will have an opportunity at that point to reflect on what was asked of the Scottish Government. A mechanism will be in place, albeit that it is a bespoke arrangement for this kind of legislation that has been negotiated with the UK Government and indeed Parliament recently.
On the wider issues, we all share an aspiration to support sustainable economic growth in this country. In our programme for government, the First Minister and the Government outlined the importance of ensuring that Scotland’s economy is prepared for the emerging challenges and opportunities. In a sense, that is what this legislation is about. As I stated, it is essential that the appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place to support economic growth and ensure consumer safety. That is especially true when it comes to innovative products and sectors that are crucial to our future, because we know how fast everything is changing and where technology is taking us. I addressed that in my opening remarks.
The bill provides a framework for new regulation to keep pace with those technological advances and support the future development of many products and sectors while addressing safety and environmental concerns. It also provides opportunities to level the playing field between online marketplaces and high-street retailers.
Although I acknowledge the UK Government’s decision to amend the bill to introduce a statutory consent mechanism, concerns remain about its approach to devolution in this case. Lorna Slater refuses to support the Government’s motion and says that she is going to abstain. I agree with the concerns that she expressed, because it appears that we are sometimes caught up in a constant battle to protect Scottish devolution and this Parliament's interests.
It is disappointing that we did not get all that we asked for in the bill. I argue that our ask was largely uncontroversial, but the UK Government still would not give us what we asked for. However, we got the key ask, which was for Scottish ministers’ consent to be required in relation to any relevant measures that are brought forward by the UK Government, in order to protect devolution. That important ask was secured, which is why we urge Parliament to support the motion.
As I said, the process highlighted a number of issues in relation to our relationship with the Labour Government. Those issues need to be sorted out, because we must not be involved in a constant battle. We must protect Scottish devolution. As that is in the interests of the people of Scotland, all parties in the Parliament should stand up for that.
The final issue that I want to address is that of alignment with the EU. The bill’s history is related to Brexit and retained EU law. The bill includes the ability to align with EU environmental law when it comes to protecting the environment, but, as other members have mentioned, the UK Government also has the ability, in that context, to diverge from EU law. However, the bill gives the UK Government the power to align with EU environmental law. Of course, that is the policy of the Scottish Government, and we urge the UK Government to do that at every opportunity.
I urge Parliament to support the motion.
That concludes the debate on the legislative consent motion on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill.