Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026
Debate between Pete Wishart and Kirsty McNeill(5 days, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty McNeill
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and consideration—I hope to cover all the points raised in turn. I will begin with reflections from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who asked why this debate was not conducted on the Floor of the Commons. As he will know, because we have sat opposite each other in this space many times, Scotland Act 1998 orders are generally considered in Delegated Legislation Committees and subsequently put to the House by a motion, so that is entirely in keeping with normal practice.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire asked for clarification of the UK Government’s role in medicines regulation and, indeed, a justification for that. The UK Government’s role in medicines regulation is to set and oversee the UK-wide statutory framework that ensures licensed medicines are safe, effective and of high quality before they can be supplied to patients. In our view, it is critical that regulatory consistency is maintained across the UK. It has been a key priority post the EU exit, and we have prioritised avoiding any divergence between regulatory approaches.
The limited nature of that change will ensure that the overall integrity of the UK-wide medicines regime is retained, whether the Scottish Parliament approves the McArthur Bill or not. Staying with that line of questioning, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire asked why the Secretary of State will continue to have the final say over how that power is used. The draft order’s change to the legislative competence is specifically designed to allow for that to be retained, because we think that the UK Government have an appropriate role in the overarching regulation of medicines across the UK. That is why it is, and will remain, reserved. However, we do want to enable the Scottish Parliament to introduce provisions that could confer power in that way—in a way that simultaneously maintains the integrity of the UK medicines regime and allows the Scottish Parliament to debate that which is legitimately inside their competence.
Pete Wishart
The Minister is right that the Scotland Office has an appropriate role, but to have the final say is quite different from anything we have considered in section 34. She has not given any explanation of why that is required.
Kirsty McNeill
It is required and desirable because we believe the integrity of the medicines regulatory regime should be maintained across the United Kingdom. We are trying to strike a balance. We want to give the Scottish Parliament the ability to confer the power to Scottish Ministers to identify in this case, and in only this case, that substances and devices that could be used in assisted dying are able to be so used if that is the will of the Scottish Parliament. Of course, that is provided that that is done by way of subordinate legislation made with the agreement of the Secretary of State. The order also provides that the Scottish Parliament may confer powers on the Secretary of State to regulate such substances and devices by subordinate legislation. In our view, they are separate matters and we are trying to find a balance between the two.
Turning to the questions raised by the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee—
Kirsty McNeill
I am here to lay out the Government’s view on the Scotland Act order. I am not the diary secretary for my colleagues—I do not think the hon. Member would expect me to be. We are here to debate this order.
The Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee and indeed other members of this Committee have raised repeatedly a question that I hope I addressed in my opening remarks. But let me reiterate the view about why a section 30 and not a section 104 order is the appropriate way to get done what we need to get done today. This is for two reasons. A section 104 order cannot be invoked until a Bill has had Royal Assent. Likewise, it cannot be used to confer regulatory powers, which is specifically what the Scottish Government asked for in the intergovernmental conversations that we had. The Scottish Government have noted that the details of what a future section 104 order might contain are still being worked through, so it would not be possible for us to say in advance what our response to a request for a section 104 order would be, because no such request has been forthcoming.
To clarify for the Committee, in correspondence to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government have stated:
“'It is likely that some, if not all, of the relevant provisions will need to be handled through a section 104 Order which, as outlined previously, will mean that they need to be removed from the Bill to be dealt with in that way. However, consideration is being given to whether it might, in some cases, be possible to amend the provisions to limit the scope of the powers so that they can be more clearly understood to be for purposes that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”
Pete Wishart
I cannot see why there could not be a section 30 order for the outstanding provisions beyond the medical resources. The Minister could do that. This is a failsafe. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee requested, which is some sort of draft order, so that we could see specifically what would be included. That would at least give some comfort to the MSPs who are considering this Bill.
Kirsty McNeill
Officials of both Governments are working through a range of scenarios, but what we cannot do is table an order about a Bill that has not been passed. There are ongoing discussions, as we would hope and expect, but we cannot use a section 104 order until a Bill has received Royal Assent.
The Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee has asked for clarification on whether the Scottish Parliament would be able to amend or repeal the Act’s regulation-making powers in a future Scottish parliamentary Session. I am pleased to clarify that if the Bill is passed and contains regulatory-making powers authorised by a section 30 order, it would not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to amend or repeal those regulation-making powers in a future Session. The time limits in this section 30 order mean that it would no longer be within the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence to do so. Instead, subject to the Secretary of State’s approval, they would be able to revoke or amend the regulations that have been made under those powers.
I will take a moment to answer the question that the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee raised about receiving a copy of the response to the report in a timely fashion. We have responded, and I am grateful to the Committee for submitting it, but her points about timeliness and courtesy are well taken. I will make sure that courtesies are observed in future.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire asked about whether the UK Government would consent to a future section 104 order request. As per the correspondence between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, we understand that the Scottish Government will seek the agreement of the UK Government after the Bill passes. That will ensure that practitioners are protected should they choose to opt out of an assisted dying service. We expect to agree in principle to take forward that order, but it will be considered in the usual way, once we have actual legislation to look at.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire also asked whether, in effect, failure to pass this draft order would have the practical effect of stopping legislation progressing in the Scottish Parliament. That is our view. We must pass this today to give practical expression to whatever choice the Scottish Parliament makes. It is their choice to make, but whatever that is, we believe it is our constitutional responsibility to facilitate the progress of legislation through the Scottish Parliament.
A number of questions were asked about the justification for a time limit in the draft order. The time limit reflects two things. First, it reflects that this is not a permanent—perhaps to the displeasure of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire—alteration to the devolution settlement, and secondly, that it would not be appropriate to pre-empt consideration by any future Scottish Parliament and attempt to bind it in that way. The section 30 order on an independence referendum illustrates that there is a precedent for including a time limit in a section 30 order. We have concluded that it is appropriate to provide for temporary, and temporary only, devolution of legislative competence in a section 30 order, because it is seeking to address a very specific issue.
We are considering a very narrow and technical order that provides the Scottish Parliament with a time-limited ability to include powers in the Bill to identify and regulate substances and devices that could be used in an assisted dying regime. It is important to be clear that the draft order enables the Scottish Parliament to do that, if it chooses—it in no way compels it to. The decision on whether to create an assisted dying regime in Scotland remains, as it should be, a decision for Members of the Scottish Parliament. Although the Government remain neutral on assisted dying, we believe that our approach with this draft order is appropriate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Pete Wishart and Kirsty McNeill(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that the majority—three quarters—of those claiming agricultural property relief will be completely unaffected. However, what will affect every single person in Scotland is the Chancellor’s Budget that is set to help with living standards, to drive growth and to put the financial management at the heart of our public finances.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Immigration is a reserved issue and the Home Secretary set out last week an asylum policy that will work for all parts of the United Kingdom. It contains the most sweeping asylum reforms in modern times, commensurate to the scale of the issues before us. These reforms will restore control, contribution and fairness to the system. I am proud that our country has always been fair, tolerant and compassionate, and this Government will always defend those values.
Pete Wishart
This Government’s new heinous asylum and immigration policy marks a dark moment for many who have chosen Scotland to be their home, even leaving children born in Scotland at risk of deportation. I do not know if the Minister has noticed that we are facing a population and demography crisis that the policy will only make 10 times worse, and if we do not address it, it will have a huge impact on our economy and social services. Why does Scottish Labour support an immigration policy that is contrary to the Scottish interest?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Pete Wishart and Kirsty McNeill(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty McNeill
I remind the hon. Lady that, of course, her constituents benefit from a city region and growth deal—there is investment going into her area. If she has complaints about the decline of her constituency, I suggest that she looks at her colleagues and holds them accountable for 14 years of catastrophic economic mismanagement by the Conservatives.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
As long as I get any opportunity, I will continue to ask why Perth, and Perth and Kinross, is not getting one penny from the current allocation. Why has Perth and Kinross never had one single penny from any Government allocation? Why did this Labour Government take away the £5 million that we finally got from the Conservatives? Finally, when is Perth, and Perth and Kinross, going to get its fair share?
Kirsty McNeill
The allocations under the pride in place programme have been evidence led, based on data and on a formula that is progressive and puts money into the pockets of those who need it most. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about where money in Perth and Kinross has gone, I suggest he asks the First Minister of Scotland, who is from his own party and has received more than £5 billion. His constituents, like mine, will be asking, “Where’s the money gone, John?”