Hansard

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.