Jamie Hepburn
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We have a full week left next week. The committee could request that witnesses give evidence on a day when it does not normally sit— that is entirely possible. Jamie Hepburn: I was going to come on to that. I recognise that point, and it was considered, given Ms Hamilton’s concerns.”
“The member will appreciate that the Government cannot compel a committee to undertake scrutiny that it does not want to undertake, and I do not think that Parliament would want the Government to do that.”
“The timing of the bill’s introduction—it was after the Scottish Parliament elections and during the period of Government formation—was always going to be challenging, but that has been compounded by the lack of prior engagement from the UK Government, despite its intent to expedite the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill…”
“I recognise that it is regrettable that I must stand before Parliament today and ask that it suspend standing orders to allow the first motion on legislative consent in this parliamentary session to come straight to the chamber. By way of background, the UK Government introduced the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill on 14 May 2026.”
“I believe that all of us in public life strive for that and that we have all been motivated to enter politics for those reasons. Maybe that is a reminder of the point that David Linden made about the common ground that exists between us all.”
“We should recognise the challenges that we face, but Adam Harley made an important point: that the general experience of being involved in politics is a good one. Just as he spoke of, I like nothing more than to engage with the constituents I represent in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. By and large, that is a positive experience.”
The complete record
Every one of 471 lines we hold for Jamie Hepburn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
“I ask the minister to bear in mind those discussions, my comments and a letter that I wrote directly to him this morning as he decides how we will use the remaining parliamentary time before the recess. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. Both of those points are on the record, although the latter was not a point of order. Motion agreed to. Topical Question Time 14:07 National Health Service (Ambulance Turnaround Times) 1.”
“I suggest that Mr Kerr, and I urge all his party colleagues, perhaps to think through the internal dialogue of their group, because we have already received such a request from their business manager, which is being considered in the usual way. Stephen Kerr: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your clarification. In responding to the motion, I did not mention that—of course, I am aware of the dialogue. However, I am also aware that, at the Parliamentary Bureau meeting earlier today, the minister was not able to give a firm commitment that members would have the opportunity to scrutinise those publications. That is why I did not reference it, although of course I am aware that there is an internal dialogue.”
“It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit. Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“As we know, one of the First Minister’s priorities is to grow the economy, improve public services and eradicate child poverty. That starts with a place-based approach, which is developed in tandem with communities—with people such as Mrs Fowler, Wilma Mather, Billy Souter and the others who Bob Doris mentioned as being involved in the life of Summerston. I thank Bob Doris for bringing the debate and I again congratulate the community of Summerston. I wish them every success in building on their excellent work to date, and I know that Summerston will continue to flourish for the next 50 years and beyond. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. Meeting closed at 17:38. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting.”
“In Summerston, we have a great example in SCEG, and I place on record my thanks to it for all that it does. The Government has an agenda of community empowerment, to enable people and communities locally to shape services in their area that impact them directly and to take action to support the creation of successful places across Scotland. That is why we introduced the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and why we have a range of activity to create community wealth building as an approach to economic development. We have also introduced a bill to ensure the consistent implementation of community wealth building across Scotland, which people in Summerston and communities across the country will be able to take forward.”
“It is a great example of what we see in communities across the country. The debate gives us all an opportunity to reflect on what we see in our local areas. We heard Emma Roddick do that. I see much of the same in my area, through organisations such as the Cumbernauld Community Forum, the Cumbernauld community garden, the Craigieburn community garden, the Kilsyth Environmental Group, the friends of Colzium and the Kilsyth and villages community board. Thank you for indulging me, Presiding Officer, in mentioning a few organisations in my area. I do not often get that opportunity when I am responding on behalf of the Government. Those organisations are in my area, but there are of course examples of similar organisations throughout the country.”
“The hands-on effort of community volunteers in Summerston has helped to enhance their local area and improve the lives and wellbeing of those who live there. It is particularly appropriate that the debate has been scheduled during volunteers week. It is appropriate that, in this instance, we say thank you to those who volunteer in Summerston and to all who give their time in their communities across the country. Bricks and mortar go only so far in creating a community; ultimately, the people create the community. From everything that we have heard from Bob Doris, that is certainly the case for Summerston. It has been terrific to hear about the work that is taking place there to activate, engage and empower local people. I pass my sincere thanks to everyone who is involved in that effort.”
“It has been heartening to hear how the Summerston Community and Environmental Group has been proactive in improving the area, making a significant difference through the development of a community action plan, a range of community events and ambitions for wider environmental improvements. It has been nice to hear about the Easter, summer and Christmas community events, which are now a regular feature for the group. I recognise the hard work that has gone into celebrating the 50th anniversary through the celebration event that the group arranged. We know that many of the community activities that we have heard about today would not happen without a range of volunteers giving their time in Summerston. Indeed, across the country, volunteers make a difference in their communities.”
“Jamie Hepburn: It is a blessed relief that that was not one of the stories that Mr Doris could have told, but it is appropriate that he remarked on that and for those of us on the SNP benches to reflect on the great contribution of the Ewing family to our party. Summerston is part of that story. Summerston is not far from where I grew up, so it is an area that I know well. Indeed, I not only know the area but, as I represent a new town, I recognise the importance of milestones. The 50- year milestone is significant for any community, but many people have lived in Summerston for the entire duration of those 50 years. They have raised families and made lifelong friendships. In that regard, it is a particularly important anniversary.”
“As Mr Doris will be able to testify, I cut my teeth in the Scottish National Party in Glasgow Maryhill, which is where Summerston is located, and for much of the time that was alongside Mr Doris. There are stories that could be told, but they will remain untold in the chamber. Bob Doris: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Those stories might be about to be told. Bob Doris: I thank the minister for giving way. This story does not involve the minister; it involves two other MSP colleagues who cut their political teeth in Summerston: Fergus and Annabelle Ewing. Their dad was elected as a local councillor in 1977, and they well remember leafleting all the flats and houses in Summerston. I want to put that on the record, as it is part of the cultural and social history of the area.”
“I thank my friend Bob Doris for securing the debate and highlighting the good work that has been done in Summerston. I join him in welcoming those who have travelled from Summerston to be with us in the public gallery. As with all those who visit the Parliament, they are very welcome—I hope that they have enjoyed seeing the good work that they undertake in their community reflected in the debate. In that regard, I congratulate the entire community of Summerston on reaching the significant milestone of 50 years, on working together for the benefit of those who live in the area, and on arranging a series of events to mark the anniversary. I am particularly pleased to be responding to the debate.”
“I am encouraged by the ambition and forward thinking that I see in the proposals that the committee has put forward. As is pointed to throughout the report—and as I know from my experiences as Minister for Parliamentary Business and co-chair of the Open Government Partnership steering group—this work is part of what Dr Marc Geddes would describe as a wider ecosystem, so it cannot be done in isolation or with tools alone. Cultural, behavioural and structural changes need to take place in collaboration and partnership between Governments, Parliaments and civil society. This work is continuing to take us further forward in helping more people in Scotland realise the power and importance of their voice and the impact that they can have on the decisions that affect them. 15:11”
“Scottish Government officials have been in conversation with United Kingdom Government officials on whether payments for involvement in research or public participation interact with benefit entitlements. Understandably, that is of great concern for stakeholders and members of the public, and I am grateful to the committee for identifying that as an issue. Unfortunately, at this stage, a shared understanding with the Department for Work and Pensions on the issue has not yet been reached. We remain concerned that restricting benefit claimants to voucher payments communicates a lack of trust and risks discrimination. We will continue to raise those concerns with the DWP and hope to be able to resolve them. I very much look forward to hearing from other participants in today’s debate.”
“We are not as far advanced in progressing the recommendation to create a centralised team with the authority to co-ordinate participatory work in Scottish Government, but I continue to explore that and work with my officials on it. I will continue to work closely with colleagues in the Scottish Government and the working group to progress its key recommendations and uphold Scotland’s commitments to deliberative democracy. The second issue that the committee has raised is the payment of participants. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government has published guidance on paying participants’ expenses and compensating them for their time.”
“The first is the work of the institutionalising participatory and deliberative democracy working group, which I met last week to discuss how we can work together to progress and move forward the agenda of participation. Although progress has been made in some regards, there have been some significant limits to the delivery of those democratic innovations. However, we are working to progress the recommendations where we can. We have held pupils panels, citizen juries and lived experience panels. Work is under way across Government to build capacity, capability and the skills of Scottish Government civil servants through the development of guidance, training and procurement frameworks for our colleagues.”
“The project will also provide valuable learning for our joint democracy matters process with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, designing new community decision-making models to support communities across Scotland to take ownership of important decisions. That is a reminder that transparency and participation in public life are matters not only for this Government and Parliament, but for local authorities. I thank the committee for its acknowledgement and support of the Scottish Government’s work in exploring the potential of deliberative democracy. I also welcome the scrutiny and accountability that the work of the different panels and the committee brings to the activities of the Government. The committee wishes to explore two areas regarding the Scottish Government’s work to embed participatory and deliberative approaches.”
“With the next Open Government Partnership action plan, we are looking to take a more strategic approach that will enable us to achieve even more on trust, transparency, and involving the public over the course of the next session of Parliament. Looking at the Scottish Government’s efforts to embed and institutionalise participatory methods and approaches more widely, we place great value on community empowerment and providing opportunities for people to participate in the decisions that matter to them. To give one example of that, just last month we announced £50,000 of funding to support piloting a citizens assembly in Dunfermline, in partnership with Fife Council and the Electoral Reform Society.”
“This year, we will be co-creating our next action plan, bringing together different areas of Government and civil society to drive forward innovative, ambitious and impactful actions to ensure that people can see, understand and be involved in the decisions that affect them and their communities. Participation is one of the core principles of open government. In this year alone, I have seen what can be achieved through that approach. Recently, colleagues worked with students at the University of Edinburgh to create a framework for case studies that showcase the value and impact of open data. We are now seeing the impacts of year 3 of the just transition participatory budgeting fund in the north-east. More than 18,000 people took part in determining how the fund could best be disbursed, with 47 successful projects.”
“As a member of this Parliament, I consider that to be an important area for us to collectively reflect on. I speak today on behalf of the Government and—as I reflected on in the recent debate on committee effectiveness, and which is important to re- emphasise—it is not for the Government to tell Parliament how to do its work. However, I can perhaps set out a few ways in which the Scottish Government is working to the same agenda of public participation. As a member of the Open Government Partnership, the Scottish Government is committed to building trusted relationships with civil society to deliver on our mission to improve the lives of the people of Scotland.”
“I commend the report’s acknowledgement of the resource-intensive nature of that work, as well as its clear, long-term plans to make efficient and cost-effective choices that take into account the future resilience that is needed to support that work. I reinforce the importance of the evaluation process, the inclusion of seldom-heard voices, and the involvement of the voices of, in particular, children and young people in the plans. In relation to that work, I welcome and will continue to encourage collaboration between the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government, local government and, indeed, other institutions across these islands. The report is geared towards consideration of how the Scottish Parliament might think about public participation in the longer term.”
“They committed to taking action to safeguard Scotland’s democracy and tackle people’s feelings of being unheard and disempowered. We members have a shared responsibility to support the growth of trust in the institution of the Parliament—and, for those of us who serve in ministerial office, in the Government. I record my support for and appreciation of the committee’s ambitious work in putting forward its blueprint for participation and deliberative democracy, which is an important step in acknowledging the positive impact of participatory approaches on people and the way in which decisions are made.”
“If people feel that they have no voice and that they are not heard by their Parliament as an institution, their parliamentarians individually or their Government, the trust that is vital to our ability to deliver better outcomes for them is chipped away. According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, someone feeling as though they have a say in Government actions has a greater influence on trust than socioeconomic or demographic characteristics. The principles and methods of public participation are vital in rebuilding that trust in Scotland. I was pleased to see the report say that “tools ... alone will not restore trust in politics.” In April, the First Minister convened a gathering of civic, faith, trade union and political leaders.”
“He quoted the powerful words of one participant, and I was struck by the words of another who was cited in the report: “I’ve still got a voice, I still get to dream.” There is something powerful about those words. They speak directly to the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament on power sharing and equal opportunities. We should be endeavouring to ensure that every person in Scotland feels empowered in that way. What impresses on me most is the way in which such people are reclaiming their power. That is not to say that there are no concerns in that regard. Concerns are being heard about those who are not involved in public discourse, and those concerns are growing not just here in Scotland but internationally, which is a point that is are raised in the committee’s report.”
“I commend the committee for the work that it has undertaken on its inquiry and report, and I commend the convener for rising to the challenge and taking us further back into the realms of history. That challenge began with Stuart McMillan, who started in the 1930s, and continued through Mr Whitfield, in a subsequent debate, to the 18th century and Edmund Burke. There is quite a leap back to the fifth century BC— we should stop the challenge before the next debate, in which someone might cite Fred Flintstone—but I will resist the temptation to reflect on Aristotle’s six forms of democracy, save to say that we can remind ourselves of his great concern over democracy: rule by the “demos”, or mob. I will not reflect on which group in the Parliament I consider to be the mob. I will begin as Jackson Carlaw did.”
“I recognise the Government’s responsibility to ensure that committees have a manageable workload, and in terms of our legislative programme, I think that we are doing that.”
“A sense is sometimes expressed that the Government is overburdening committees with workload. I put on the record last week at committee, and I am delighted that Mr Carson has given me the opportunity to place it on record now, that the average number of Government bills introduced per year has been broadly stable across all parliamentary sessions. In this session, we project introducing 12 bills per year; in session 5, we introduced 12 per year; in session 4, it was 13 per year; in session 3, it was 11 per year; in session 2, it was 13 per year; and in session 1, it was 13 per year. The pattern is broadly similar for Scottish statutory instruments. The numbers of SSIs have been largely stable for the past few years, and this year there have been far fewer than in every other year since 2000-01.”
“I will watch with interest to see what direction the committee wants to take on the measurement of effectiveness. Finlay Carson: The minister will no doubt be aware of Professor Mary Brennan’s letter with regard to the scrutiny of the secondary legislation on the good food nation. She finished her letter by saying: “We strongly believe that it is incumbent on all those with responsibility to ensure the highest level of scrutiny and accountability are adhered to.” In bringing forward legislation, the Government surely needs to take cognisance of the Parliament’s capacity to scrutinise it in that way. Jamie Hepburn: Of course, and that is what we do. That has been the subject of some discussion in the context of the inquiry. I gave evidence to the SPPA Committee just last week, and I engage regularly with committee conveners.”
“Is the question more about how the committee has gone about the scrutiny of a bill, investigated whether it will deliver on its purpose and considered whether there were alternatives and what stakeholders thought? My view is that the latter question is probably more important, but we have to recognise that it is much more difficult to measure. If the Government is doing its job properly—the view on that might be felt to be subjective—in bringing forward well- crafted legislation that has stakeholders’ support, effective parliamentary scrutiny may not need to do much more than identify that such legislation is fit for its task. In other cases, particularly on issues that are politically polarising, effective parliamentary scrutiny may look very different.”
“I also recognise the difficult challenge that the committee has set for itself by tackling committee effectiveness. Whether something is effective might not be an easy thing to reach a view on, and I know from research that the committee has commissioned that many Parliaments have had difficulties in identifying outputs and measures on effectiveness. It is, of course, not for me to say how effective parliamentary committees are at holding Government to account, but I will draw attention to how subjective and varied effectiveness can be. For example, how should we measure effectiveness in relation to bills? Is effectiveness best measured by how much impact a committee has on a bill by making amendments? The attraction of that metric is that it has the benefit of being tangible and measurable.”
“There is therefore a challenge to Mr Carlaw on how far back in history he can go in opening the debate on that report. I speak in my ministerial capacity so, given the importance of protecting the principle of ministers being accountable to Parliament, I am sure that colleagues will understand my desire to avoid being seen to direct how Parliament discharges its responsibility. Instead, my principal interest is in considering how any changes might impact on the delivery of Government business. At the outset, I acknowledge the careful way in which the SPPA Committee is going about its inquiry and its desire—as evidenced by today’s debate, which is in a different format from those that we normally hold—to ensure that a wide range of perspectives are taken into account.”
“I, too, thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its work in this area. The Scottish Parliament recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. As Kenny Gibson set out earlier, it is right that how the Parliament operates is kept under constant review, to ensure that the best ways of working can be identified and implemented when there is consensus to do so. I begin with an observation. A few weeks ago, we had a debate on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s inquiry into framework bills and Henry VIII powers, and that committee’s convener cited the Donoughmore report of 1932. Today, the convener of the SPPA Committee has gone further back in the annals of history to 1774, to cite Edmund Burke. I note that Mr Carlaw’s committee today published its blueprint for participation, which we will debate shortly.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that the digital app would not connect. I would have voted no and my proxy vote on behalf of Màiri McAllan would have been no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Hepburn. We will ensure that those are recorded.”
“That was meant to be sleight of hand, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Nothing passes me by, minister. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress: Groups 1 to 4: 45 minutes Groups 5 to 8: 1 hour 30 minutes Groups 9 to 13: 2 hours.—[Jamie Hepburn] Motion agreed to. Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 15:27”
“That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 10 October 2025.—[Jamie Hepburn] Motions agreed to. Parliamentary Bureau Motions 17:40”
“Motion agreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is consideration of business motions S6M-17378 to S6M-17381, on stage 1 timetables for bills. I call Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motions. Jamie Hepburn: I am happy to move these motions rather more quickly than I moved the previous motion. Motions moved, That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 21 November 2025. That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 26 September 2025. That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 31 October 2025.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Tuesday 6 May 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by First Minister’s Statement: Programme for Government 2025-26 followed by Scottish Government Debate: Programme for Government 2025-26 followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 7 May 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care followed by Scottish Government Debate: Programme for Government: Building the Best Future for Scotland followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 8 May 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice followed by Ministerial Statement: Relationships and Behaviour in Schools followed by Scottish Government Debate: Commemorating the 80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time Tuesday 13 May 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Stage 1 Debate: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 6.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 14 May 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.10 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 15 May 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills followed by Scottish Government Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time (b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 5 May 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.”
“This motion adds a statement on the programme for government to the schedule for next week. Some members will be interested to know that, unlike in other years, there will be an opportunity to ask questions of the First Minister following his statement, which will be followed by a debate in the usual fashion. There will be another programme for government debate the following day. Members may also like to look further ahead and see that, in the following week, on 13 May, we will have a stage 1 debate on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. There will be Conservative Party business and Scottish Government business on the following days. That is probably as much information as I can extend on the business motion.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Wednesday 30 April 2025— after 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government insert followed by Ministerial Statement: The Cessation of Refining at Grangemouth delete 5.10 pm Decision Time and insert 5.40 pm Decision Time Motion agreed to. Parliamentary Bureau Motions 17:02”
“I understand that many members took the time in that debate to raise their concerns about Grangemouth; I am unclear whether Mr Kerr availed himself of such an opportunity. I had intended to schedule the statement for Thursday, because I recognise that tomorrow is an Opposition party business day. I like to try to ensure that, where that is the case, the Opposition has its day in Parliament. However, given Mr Kerr’s earlier remarks that he was very keen that we have the statement at the soonest opportunity, and given that it is his party’s business day tomorrow, I propose that we schedule the statement for tomorrow, which will result in a slightly later decision time of 5.40 pm.”
“This motion is to add a statement on the disappointing news that emerged this morning about the cessation of refining at Grangemouth. The statement comes on the back of a request that was made by the Conservatives; it was sent by their business manager to me at 11.33 am and then discussed at the Parliamentary Bureau at midday. It was disappointing that Stephen Kerr felt the need to make a point of order ahead of topical questions that implied that the matter was somehow not under active consideration or, at least, ignored the fact that it was. Mr Kerr should have more faith in his business manager’s ability to bring matters forward in the usual and correct way. Mr Kerr should also have faith in the Parliament’s process to schedule things, such as this afternoon’s debate on supporting Scottish industry during turbulent economic times.”
“I welcome the committee’s report and am glad that it has undertaken its work and that we are having this debate. The Government will, of course, continue engaging constructively with any suggestions for improving the scrutiny of legislation in the Scottish Parliament, whether that comes from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee or from any other committee of this Parliament. 15:30”
“The report also has recommendations relating to Henry VIII powers—I have not had a chance to say much about Henry VIII powers, so I will try to say a little bit more about them in my closing speech, because I can now see that I have used up 16 and a half minutes of my allocated seven minutes, Presiding Officer, and I acknowledge that I am taxing your patience. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You are redefining the meaning of generosity. Jamie Hepburn: You have been very generous, Presiding Officer. In relation to Henry VIII powers, the committee says that the Scottish Government should “consider what more it can do to ensure it consistently sets out such powers’ ability to amend primary legislation in a clear and accessible way.” The Scottish Government is happy to accept that recommendation.”
“Again, the Scottish Government accepts those points and, at the request of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I have already ensured that the advice to the Scottish Government’s bill teams is revised to re- emphasise the need for committees to be kept abreast of changes to estimated costs in financial memoranda. Another recommendation says: “Where a Scottish Government Bill proposes the delegation of a broad power it should consider adding an appropriate super-affirmative procedure to enhance parliamentary scrutiny.” The Scottish Government will take that recommendation into account in taking forward its legislative programme.”
“I will respond to some of the specific recommendations in the report. One recommendation says: “The committee considers that legislation should, other than in very limited circumstances, set out a high degree of detail on the face of the Bill.” The Scottish Government agrees with that. Another recommendation says: “Financial Memoranda should include an estimate of any costs arising from delegated powers provisions” and that the Scottish Government should “ensure it keeps committees updated throughout the legislative process on the estimated costs arising from a Bill”.”
“Alongside every bill in which we say that there will be secondary legislation-making powers, we have to publish a delegated powers memorandum to justify and make the case for powers to be delegated to the Scottish Government to make and amend law by secondary legislation. If any member or committee considers that what is set out in such a memorandum falls short of expectations, I would expect them—frankly, I would encourage them—to raise that with the relevant minister at the earliest opportunity and seek the additional information and justification that they consider to be necessary. My expectation of ministerial colleagues is that they should respond in kind and provide as much detail and information as members require, in the interest of good scrutiny of our legislative proposals.”
“Stephen Kerr: That is what happens. The advantage— Jamie Hepburn: Mr Kerr suggests that that is the case, but I am less convinced that that is a sensible way forward, because there will be plenty of important matters that we take forward through pieces of secondary legislation that have not come about due to a framework bill and which, frankly, in the interests of good governance, should be just as thoroughly scrutinised as those that have. That is where I stand on the matter. The Government’s position is that we should provide a clear justification at all times for the proposed inclusion of any delegated power that we plan to take in a bill, Of course, our processes should always be subject to reconsideration, refinement and improvement, and, effectively, that is the system that we have now.”
“A lot of the things that are produced in this Parliament become unnecessary, unforced errors that would have been caught and corrected if we had a stronger, scrutinising approach to secondary legislation. Jamie Hepburn: First, I assure Mr Kerr that I have no intention of sitting where he is at any time. I think that he makes the point that I am trying to make. Are we going to say that any bill with secondary legislation-making powers in it is defined as a framework bill? I do not think that we are—I do not think that anyone is suggesting that. The question then is, are we suggesting that secondary legislation that is taken forward through something that has not been defined as a framework bill should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as something that has been taken forward through a framework bill?”
“There is a clear advantage to knowing whether a bill is a framework bill, and whether a piece of legislation is setting forth principle rather than acting as the means of delivery of a particular policy, and that advantage is that, with that knowledge, the Parliament can design and adjust the way in which it scrutinises the secondary legislation that comes from ministers. That is the fundamental issue with framework legislation. The issue involves the ability, in particular of our Parliament here at Holyrood, to properly scrutinise legislation. I say to the minister—I hope that he will take this in the spirit that I offer it, because one day he might sit where some of us are currently sitting— that it is in the interests of good government that we get this right.”
“I am not entirely clear that investing time and energy in defining whether a bill is a framework bill is as important as undertaking scrutiny of the Government’s justification of the appropriateness of using powers in a secondary format—rather than having a procedural debate about whether those powers are caught by the definition of framework legislation. Stephen Kerr: Will the minister take an intervention? Jamie Hepburn: The Presiding Officer said that we had a lot of leeway. I have extended quite a lot of it and I have still not got through the committee’s report. I am more than happy to give way if it will be possible to do so. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We have not exhausted the generosity, but we are getting closer to it. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful, Presiding Officer, and I thank the minister for giving way.”
“Martin Whitfield: The benefit of having a definition is that it would allow there to be much greater agreement before a piece of legislation was presented that it would follow the path that fits that piece of legislation, be it framework legislation or otherwise. Does the Scottish Government agree that there is great benefit to having a definition, even though, clearly, it cannot apply to every legislative vehicle in the Parliament? Jamie Hepburn: I will be candid: I am not entirely convinced of that. I appreciate the committee’s report, but, with the best will in the world, it has not crystallised how a definition would be used, nor has it laid out what the benefits of a definition might be.”