Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

At the end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order is drawn too narrowly, such that the modification of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 would be insufficient to render the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill fully within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for engaging with me on this topic. To be clear at the outset, we are not concerned with the merit, or otherwise, of the content of the legislation in question. However, this raises a somewhat technical issue with regard to the devolved settlement.

I begin with a general résumé of where we are regarding the devolved settlement. Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 contained expressed reservations to the United Kingdom Parliament. They were very carefully and deliberately identified as areas where it was appropriate that there should be UK-wide legislation, rather than devolved legislation, touching upon certain fundamental and important matters.

The Minister has mentioned medicines and medical devices, as contained in paragraph J of Schedule 5, but that does not sit alone. The regulation of all the health professions and the medical professions is expressly reserved in Schedule 5, as is the matter of employment law, for the very simple reason that uniformity within the United Kingdom was thought important and to take precedence over the desire for devolved competence.

There is a provision in Section 29 of the Scotland Act which makes it clear that, if the Scottish Parliament passes legislation that is not within devolved competence, it is not law. It is as simple as that. The competence of the Scottish Parliament can, of course, be extended by Section 30, and we have heard reference to a Section 30 order. That is an unusual mechanism, last used more than 10 years ago in respect of the referendum on independence. Moreover, it is not a mechanism that has ever been used before in respect of a Member’s Bill. Within the Scottish Parliament, what we understand as a Private Member’s Bill is referred to as a Member’s Bill. In addition, within the Scottish Parliament, when referring to a Bill, one refers not to clauses but to sections; I hope that noble Lords will bear with if I adopt the appropriate references in dealing with this matter.

Interestingly, this is also a Bill in respect of which the Scottish Government have declared themselves neutral. We are being asked to grant a Section 30 order extending devolved competence to a Member’s Bill in respect of which the Scottish Government have declared repeatedly that they are entirely neutral.

Section 30 does and can be used to extend devolved competence for the purposes of passing legislation in the Scottish Parliament. That has to be contrasted with Section 104 of the Scotland Act, which can be used to extend the range of a competent piece of legislation that has already been passed by the Scottish Parliament. In other words, if the Scottish Parliament has competently passed legislation but would wish to see it extended into reserved areas, the Secretary of State of the UK Parliament can make an order under Section 104, so extending the relevant legislation.

A simple example would be where the Scottish Parliament passed legislation for the recognition of gender certificates for 16 year-olds. That was a proposal which came to grief for other reasons. If it had wanted to see that legislation, with those certificates recognised by registrars in England and Wales, it would have required a Section 104 order from the Secretary of State in order that the Scottish legislation could be extended. It is important to keep in mind the distinction between Section 30 orders, which will allow an extension of devolved competence in order that the Scottish Parliament can pass legislation that is then competent and is then law, and the situation in which it is extended after it has been passed by virtue of a Section 104 order.

A Section 104 order cannot make competent a piece of legislation that is not within devolved competence. If the Scottish Parliament passes an Act that is not within devolved competence, then, as I mentioned earlier, it is not law and it cannot be made law by the Secretary of State making an order under Section 104. To give perhaps a poor analogy, if the legislation from the Scottish Parliament is competent but rather sick, it can be made well by a Section 104 regulation. If the legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament is not law—if it is dead—it cannot be brought back to life by a Section 104 order.

We are dealing here with a Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament which deals with the regulation of the health professions—the medical professions—in order that they can assist people to die. We are concerned with the regulation of medical substances in order that they can be lawfully administered by medical professionals to assist people to die.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Can the noble and learned Lord explain what he means by that? I think he is saying that there is no impact assessment of the effect of the regulation of devices and substances being in Scotland rather than England. That is all that paragraph 9 deals with.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

No, I am saying that there is no impact assessment in respect of the effect of this legislation in Scotland on the regulation of the medical profession, which is also an expressly reserved matter under paragraph G2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Because that will be impacted by virtue of this Section 30 order being granted to the Scottish Parliament, that ought to be a consideration in this context.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I think the noble and learned Lord misunderstands what is being said here. It says that there is no impact expected in allowing the Scottish Parliament to be the body that allows regulations to be entered into in relation to devices or substances. That is all that is being said here.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

That is my very point, with the greatest of respect, because the reserved matters are not just medical devices but regulation of the medical profession. Therefore, the very fact that it is such a narrow order means that the relevant impacts of this Section 30 order and of the legislation, assuming it is competent and passes, have not been properly addressed in this context.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

It is an impact assessment only of this instrument, not the Scottish legislation.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I am underlining the narrowness of this instrument and what it omits. It omits to address properly the effect of passing this legislation through the Scottish Parliament as a consequence of the Section 30 order.

I have sought to make this as clear as possible for at least some of your Lordships. In my respectful submission, this is a situation in which the Government should think again about the course of action they propose to adopt. I therefore express my regret with regard to this instrument.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have a few questions for the Minister. My noble and learned friend Lord Keen has set out pretty eloquently the issue of the narrowness, and the House will be aware that one of the elements of Section 30 orders, and indeed of a variety of subordinate secondary legislation, is that they cannot be amended. As has been pointed out, one thing that is not covered and not clear in the Section 30 order—although the Government have indicated that it will be in the Section 104 order in order to enact the Bill, if the Members of Scottish Parliament decide to go ahead with it—is how, in effect, that will happen. Instead, a number of questions are raised. For example, the MHRA response pointed out that, if this does go ahead, the UK Government and the regulator want this to be one process that would happen throughout Great Britain.

This is a novel approach—this is the first time this has happened—and I am trying to understand whether, if a Scottish Minister puts forward regulations in light of the Section 30 order, it will require the specific agreement of the UK Government Ministers: the Secretary of State for Scotland. The other way around is that the Scottish Parliament hands over powers to the UK Parliament to decide how a Bill it asked for will be enacted. So we are in this novel situation.

I am interested to understand from the Minister how they got to this point. I know that she set out the narrowness, not going beyond devolution, but when this was debated in the Scottish Parliament in May 2025, Scottish Government Ministers said that they would start a discussion with the UK Government. It is my understanding that actually, the Scottish Government wanted a far wider Section 30 to cover the specific issues my noble and learned friend Lord Keen pointed out.

If we put ourselves in the feet of the Members of the Scottish Parliament, if this goes ahead today, as they get to their stage 3, they will start to remove lots of pieces of the Bill that currently sit in that Bill and then hand over, in effect, the decision on how any of this can be implemented to the UK Government and, subsequently, the UK Parliament. It will not be able to be amended by the UK Parliament, but the UK Government can do what they like. So it would be useful to get an understanding of whether there is a memorandum of understanding that could be shared. Is there any correspondence that could be shared between the two Governments, given that both Governments say that they are neutral on this Bill? If they are neutral on the Bill, how do we know what process they are going to undertake to deploy this in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I would be delighted to write to the noble Baroness. It is important that we have precision on this issue and I do not have that information immediately to hand, so I will write.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I am a little puzzled by the proposition that the regulation of the medicines to be employed in assisted dying is to be regarded as the central purpose of the Scottish Bill, while the regulation of those applying those medicines is merely consequential. I would have thought that the hand comes before the content, rather than the content before the hand, but there we are. There appears to be a difference of legal opinion on that narrow point.

I accept the observation made by the Minister that there are aspects of this that are complicated and difficult. I nevertheless am left with an abiding impression that this rather complex mechanism ultimately is designed to ensure that it is the Secretary of State who has the final say over the way in which this legislation is implemented, rather than the Scottish Parliament.

But that is where we are. I have expressed my regret with regard to the scope of the Section 30 order and I leave matters there.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.