Chamber and committees

Thank you for taking time to come to the committee—I understand that some of you had to find the time at quite short notice. I appreciate your attendance.

Our third item of business is evidence on a consent notification on the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which is a forthcoming United Kingdom statutory instrument on which Scottish Government consent to legislate is sought. The Scottish Parliament has a role, subject to a protocol, in the scrutiny of Scottish Government consent to UK secondary legislation in devolved areas arising from European Union exit.

There is a short reporting deadline on this notification, so today we will hear from the Scottish Government on its proposal to consent. We are joined by Màiri McAllan, who is the Minister for Environment and Land Reform, and the Scottish Government officials Dan Merckel, chemicals team leader, and Luigi Pedreschi, solicitor.

We have around 25 minutes for this item. Minister, I believe that you would like to make an opening statement and that you have a slight correction to make regarding the notification.

I think that Dan has already given the answer, which is that all the chemicals sitting within the packet of chemicals looking for authorisation already had an on-label use. As they are already being used, they would not need to be tested and re-evaluated. Is that not what you said, Dan?

Liam Kerr wants to come in.

Monica, I know that the minister does not need defending, but she came at fairly short notice today. This meeting was not planned until the latter part of last week, so the Government has shown the committee some flexibility, and I thank the minister for that.

As no member has indicated that they have further questions, I thank the minister and her officials for taking part.

We move to agenda item 4, which is consideration of the consent notification for the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which have yet to be laid. The Scottish Government proposes to consent to the instrument, as we addressed in our consideration of agenda item 3.

Several options are open to the committee, all of which would result in our sending a letter to the Scottish Government, stating our view. The first is that, if members are content, we can approve the proposal to consent. The committee will then write to the Scottish Government, indicating as much.

Secondly, members can approve the proposal to consent and, in the letter confirming that, seek further information on any further queries that they might have.

If members are not content with the proposal, the recommendations that we can make to the Scottish Government are listed in paragraph 9 of paper 3. We could indicate that the Scottish Government should not give consent and propose either that it produce an alternative Scottish legislative solution or that it request that the provisions be made in a UK SI laid in both Parliaments under the joint procedure, or we could indicate that the provision should not be made at all. I hope that I have made the options clear.

If members have no comments on the evidence that we have heard—and I am not seeing anyone leaping in to make a comment—I will move to the substantive question on this item. Is the committee content for the provision set out in the notification to be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument??

Members indicated agreement.

We are agreed. Gosh—that was simple and saved us from having a vote.

We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect by its deadline of 11 October 2022. Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a letter to the Scottish Government, informing it of our decision today??

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 5 is consideration of another consent notification for a UK statutory instrument that has not yet been laid.

The Scottish Government proposes to consent to the instrument, which, as the clerk’s paper indicates, relates to the new UK chemicals regulatory regime for persistent organic pollutants.

As discussed under the previous agenda item, a protocol has been agreed between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament for situations in which the Scottish Government proposes to consent to certain types of secondary legislation made by the UK Government as a result of EU exit. The protocol sets out how the Scottish Parliament may scrutinise such decisions. There is a statutory requirement that the Scottish Government’s consent be sought for this proposed instrument.

I refer members to the paper for this item. Again, multiple options are open to the committee on the consent notification. I will not go through them all again—they are exactly the same as those for the consent notification that we have just considered.

If members have no comments, I will move to the substantive question. Is the committee content that the provision set out in the notification be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument??

Members indicated agreement.

We are agreed. We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect. Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a letter to the Scottish Government, informing it of our decision today??

Members indicated agreement.

Now it is the deputy convener’s turn.

I have a couple of questions to finish off this session.

EU environmental regulation is interesting because it ends up pickling things in aspic and not allowing things to change. We tend to feed into the process, and the approach tends to follow a precautionary principle that says that no damage can be done. Although that might be the right approach, there might also be benefits from the proposed development. I have heard Lloyd Austin’s comments on that, but I am interested in Robbie Calvert’s and David Melhuish’s views. Do you think that the EU’s precautionary approach to the environment gives enough flexibility?