Official Report 683KB pdf
We are starting the next item slightly later than I anticipated, so I apologise to anyone who has been kept waiting.
Our third item of business is consideration of two statutory instruments, both of which are laid under the negative procedure, which means that they will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been lodged. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment on either instrument. I will seek views on each of them in turn.
Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2025 (SI 2025/1101)
Unless anyone else has any comments on the order, I will make a general comment. Although I have no problem with the order, it would be helpful to know the Government’s position on it and whether, by extending the trading scheme for a further period—which will allow motor manufacturers to trade off progress against the current targets to allow them to achieve their future emissions targets—that will affect progress on electric vehicles.
In general, I agree with the order, so unless the committee has a reason to do otherwise, I propose to write to the Government and ask it to explain that, but then to make no other comment. Are we happy to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/300)
As no one has any comments on the instrument, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations on it?
Members indicated agreement.
GB Biocidal Products (Amendment) Regulations 2025
The fourth agenda item is consideration of two consent notifications relating to proposed UK statutory instruments. The first is on biocidal products. Under the GB Biocidal Products Regulation, companies must obtain authorisation from the Health and Safety Executive to market biocidal products. Biocidal products are substances or mixtures that are designed to control harmful organisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects or rodents.
The amendment regulations relate not to the substance of that regulation but to a data protection aspect in it, as outlined in the clerk’s paper. The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government about the proposed change. We can express a view both on whether we agree in principle to the UK Government legislating in the area and on whether we agree with the specific manner in which it proposes to do so.
If we are content for consent to be given, I will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In writing to the Scottish Government, we of course have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept updated on particular matters. If the committee is not content with the proposal, it might make one or several recommendations, as outlined in the clerk’s note.
I do not see anyone who wants to express a view, so I will move to the substantive question. Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect.
Control of Mercury (Amendment) Regulations 2025
We move on to the second consent notification relating to a proposed UK statutory instrument. The UK SI would add a number of mercury-added products—so-called MAPs—to an effectively banned list. The UK and Scottish Governments consider that doing that fulfils our international obligations on mercury.
As before, the committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government about that. We can express a view both on whether we agree in principle to the UK Government legislating in the area and on whether we agree to the specific manner in which it proposes to do so. If we are content for consent to be given, I will write accordingly to the Scottish Government. We have options to draw matters to the attention of the Scottish Government if we want to do so. If the committee is not content, we can make one of the recommendations as outlined in the clerk’s note.
Does any member have a view on the issue?
I am content that the instrument would align us with some of the international conventions on mercury, which are about protecting human health and the environment. However, I would like the UK Government to go further and align with the European Union, particularly on areas such as the use of mercury, amalgam in dentistry and sodium lights, and a range of other areas. It would be useful to get the Scottish Government’s view on whether it wants to work towards alignment with the EU in relation to mercury-added products. If so, I would like to know how it is working on a four-nations basis with ministers from across the UK to achieve that, and by when.
It appears to me that the simple answer is that we write—well, I will ask the question, to be totally correct.
Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
It would be helpful to write a letter to the Government on the issues that Mark Ruskell has raised. Technically, I should seek the committee’s permission to sign off that letter on its behalf as a result of our discussion. Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
We will write to the Government on the effect of the instruments.
We now move into private session.
11:06 Meeting continued in private until 12:28.