Contents
- Attendance
- Decision on Taking Business in Private
- European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
- Subordinate Legislation
- European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
- Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations
Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations
Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations
Item 2 is consideration of a proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to the UK Government using powers under the 2018 act in relation to three UK statutory instrument proposals.
At our meeting on 23 October, we agreed that we would write to the UK Government to request confirmation that the Scottish Government would receive final versions of each of the statutory instruments and confirmation of when they would be issued.
We have received a response from Jackie Doyle-Price, who is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Mental Health, Inequalities and Suicide Prevention in the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care. She said:
“The Scottish Government received copies of the updated draft instruments for organs and tissues and cells on 22 October.”
She went on to say that
“Final checks are currently being undertaken”,
and indicated that although there might be further “technical modifications” to the drafts, no policy changes are expected. The letter advised that the latest version of the statutory instruments would be sent to the Scottish Government by 2 November.
We have since received a response from Joe FitzPatrick, the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing, copies of which members should have access to, in which Mr FitzPatrick says that although the drafts of all three statutory instruments are still being finalised by the Department of Health and Social Care in advance of being laid, the Scottish Government has now seen final drafts of all three SIs and is satisfied that it has sufficient information at this stage. That is the Scottish Government’s view on the items.
We might agree to write to the Scottish Government to indicate that we are content for consent to be given in relation to the UK statutory instruments. However, I think that Keith Brown wants to make that conditional in some way or to tie it to our evidence session with the minister under agenda item 3.
Yes. Let me also say that I think that it is less than satisfactory that we are being asked, without seeing final versions, to consent to regulations that will become the law of the land, even with the assurance that the Scottish Government has seen them. This committee and this Parliament are not the Scottish Government, and we have an obligation to satisfy ourselves about provisions that will be legal requirements. If we agree to take this approach, the difficulty will be that in consideration of items in the future—we are told that there are a lot more to come—we will not have the opportunity to do so.
In addition, it would be useful to have an assurance from the UK Government—I do not know who the appropriate minister is—that we are not going to be put in this position again and that we will get to see final versions of proposed laws before we are asked to consent to them.
I, too, have concerns, particularly about the blood safety regulations, and I concur with Keith Brown. The committee has not seen the final version. A draft might be with the Scottish Government, but we have not seen it and I am concerned that the committee will be agreeing to regulations that we have not seen. If that is the wish of the committee, and if the Scottish Government says that it is okay, I am happy to go along with the committee. However, I have concerns, given what happened in the past in relation to blood safety. We do not want to get caught by agreeing to something when we have not seen its wording.
I absolutely appreciate the point. Unless members have other views—I know that we have discussed such matters previously—we should make a determination now about whether we accept the timing, subject to the minister’s reply to a question in the forthcoming session.
In any case, we should also act on Keith Brown’s suggestion that we write to the UK Government again and seek confirmation that, in the future, final versions of secondary legislation will be available as a matter of course, in line with our timetable. After all, that is the purpose of having an agreed timetable.
As long as the minister is able to assure us this morning that he will come back to us if there is any change in the policy substance of the regulations, do members agree to the Scottish Government giving consent, in line with the timetable?
Members indicated agreement.