Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Official Report 634KB pdf

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Common Agricultural Policy (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2019

Agenda item 5 is the sift of one Scottish statutory instrument on EU exit. The Scottish Government has allocated the negative procedure to the SSI. Is the committee content with the parliamentary procedure that has been allocated to the instrument by the Scottish Government?

I am content, and I have no comment on the specific instrument. However, I have a question for the clerk regarding the process. In the notes on the consideration of the procedure, paragraph 9 of the paper by the clerk says:

“Scottish Ministers have discretion about whether instruments made under Schedule 2 of the 2018 Act should be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure”

unless they are in a specific category, in which case they are subject to the mandatory affirmative procedure. However, paragraph 10 goes on to say that

“the lead committee”—

which is our committee—

“has the opportunity, in advance of its consideration, to recommend to the Scottish Government that the parliamentary procedure allocated to the instrument should be changed.”

I presume that means that we would have the ability to suggest that the instrument should be subject to a different procedure, whether that was affirmative or negative.

However, I am unsure about what is meant by “in advance of its consideration” when we are considering the instrument at a committee meeting such as today’s and the decision is to be taken at that meeting on the basis of the papers that we have been given the previous week. At what point do we have the ability to consider the instrument and perhaps make a recommendation to change the procedure?

The answer to that is now. That is why this is item 5 and the discussion of the instrument is a separate item. The clerk can explain that further.

What the convener has said is correct. We send instruments out in advance, and, in the email that we send, we ask whether members have any concerns. So, there is an opportunity to note that before the instrument reaches the formal committee meeting. If a member objects to the procedure that has been recommended, now is the time to say that, and we can delay consideration of the next item to allow members to review the matter further.

I see. That is very helpful.

Do we agree that the procedure for the instrument is correct?

Members indicated agreement.