Official Report 819KB pdf
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Welcome back. The third item on our agenda is consideration of a consent notification relating to a proposed UK statutory instrument. The instrument would amend the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024, on which we took evidence on 3 September last year.
The amendments would enable the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation, a process that involves the UK Government legislating in a devolved area. The Scottish Government has said that it is content with the UK Government doing so in this case, and the reasons for that are set out in the notification that we have received. The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s decision. We can express a view both on whether we agree in principle to the UK Government legislating in this 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, we will write to the Scottish Government accordingly.? In doing so, we have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on particular matters. If we are not content with the proposal, we can make one or two recommendations.?
It looks as though no member wishes to express any views on the instrument.
It is suggested in our meeting notes that, if we are content to agree to the instrument, we might pose the following questions. What functions of the scheme administrator might be delegated to the new PRO? How will the governance of the PRO reflect or ensure consideration of Scottish interests and circumstances? Are the proposed changes to modelling local authority costs expected to significantly impact the estimates of the funds that will be made available to Scottish local authorities? And has COSLA raised any concerns? Those questions seem relevant, but that does not affect the fact that, at the end of the day, we will probably agree to the instrument.
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.
Are members happy to raise the questions that are posed in the paper?
Members indicated agreement.
We will write to the Scottish Government. Based on that decision, is the committee happy for me to sign the letter to the Scottish Government on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
12:00Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/245)
Our next item of business is consideration of a negative SSI, the Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025. These SI titles get snappier all the time.
The instrument is laid under the negative procedure, which means that it will come into force unless the Parliament agrees a motion to annul it. No such motion has been lodged, but the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has drawn the instrument to the Parliament’s attention under reporting ground (i)—defective drafting—and also under the general reporting ground in respect of two further points.
The defective drafting relates to how different types of motor vehicle events are regulated. The DPLR Committee noted that races or trials of speed are authorised and regulated under one set of regulations—the Motor Sport on Public Roads (Scotland) Regulations 2019—whereas other types of competitions and trials are regulated under the Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) (Scotland) Regulations 1976. The instrument amends the competitions regulations by designating four rallies as specified events. However, the Government has now acknowledged that it is the motor sport regulations that should have been used, and it has said that it intends to introduce amending regulations urgently.
The DPLR Committee also reported two more drafting issues: first, the first rally is misnamed in the instrument, as the Scottish Government has now acknowledged—it is not the Robert Albert Clark rally but the Roger Albert Clark rally. The Scottish Government has undertaken to correct that by amending the instrument. Secondly, the committee queried the use of the phrase “public way” instead of “public highway”. The Scottish Government says that it considers the drafting to be clear but will reflect further on whether greater consistency would be preferable.
It looks as though no member has any comments on the instrument, so I?invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to it but acknowledges those of the DPLR Committee. Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
?
Again, I will sign the letter relating to that decision.
We will now move into private. I put on record that Monica Lennon will not take part in item 7 and that we expect Labour Party substitute Sarah Boyack to attend in her place.
12:02 Meeting continued in private until 13:16.Previous
Transport Policies and Performance