Is the committee content with the instruments?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

Welcome to the second meeting in 2022 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which is taking place fully online. Before we move to the first agenda item, as we are again meeting online, it will be more challenging for members to indicate agreement to the items that are discussed. I therefore ask you to raise your hand if you are not content when a question is put or if you wish to speak about an instrument.

The first item of business is to decide whether to take items 6 to 9 in private. Is the committee content to take those items in private?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

Under agenda item 3, we are considering two made affirmative instruments. Issues have been raised on the following instrument.

Under agenda item 5, issues have been raised on three negative instruments.

Under section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, instruments subject to the negative procedure are required to be laid at least 28 days before they come into force, not counting recess periods of more than four days. In its letter to the Presiding Officer on the instrument, the Scottish Government explained that urgent action was required, as concerns have been raised by education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools about their ability to comply with the duties under earlier regulations as a result of an inability to procure certain foods due to disruption in the school food supply chain.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (j), in relation to the failure to lay the instrument in accordance with the laying requirements under the 2010 act?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

At the same time, is the committee content with the explanation that the Scottish Government has provided for this breach of the laying requirement?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

A similar issue has been raised on the following instrument.

Is the committee content with the instrument?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

Under agenda item 4, we are considering five affirmative instruments.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground in respect of the incorrect reference in paragraph 4(3) of new schedule 8A to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, which is inserted by article 27 of the instrument, to article 18(11) of the free allocation regulation, which should have been to article 18a(11) of that regulation?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

Does the committee also wish to welcome that the Scottish Government is liaising with the other United Kingdom Administrations with a view to correcting the error at the next available opportunity?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

The instrument relates to the phasing-in of border controls on imports of certain goods following EU withdrawal. It breaches section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, as it was laid on 22 December 2021 and came into force on 1 January 2022.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (j), in relation to the failure to lay the instrument in accordance with laying requirements under the 2010 act?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

The Scottish Government has provided an explanation of the reasons for the failure in a letter to the Presiding Officer and in response to the committee’s written questions. All of the committee’s correspondence on today’s instruments can be found in paper 3 of the online papers. Clearly, there is an issue between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. I suggest that we highlight that to the subject committee, which is planning to look at the instrument next week. It can then make any decision that it wishes to take as a result.

No member has indicated that they are not content with that course of action or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed on that.

Finally under this agenda item, no points have been raised on the following instrument.

Thank you, Mr Simpson. I echo those comments, particularly regarding clarity for members of the public. Anyone who is a lawyer will be able to navigate their way around the situation, but I suggest that, in order to give clarity for members of the public in what is a fast-moving situation—we have seen a number of regulations in the area—the Scottish Government needs to improve. This is not a common occurrence by any manner of means. This is the first time that it has happened, as we will all acknowledge. However, I agree that we should write to the minister to highlight our concerns.

Does the committee also wish to note that the Scottish Government undertakes to clarify the anomaly in the instrument’s title in footnotes to subsequent amending instruments?

Other than the comments that have been made, no member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed on both points.