Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Official Report 637KB pdf

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions and Equivalent Measures (Cessation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Our second item of business is consideration of the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the United Kingdom Government legislating using the powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The UK statutory instrument proposal relates to the Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions and Equivalent Measures (Cessation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The Scottish Government has given the notification a category A label, which means that it considers the instrument to be minor and technical in detail and that it ensures continuity of law. Additional detail on the purpose of the statutory instrument is outlined in the committee’s papers.

We have a number of things to do. The committee is being invited to consider whether it is content for the issues to be dealt with by statutory instrument laid at Westminster and whether a category A classification is appropriate for the SI. I invite you all to comment on any aspect that you have an issue with.

I have no problem with the substance of the proposal in relation to the repeal of European Union measures, given that, from the end of December, we will no longer be subject to EU law.

However, I have a view on the fact that the Scottish Government has made it category A. It would be more appropriate as category B. It is not minor and technical; those are direct rights that are being removed from people in the United Kingdom.

I also have concerns about the timing of the instrument. We have to deal with it today; the Scottish Government is expected to respond by 27 June; and it is expected to be laid in Westminster on 1 July. That is not really acceptable for an instrument that does not need to be in force until the end of December. I am keen that we stress that to the Scottish Government, because we will not be able to deal properly with such instruments if we do not have enough time to properly consider them.

We should also be asking the Scottish Government some questions. It argues, for example, that retaining the measures could disadvantage some companies. I am not clear how that would be the case.

I also wonder whether the Scottish continuity provisions, in particular the ability to keep pace with EU legislation, might be used to ensure that the substantive provisions can be kept up to date in devolved areas.

Those are a few points but, substantively, I think that we should be content to let Westminster deal with it.

Thank you. I see that Richard Lyle would also like to speak.

Like Andy Wightman, I think that category B may be more appropriate, on the basis that the proposed statutory instrument would remove a very significant part of EU trade law.

I am very displeased that, in this instance, the Scottish Parliament received notification late on the afternoon of 16 June—we did not get it in the proper timescale; today is 23 June. We should record our displeasure at that, as we generally get 28 days or more. We should send a letter to record our concern and displeasure at being asked to do this in the space of a week.

Thank you.

There are no other requests to comment. Silence will indicate agreement with the comments that have been made about the timing of the notification and the concerns about the categorisation—that perhaps it should have been category B, not A. If anyone wishes to disagree or comment, please let me know.

As no one has indicated otherwise, I take that as agreement. On that basis, I propose to write a letter to approve the giving of consent, but also to highlight members’ concerns about timing and categorisation. I hope that that will at least alert them to our concerns, for future SIs. Is everybody happy with that? Again, I take silence as agreement. I will shortly write to the minister.