Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Official Report 624KB pdf

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Plant Breeders’ Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Item 4 is on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We have received a consent notification in relation to a proposed UK statutory instrument, the Plant Breeders’ Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which is being laid in the UK Parliament under the 2018 act.

Several issues have been highlighted in our papers about the very short timescale that the committee has in which to consider the notification. That has prevented the committee from seeking specific additional information on the proposed regulations.

I have a couple of points. The proposed regulations are not going to take effect until the end of the calendar year, so I am not entirely clear why we are in the position of not having time to consider them.

I cannot find anything in the substantive proposals about which I have great concerns, although I have looked at the instrument at modest length. However, the proposed regulations raise a broader issue, which flows from a report issued a few days ago by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, of which I am also a member, about how UK SIs are being used by UK ministers to legislate within the Scottish Parliament’s competence. I will not go into huge details, but that leads me to one of the conclusions that was made. By the way, the report caused no division across the various political parties represented on the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee; it was unanimously supported.

In making our report on the proposed SI, we should look for both Parliaments to be jointly involved in the procedure of laying and approval for the proposed SI and similar instruments. That is not to permanently remove the possibility for more rapid consideration of things that are a matter of urgency; I am not trying to suggest that. In this case, there is no urgency that I can see, and I think that we should report that the matter should be considered under a joint process. My concern is with process, not content.

No other member wishes to raise any points on the proposed instrument. The principle that Stewart Stevenson describes is interesting. Once an instrument is laid before the Parliament, we have a duty to consider it within the timescale that is put before us. That is slightly restricted by the fact that Parliament is due to go into recess at the end of this week, which has driven the timetable. I take Stewart’s point. It is for the committee to note those comments when responding to the Government.

On the basis that no one has said that they are against the proposed instrument, we shall write to confirm our consent to the UK SI, as referred to in the notification. I assume that that is agreed. No one has indicated otherwise, so that is what we will do.