Official Report 882KB pdf
Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2025
The next item of business is the consideration of a type 1 consent notification relating to a proposed statutory instrument, the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2025.
On 22 January, the Scottish Government notified us of this proposed UK statutory instrument. It would involve the UK Government legislating in devolved competence and it is seeking the Scottish Government’s consent to do so.
The Scottish Government proposes to give its consent and our role is to decide whether we agree to its doing that. That involves determining whether we agree to the UK Government legislating in this particular devolved area and whether we are content with the manner in which the UK Government proposes to legislate. If we are content for consent to be given, we will write to the Scottish Government saying so. In doing so, we have the option to draw the Scottish Government’s attention to matters or to pose questions. There were some suggestions in the clerks’ papers for things that we could consider.
Do any members have views on the statutory instrument?
I have a concern about the process that the new regulations have gone through. As I understand it, we are signed up to an international convention on these “forever chemicals”. That convention is meeting again in April for a conference of parties to decide which chemicals will be exempted from the regime. The parties will come up with a technical formal wording, which signatories can adopt.
It seems a bit odd that the UK Government is laying the regulations in March—three weeks ahead of the international convention meeting, which may end up requiring rewriting of some of the terms that the Government is introducing on exempt chemicals. I do not understand that thinking. Does it relate to a notification at the beginning of last year, which set a particular timeline running? I am not sure. However, if we sign up to an international convention, and we want to stick with it and its rule-making process, it is odd for the UK Government to lay regulations in advance of that. It does not feel right in terms of process. It would be ideal if this regulation were brought forward in May, after the meeting in April.
Things are seldom ideal. I understand your concerns and we can certainly include them in our letter to the Scottish Government. Are you content to agree to the instrument, having drawn the Government’s attention to that point? What is your position?
Yes, I am content to agree to it. We are where we are. However, there is a risk of the regulation having to be brought back again, for the Government to amend the amendment on the basis of there having been another international conversation. It seems like a bit of a waste of time.
As no other member has any comments, I will move to the substantive question. Is the committee content that the provisions set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument, subject to writing to the Scottish Government at the same time to say that we are concerned about why the process has proceeded in this way?
Members indicated agreement.
We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect.
12:43 Meeting continued in private until 12:57.