Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Meeting date: Monday, June 15, 2020

Official Report 566KB pdf

---

Environment Bill

Item 2 is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform on the UK Environment Bill and legislative consent memorandum. I welcome the cabinet secretary and her officials. Don McGillivray is the deputy director of environmental quality and the circular economy, Ailsa Heine is a solicitor with the directorate of legal services, and Charles Stewart Roper is from the environmental strategy and governance unit

One thing jumps out of the bill from a parliamentary scrutiny point of view: there is no role for the committee in scrutiny of any aspect of what is proposed by the UK Government in the Environment Bill. We will not see any detail of the statutory instruments and all the decisions about the bill will be made at Government level, so the cabinet secretary has a role in deciding whether to accept everything that is in the bill. What are your feelings on that?

I understand the committee’s desire to have sight of UK statutory instruments that affect devolved areas. There was a protocol with Parliament that provided for notification in areas that related to European Union law, and we have spent considerable time on that process. Of course, that process has now lapsed.

However, a new protocol is under negotiation between the Scottish Government and parliamentary authorities, so we are actively looking at how to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has some proper ability to scrutinise what is happening in respect of a UK bill that, of course, creates issues for us all, of which there is no doubt.

As the cabinet secretary who has responsibility for the environment in Scotland, how comfortable are you with the arrangements and your oversight of and inclusions in decisions that will affect us here?

The Government feels that we have the parts of the bill that affect us in a reasonably good place. However, that is speaking purely from the Government’s perspective; I appreciate that Parliament’s perspective will be slightly different.

We have worked quite hard on the matter. The committee should remember that this is the second version of the bill. The original lapsed with the general election in December last year, and what has been introduced is a slightly different version of the bill. We are therefore looking at a matter that we have had to reconsider, and we have had to think about the reality of what we are confronting.

We expect the UK Government to seek the consent of the Scottish ministers when it plans to include devolved provision in UK statutory instruments. As I have indicated, ministers agree that the Scottish Parliament needs to have a role in that, and we are discussing a new protocol for that scrutiny. I am not personally involved, but I understand that the discussions are close to a successful conclusion. The intention is that the protocol would apply to all instruments that are made by UK ministers that legislate in devolved areas. I think that that was in the letter that we originally sent to the committee. I think that we are in the best place that we can be in, in respect of the bill.

Should we also be concerned about the processes that secondary legislation undergoes at Westminster? My understanding—I am perfectly content to be corrected on this—is that, at Westminster, unlike in the Scottish Parliament, where secondary legislation is referred to the relevant subject committee, no process applies whereby the standing committee that covers the subject area automatically sees an SI and must provide a view on it. There seems to be a new subsidiary committee that deals with secondary legislation, but I am not sure that its brief extends to covering policy. It is like our Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee—it is simply about the construction and legal validity of the instrument.

Should we have an additional concern that Scottish laws can be changed by Westminster ministers and then not scrutinised even at Westminster to the degree that they would be in Scotland?

I confess to not being an expert on current House of Commons processes. My six years there were quite a long time ago, and I think that the parliamentary processes at Westminster have changed considerably since then.

Regrettably, I have no control over Westminster procedures. I wish that they were more aligned with what we are doing, and have done, in the Scottish Parliament, but I cannot change that. All that I can do is ensure that, at least as far as the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are concerned, we look carefully at it all and that everything is done in the appropriate way.

The work on the bill so far has been on the basis that devolved competence will be respected, acknowledged and recognised.

Mark Ruskell has a question on that particular issue.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to ask about instruments on devolved competence. Would a joint parliamentary procedure, in which SIs would be laid in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Parliament and in the UK Parliament at the same time be far more appropriate?

In some areas of my work, there are discussions about doing that. That approach is not generally provided for in the bill, but that is not to say that it will not happen. However, I again make the point that I cannot control Westminster procedure, any more than I can control Welsh procedure.

Where we take such an approach, it will be by joint agreement across Administrations, because that is the only basis on which we could reasonably proceed. The approach might be more or less appropriate, depending on the SI. It is perhaps not necessary to treat every SI in that way, but it might be useful to treat some like that. That is the case with this particular issue, which is precisely why it is felt to be appropriate. That conversation is live, but it is in respect of individual SIs rather than a blanket process.

What would be the nature of the SIs to which the cabinet secretary refers? You say that there have been discussions on individual SIs. What subject areas would SIs cover for which a joint procedure would be more appropriate?

It is not a joint procedure; it is an aligned timeline. That is perhaps what you are thinking about, rather than a joint procedure. It is about all the Administrations choosing to deal with SIs on the same timeline. We are discussing that in relation to the emissions trading system, for example.

My point is that there is no resistance to our doing that, and that it might not be necessary to have a blanket process for every SI that emerges. It is not easy just to snap your fingers and have four Administrations all do things on the same basis at the same time. Thought has to be given as to when that approach would be appropriate and necessary, and to how, in practical terms, it can be done.

Finlay Carson has questions on common frameworks.

Given the significant challenges for Parliament of the legislative process, which we have heard about, can you give more information on the common frameworks relating to the policies in the bill—in particular, their content, format and timescales?

There are no common frameworks in existence yet, although they are being discussed in relation to a number of areas. In reality, the closest that we are to having one is in relation to the ETS, which I have referred to but which is outside the scope of the bill. That is probably the framework that we are closest to achieving, but we are not there with it, yet.

Our absolute bottom line is that common frameworks must be agreed commonly and cannot simply be imposed by one Administration with the expectation that all the other Administrations will sign up. That would not be a common framework—a common framework would be agreed.

At the moment, the common frameworks that might come into existence are being developed in accordance with the principles that were agreed in joint ministerial meetings in 2017. Obviously, they have to respect the devolution settlement and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and must be agreed by all Administrations.

09:45  

What would you like to see being included in the common frameworks? On the UK Government’s statement about a level playing field, particularly in relation to environmental standards, can you provide any further information on the suggestion that the LCM could move away from the commitment to a level playing field? What are the implications of that for the frameworks between the UK Administrations? Does it suggest that the common frameworks—[Inaudible.]

I missed the end of that. Did you get everything, cabinet secretary, or would you like Finlay to go over it again?

We have all agreed that common frameworks are an appropriate way to proceed in some areas. Where the most effective way of setting up a regulatory regime is to do it across the whole UK, we are not resistant to that. However, in Scotland we also have the fundamental principle that we want to keep pace with the EU.

We are developing common frameworks in certain circumstances. We will not agree to common frameworks that tie our hands on things that are now, in effect, our devolved responsibility, and on areas in which we can do things our own way. That is the basis on which common frameworks would have to be agreed. They cannot become a straitjacket for devolution.

I am not entirely certain what Finlay Carson is getting at. Obviously, there are more general concerns about environmental and other standards when we leave the EU, some of which have been re-ignited in the past couple of weeks. We are very concerned to keep pace with EU standards, and we could not allow common frameworks to become handcuffs that would prevent that from happening.

The LCM refers to a common framework for how the proposed UK office for environmental protection would work alongside the Scottish equivalent, when we find out about that. The committee was not aware of a common framework in that policy area. Can you provide further information on that, especially around content and timescale?

As I said at the start, no common frameworks have been formally set up yet. There are discussions in some areas where traditionally there has been cross-UK co-operation. We are not looking at a common framework for the OEP that the bill proposes to set up, which would have the capacity of a governance body; we do not talk about common frameworks for governance bodies, and none is planned. That does not mean that the different governance arrangements in each Administration will not talk to one another and develop their own working arrangements.

The OEP is meant to be independent. No doubt there will be conversations between people, but that is not a common framework or a joint Government arrangement. I remind you that SEPA already does that kind of thing at a UK and European level, so it is not an unusual position to be in. However, it would be wrong to call that a common framework; that is not what that is.

But the LCM refers to a common framework. If you are suggesting that there is not a common framework, how do you propose that the OEP works alongside the Scottish equivalent?

I am sure that the bodies will talk to one another. I have to be careful, because I do not want to get into too much detail about the Scottish equivalent. The proposals for that will be in the continuity bill.

We are not talking about having a common framework for the governance bodies. I think that there is a misunderstanding. Common frameworks are about regulatory regimes; they are not about having common frameworks of governance.

I have been reflecting on the comments in SEPA’s submission about environmental governance, the principles in the bill and the need to clarify those issues as they relate to SEPA and the OEP. It said:

“SEPA’s understanding is that the environment is a devolved matter under the Scotland Act 1998 and the OEP has no jurisdiction over devolved legislative provisions. The vast majority of what SEPA regulates is therefore excluded from the scrutiny of the OEP.”

Do you agree? Do you have any additional comments to make on that?

Yes, I agree with that. I do not really have any other comments. SEPA was set up in statute by the Scottish Parliament, and its responsibilities for the vast majority of what it does lie within that legislation. A handful of matters are subject to executive devolution—that is, it does one or two things on behalf of Westminster. Those are in a slightly different area.

SEPA would not expect to have much, if any, contact with the OEP. I would expect that to be the same for virtually everything that happens in Scotland, because it is Scottish environmental governance arrangements that will be relevant not just for SEPA but for other agencies and activity in Scotland.

That is the helpful clarification that I was hoping for.

I want to ask about the four EU environmental principles, which are part of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. I, and others on the committee and far more widely, including Environment LINK, have concerns about ensuring that those principles are in legislation. However, as I understand it, they are not in the Environment Bill. What are your thoughts on the principles? How can we ensure that we continue to work with them?

I have made my position clear on several occasions: in Scotland we want to continue to be guided by those environmental principles and to keep pace with developments in the EU to ensure that, where at all possible, Scotland reaches the best possible standards. There is no intention to move away from that approach.

For obvious reasons, I cannot control what the Westminster Government chooses to legislate on for itself, but this part of the United Kingdom will continue to apply and abide by those principles and comply with what follows through from them.

Do you agree that the follow-on from that position is that, if commitment to the principles is not in the UK legislation, we should enshrine it in the forthcoming Scottish continuity bill?

It is referred to indirectly in the Environment Bill—it will be put into guidance, rather than legislation. We await the introduction of the continuity bill and I do not want to be drawn too far on that. It will be in the continuity bill but, for obvious reasons, I cannot discuss the various aspects of the bill in detail.

We look forward to seeing that.

I have a simple question, cabinet secretary. Is it your view that a common framework, in so far as it sets standards, is merely a floor for what we can do? In other words, we cannot fall below the standard that is set in the framework, but it does not create a ceiling on the standards that we might set for ourselves.

The common frameworks are about co-operation. I see them as important when it continues to be relevant that we think about things on a UK-wide basis, in those areas where, notwithstanding our devolved competence, there is merit in having a regime that operates in a similar fashion across the whole of the UK. The importance of common frameworks is perhaps not even in the way that Stewart Stevenson describes but is about making a decision that a regulatory framework in a particular circumstance is best applied in a similar fashion across the board.

It is important to say that a common framework does not tie our hands in going further in our policy—nothing can. If we came to an agreement on a common framework, it would be by agreement only; common frameworks can come into being only if all the Administrations are in agreement and are prepared to continue on that basis.

Mark Russell has a supplementary question on that issue.

I want to go back to the issue of the OEP and whether we have absolute clarity on its role. I will use the example of an oil spill in Scottish waters, which would be a major environmental disaster. In that situation, there are reserved responsibilities under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so we would expect the OEP to lead on that, but there are also devolved responsibilities. Is there clarity on what role the OEP would play in Scotland were there to be an environmental disaster such as an oil spill? What is the crossover with SEPA and other regulatory bodies?

10:00  

I would expect there to be considerable co-operation and joint working if we were in such circumstances. The OEP will have no remit over any competence of the Scottish Parliament or over the actions of Scottish ministers.

If there were an issue in which devolved and reserved responsibilities interacted, we would of course expect co-ordination and co-operation between the OEP and our future Scottish environmental governance body. However, there is a difference between the actions that are taken to deal with an oil spill and the OEP’s consideration of whether those actions were appropriate. The OEP would not actually deal with the oil spill—that would be both Governments and it will depend on their responsibilities.

So looking at the consequences of an oil spill in terms of corporate governance or the adequacy of the clean-up response will be the role of the OEP, and dealing with the immediate aftermath of the oil spill and the co-ordination of effort on the ground will be SEPA’s responsibility.

Of course. SEPA will have all the responsibility that it has now. SEPA is not an equivalent to the OEP; SEPA’s equivalent is the Environment Agency. The OEP is the UK Government’s answer to the governance gap that will open up when we remove the EU’s overarching responsibilities. Not even at the EU level did they step in and do the work themselves. There is a danger of confusing the roles. Despite the fact that the words “environmental protection” are in the OEP’s name, it does not replace the Environment Agency, much less become SEPA’s equivalent. We need to be clear about the differences between those organisations.

As with any similar body that we would set up in Scotland, we will make recommendations for it, but it will not do the job on the ground.

But if there was a concern about compliance or the adequacy of the response, or an environmental complaint was made, that would go to the OEP.

It would depend on what the complaint was about. If it was about a reserved issue, it would go to the OEP. If it was about a devolved issue, it would come under our environmental governance arrangement. If it brought devolved and reserved issues together, we would expect both governance bodies to work together.

Right.

That is joint working and not the OEP running things, if you see what I mean. The OEP would not have a remit over any of the devolved issues that were being complained about.

I want to ask about the statutory instrument process. In some cases, the committee was given less than 28 days to scrutinise the no-deal SIs that we have been dealing with. You are a former committee convener, cabinet secretary. Do you think that it is fair that the Scottish Parliament in effect shares its powers with the UK Government over such instruments? What opportunities do you think the committee will have to scrutinise the SIs before they are consented? We are really just considering them after the event.

I could give you a long list of things that I do not think are fair in the current circumstances, but it would probably not get us anywhere. As I said earlier, there are still discussions going on about how we manage this, and that will be a question specifically for the protocol. If I put on my previous convener’s hat—God forbid that I should step on the current convener’s toes in this regard—I would say that there might be some advantage in considering whether there is a proactive way to explore an issue before an SI begins to appear.

However, the truth is that we are in the process of attempting to set up a protocol that will allow scrutiny of the SIs through the Scottish parliamentary process. I agree that, with the SIs relating to no deal, it became quite frantic at a certain point, and that is not particularly helpful. However, I am hoping that that will not necessarily be the case in this regard and there will not be that slight air of panic that began to emerge.

If any of the officials is directly involved in the protocol discussions, they may want to add something specific to that. I am not quite sure how appropriate that is, but if any official wishes to come in, that would be fine. At the moment, detailed discussions are going on and, although they have not been finalised, they are relatively close to a conclusion, as far as I understand it.

I have nothing to add to what the cabinet secretary has already said. The protocol that is being discussed between our parliamentary liaison officials and the parliamentary officials goes well beyond this bill and this portfolio, so it is the officials who deal with cross-Government parliamentary relations who are leading on that.

The issue that we have is that the cabinet secretary will see and make decisions on the content of an SI, but the content will never come in front of the committee for us to even just look at—not even the text of the SI.

There will be obvious potential SIs arising from primary legislation. There is often a specific trigger for an SI, so one can often ascertain that there will be an SI in a particular area. Sometimes it is an area on which a committee may already have taken some evidence through the course of a previous legislative process.

I am trying to think about some of the ways in which all committees could make a start on some of the work that is required. SIs often require consultations as well. Perhaps the problem is that we are using the no-deal scenario as though it was a template for how this will proceed and I am not sure that that will necessarily be the case.

Clearly, there is a concern about ensuring that there is a proper process for Scottish Parliament purposes for dealing with SIs that arise in this way.

Finlay Carson will take us on to producer responsibility and resource efficiency.

Why does the Scottish Government support sharing its powers in relation to producer responsibility and resource efficiency rather than agreeing policy alignment and parallel legislation across the four Administrations in the UK?

We have had schemes operating on a UK-wide basis for a long time, and we believe that such power sharing can be achieved without comprising any devolved competence. Producer responsibility is important to a lot of the work that we do on the circular economy, so we would always want to ensure that we still had the capacity to act in that area if we deemed it necessary.

I am not sure what Finlay Carson would expect me to say in the circumstances. The agreements that we have reached so far have been arrived at by consent. The provisions in the bill allow for that to continue, but they also allow for separate Scottish schemes to be established. I think that it is absolutely right that we will be able to continue to do things by consent when that seems appropriate but that we will not be inhibited in any way when we think that differentiation is needed. I do not see why we should be in the position of compromising devolved competence, notwithstanding the fact that, at a particular point in time, there might be good reason to have agreed schemes in particular areas, such as producer responsibility.

In the past, you have told the committee that the Scottish Government has committed to keeping pace with EU directives and regulations in relation to producer responsibility and resource efficiency “as far as possible”. When do you foresee that you might rule out keeping pace with the EU “as far as possible” in that regard?

Saying that we will keep pace with the EU on producer responsibility and resource efficiency “as far as possible” means that we will do so to the extent that, in reality, that is achievable. It is not a case of ruling that out. There might be some occasions on which it might simply not be achievable, but I do not want to get into the business of compiling a long list of occasions on which we will not keep pace with EU directives and regulations in this area. My approach is that our default position is that we will keep pace with the EU.

What would happen if a UK-wide scheme was set up using powers in the Environment Bill and the UK Government decided to make changes that the Scottish Government was not willing to accept? Would you consider coming out of that scheme? How difficult would that process of disentangling from a UK scheme and setting up a Scottish one be?

I say to Mr Carson, with the greatest respect, that we are already working jointly on such schemes. We have been doing that for a while and it has not caused any difficulties. There is always the possibility that we will consider that there is a better way to proceed and choose to take that approach, but I do not think that it would be particularly helpful for us to list hypothetical situations in which that might be the case. We are not starting from nothing. There has already been agreed working in this area, and, at the moment, we do not think that that long-established agreement should cease, because it is operating effectively.

If a question arises in the future, the relevant decisions will be made at the appropriate time by the Government of the day and the Scottish Parliament authorities at the time.

I suppose that the aim of the question was just to tease out any issues. I am pleased to hear that things are working, that you do not foresee any issues going forward and that good collaborative working is taking place. I welcome your statements on that.

10:15  

We have had a comprehensive response from the cabinet secretary to all our questions on the bill. Mark Ruskell would like to pick up on the response to our question 53, on the UK REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations. I will hand over to Mark, and then Angus MacDonald will ask questions on that.

My question actually follows on from the cabinet secretary’s previous answer. It is about the safeguarding provisions in the UK REACH regime. Your answer to our question 53 says that, if the UK Government did not agree to make regulations and you differed on that, you would be able to take “provisional action”. What does “provisional action” mean? Would that be a permanent solution or would there be more discussions? Would that be a brake on regulations? What would it involve?

The word “provisional” suggests that it would not be permanent. If you use the word “provisional”, that means that you are putting in a fix, perhaps while you consider things. The issue would need to be considered carefully at the time. All that we are trying to signal is that the agreements in areas of devolved responsibility, whatever they may be, do not tie our hands or mean that we cannot make our own decisions within the devolved area of competence.

I have a question on where there might be disagreement, and I think that Angus MacDonald might come in on this from another angle. I presume that you value the European Chemicals Agency membership, in terms of alignment with the EU REACH regime and with scientific standards and research. Will that happen at the UK level? If not, what are your options for ensuring that we continue to work with the ECHA?

I cannot say definitely what will or will not happen. Our view remains that the best option is that the UK remains part of the European Chemicals Agency and EU REACH. We want membership of ECHA, but, if the UK Government does not go down that road, we obviously need some functioning system to replace it, and the SIs in respect of that were agreed to by the committee last year. The system is based on decisions that are made on a UK basis but with consent when those decisions relate to devolved issues. If there was a significant difference of opinion, we would probably look at some form of UK-wide assessment to consider whatever the particular issue was.

There are discussions on the chemicals framework, but those have not been completed and the matter is not ready for consideration by ministers. The discussions are progressing, but we are not at the point of there being a framework in any formal sense.

I want to explore the issue of liaison and discussion. The cabinet secretary mentioned that discussions are progressing, but we have had a submission from Tom Shields, the former chair of Chemical Sciences Scotland, who said that neither he nor Chemical Sciences Scotland has been consulted by the Scottish or UK Government about protected provisions or the common frameworks. The UK Government can answer for itself, but I am curious as to why Chemical Sciences Scotland has not been consulted by the Scottish Government. Was the other industry body, the Chemical Industries Association, consulted?

That is because the framework is not at that stage yet—it is still a work in progress. As yet, there is no framework that we can discuss with the relevant areas of industry. It is not at that point yet. We will need to see the outcome of the discussions and proposals. The frameworks will not be introduced in short order; they will take a considerable amount of work and consultation to produce.

In fairness, the Environment Bill is a UK bill, and it is for the UK to ensure that consultation takes place. We have continued to argue for alignment with the EU.

That is a fair comment.

We will move on to the final area of questioning on this item.

I want to probe further the relationships between ministers north and south of the border, particularly where a power can be exercised by either—[Inaudible.]

—decision as to who will take the action will be made by agreement rather than imposition? That opens up the general question of core decision making as opposed to centralised and imposed decision making.

I am not sure what the question was.

The sound might have dropped out, Stewart. Do you want to go over it again?

I will have another shot. There are areas where either the Scottish minister or the UK minister can proceed with secondary legislation. How is the decision made on who will do it?

Decisions on the level of regulation will be made on a case-by-case basis. UK Government regulations would be subject to consent—our consent would be required.

Does that imply that the Scottish ministers are able to withhold consent? In some areas, there is clear equal and co-decision making. When I was a minister, all four jurisdictions had to agree on appointments to the UK Committee on Climate Change, and there was no question of anyone imposing their views on the others. Is that the case here?

For anything that is subject to consent, by implication, consent can be withheld. Stewart Stevenson will know from experience that we attempt to avoid that wherever possible. If consent was required but was not forthcoming, the issue would need to be worked through. Where consent is required, there is always the possibility and capacity for that consent to be withheld.

Claudia Beamish has a question on the circular economy. I think that it will be the last question under this agenda item.

I want to highlight an issue that arises, in the main, from the Scottish Environment LINK submission but is also touched on by Zero Waste Scotland. This is not a criticism, because appreciate where we are, given the restrictions and challenges resulting from the Covid situation. However, the Scottish Government’s circular economy bill has been delayed. Do you think that the—[Inaudible.]—arrangements in the UK Environment Bill, should it become an act, will be valuable to us?

I missed the bit about the things that might be valuable to us, so I do not know whether you have anything specific in mind.

Because of our inability to introduce the circular economy bill, we are considering the vehicle under which we can bring in additional charges such as for single-use items. We are looking for alternative ways to achieve some of what we wanted to achieve through the circular economy bill.

I am not sure whether that is the kind of answer that Claudia Beamish is angling for, because I missed the bit about what she thought might be useful in terms of the UK Environment Bill.

That is helpful. Environmental standards on producer responsibility are part of the UK Environment Bill. In Scotland, we now have the deposit return scheme and we are progressing a whole range of measures. I was just wondering whether the UK-wide arrangement will help us to progress them in any way.

I am not sure that we are looking at it in that way. I do not think that we regard the more general aspects of the UK Environment Bill as being relevant to us.

We want to progress a lot of the issues that we have been discussing for quite some time within the Government. As I indicated, we are looking at alternative ways of bringing forward measures more quickly than we might otherwise do if we were to wait for the circular economy bill. Obviously, we are in a slight hiatus at the moment, so I cannot be specific at this stage about what that might look like or even about what roughly might be required in order to do that. We are not dropping any of the commitments; we are just going to find different ways of achieving them.

Mark Ruskell wants to ask a supplementary question.

I am trying to get clear in my mind how we can go forward with the LCM. You are asking the Parliament to approve the Government’s position in advance of our knowing what exactly the scrutiny arrangements will be for the SIs that come to us. What could be provided to reassure us about the arrangements in advance of the committee and the Parliament considering the LCM further?

You have said that there is a lot of discussion with the Parliament about how we scrutinise and how we can get a heads-up on draft SIs before the Government lays them. I am not clear what that looks like at the moment, and there are no additional details about that today. What can be provided ahead of our next opportunity to decide on the issue?

10:30  

I am not certain that I can give the level of detail that you want. I am aware that the protocol is likely to be agreed before the summer recess, but that is about all that I can say about the timing. At that point, there will be something more to discuss. However, I think that I am right in saying that the protocol is not just about the UK Environment Bill. The protocol that is being put in place goes wider than that.

I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for giving us evidence on the UK Environment Bill.

We are a little bit ahead of time, which is great, because we can have a short break before resuming our next session at the scheduled time of 10:40.

10:31 Meeting suspended.  

10:40 On resuming—