Chamber and committees

In this case, I am not content for consent to be given. I believe that the Scottish Government should legislate in this area to ensure maximum alignment with the European Union approach and regulations in the area. It is clear that persistent organic pollutants are a danger to human health and the environment, and that we should aim to drive them out of our environment as quickly as is practicable.

The European Union’s approach to the issue has been wise. It has fully considered the precautionary principle and the fact that there are numerous hazards and risks associated with such chemicals. As a result, it proposes two limits—one in 2025 and further regulatory action at the end of 2027—to allow industry and the waste management sector to make adjustments to how they deal with these toxic chemicals.

I believe that that is the right approach. I have reviewed the responses that we have had from the cabinet secretary and other stakeholders and I do not see a clear reason to diverge from that European Union thinking. The European Union has not only worked on the precautionary principle but assessed the economic impact of driving regulation in the area and considered some of the economic questions around adjustments to waste disposal. It has still come to the conclusion that it needs to increase regulation and drive these chemicals out of use.

I do not see a reason for Scotland to diverge from European Union environmental regulations. We are now eight years from Brexit. Of course, if we were still in the European Union, we would just adopt the regulations as a matter of course with some oversight from the committee, but there would not be a proposal on the table to diverge from the good work of the European Union. Given that the Scottish Government’s policy is to remain in alignment with the European Union, this is a key area where I want to stick my neck out and say that I am not content with diverging from European Union policy, which is fundamentally about protecting human health and our environment.

Thanks. Sorry for cutting you off, Jeremy.

Thanks. That is useful.

I want to focus on compensation for improvements. Will new schedule 5 to the 1991 act, which will be inserted by section 14(9) of the bill, improve the process for agreeing improvements between tenant and landlord? In some of the evidence that we have had there has been a bit of concern about the split between those measures that require notice and those that require consent. What are your thoughts on those splits and on schedule 5?

My final question is about the process of diversification and whether you have comments on that, following on from our discussion about environmental improvements.

I will come back on that briefly. Mr Doris is right to highlight that there are elements of the statutory instrument that enable alignment with the EU. However, there are other aspects, particularly when it comes to the phasing out of certain POPs within the regulations, where there is active divergence. I do not think that Mr Doris is right to say that this is a temporary measure and that the UK’s—and Scotland’s—approach will eventually align with that of the EU. Yes, it is about adopting regulation of the chemicals that are highlighted under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and there will be continuing alignment on that matter, but on the pace of change in ruling out and removing these toxic chemicals from our waste streams and our environment, there is now active divergence. That is why I oppose this SI; it is not to do with the other elements that Mr Doris mentioned, which are welcome.

Part 4 of new schedule 5 to the 1991 act lists the improvements that facilitate sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Is the inclusion of that list helpful? Are things missing from it? There was a comment about soil carbon, which of course will be hugely important, but perhaps raises a question about landlord and tenant. Who has access to that resource? Who stewards it? Christopher, do you want to come in?

I understand. Thank you.

Good morning.

Stephen, you said that Audit Scotland is very much a people-based organisation, which has come through in many of the discussions that we have had in the commission. However, I remain concerned about your level of staff turnover. You wrote to us in December to say that working towards a 2 per cent vacancy factor, which is reflected in the budget, would be pretty challenging, but was nonetheless deliverable. However, we are now looking at a 9 per cent vacancy factor and there is reliance on temporary staff. What issues are affecting that figure? Are you confident that achieving a 2 per cent vacancy factor can remain as an assumption for your future budgets?

Thank you for that. It paints a slightly bigger picture, so it is useful to know. It would be good to get more of that information.