Chamber and committees

Having shared many discussions with Peter Chapman, I am always very conscious that there are different dialects. I will leave it there because, if I said anything out of turn, Peter would probably jump on me.

I ask the same question of everyone. There is a huge number of cross-party groups in the Parliament, and I know that each of you has commitments to those cross-party groups. In fact, I think that there are almost more cross-party groups than there are MSPs. I want to be sure in my mind that you both feel that you have enough time to give the group the attention that it so clearly deserves.

I am sure that it will be fun and worthwhile; it is simply about making sure that the commitment is right. I am sure that you are also aware of the reports that have to be submitted to the Parliament. I will leave it there.

Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on the legislative consent memorandum on the United Kingdom Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I refer members to the briefing papers from the clerk and the Scottish Parliament information centre.

The bill?was introduced to the UK Parliament on 11 May 2022. On 27 July, the Scottish Government lodged a legislative consent memorandum on it, which said that the bill touches on devolved legislative or executive competence in three main areas, including on environmental law through the proposed introduction of environmental outcomes reports. Those will be the focus of our scrutiny.

Today, we will hear the views of three witnesses. I welcome Lloyd Austin, convener of the Scottish Environment LINK governance group; Robbie Calvert, policy, practice and research officer at the Royal Town Planning Institute; and David Melhuish, director of the Scottish Property Federation. Thank you all for accepting our invitation. We are delighted to have you here.

We have around 60 minutes for this evidence session. I remind members that I am a qualified surveyor and that I have a planning interest behind me from when I was in private practice.

Thank you for that, Jackie.

I do not necessarily have concerns; I may be delighted that the precautionary principle is there, because it overrides a lot of decisions relating to environmental law. I would argue that it is actually a good thing and the fact that it is in UK and Scottish legislation strengthens the position.

I have picked up on three areas. You feel that the word “consult” in clause 121 is not sufficiently strong; you are concerned that there are regulations that you have not seen that could be worse but are not definitely worse; and you are worried that the regression clause—clause 120—is not strong enough. If there were more detail on those areas, would that address your concerns? You could give a yes or no answer, but I suspect that you will not.

Thank you for taking time to come to the committee—I understand that some of you had to find the time at quite short notice. I appreciate your attendance.

Our third item of business is evidence on a consent notification on the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which is a forthcoming United Kingdom statutory instrument on which Scottish Government consent to legislate is sought. The Scottish Parliament has a role, subject to a protocol, in the scrutiny of Scottish Government consent to UK secondary legislation in devolved areas arising from European Union exit.

There is a short reporting deadline on this notification, so today we will hear from the Scottish Government on its proposal to consent. We are joined by Màiri McAllan, who is the Minister for Environment and Land Reform, and the Scottish Government officials Dan Merckel, chemicals team leader, and Luigi Pedreschi, solicitor.

We have around 25 minutes for this item. Minister, I believe that you would like to make an opening statement and that you have a slight correction to make regarding the notification.

I think that Dan has already given the answer, which is that all the chemicals sitting within the packet of chemicals looking for authorisation already had an on-label use. As they are already being used, they would not need to be tested and re-evaluated. Is that not what you said, Dan?

Liam Kerr wants to come in.

Monica, I know that the minister does not need defending, but she came at fairly short notice today. This meeting was not planned until the latter part of last week, so the Government has shown the committee some flexibility, and I thank the minister for that.

As no member has indicated that they have further questions, I thank the minister and her officials for taking part.

We move to agenda item 4, which is consideration of the consent notification for the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which have yet to be laid. The Scottish Government proposes to consent to the instrument, as we addressed in our consideration of agenda item 3.

Several options are open to the committee, all of which would result in our sending a letter to the Scottish Government, stating our view. The first is that, if members are content, we can approve the proposal to consent. The committee will then write to the Scottish Government, indicating as much.

Secondly, members can approve the proposal to consent and, in the letter confirming that, seek further information on any further queries that they might have.

If members are not content with the proposal, the recommendations that we can make to the Scottish Government are listed in paragraph 9 of paper 3. We could indicate that the Scottish Government should not give consent and propose either that it produce an alternative Scottish legislative solution or that it request that the provisions be made in a UK SI laid in both Parliaments under the joint procedure, or we could indicate that the provision should not be made at all. I hope that I have made the options clear.

If members have no comments on the evidence that we have heard—and I am not seeing anyone leaping in to make a comment—I will move to the substantive question on this item. Is the committee content for the provision set out in the notification to be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument??

Members indicated agreement.