Seòmar agus comataidhean

So, job titles are less important, but action is critical. Will there be a natural environment bill in this parliamentary session?

Through the Bute house agreement, there was certainty that, in this session of Parliament, there would be a natural environment bill and a heat in buildings bill. Do you understand the fact that there is now a lot of uncertainty among environmental non-governmental organisations and the general public about whether the action to tackle the climate crisis and the nature emergency will be followed through in this session of Parliament?

Yes, it was in relation to those questions.

I appreciate that.

Access to environmental justice is critical. It is a really hard-won and hard-fought-for right that communities around the world have struggled to achieve and to get commitments to from Governments. That access is enshrined in the Aarhus convention, which brought together parties internationally to agree those environmental rights.

It is very concerning that the Scottish Government is not in compliance with Aarhus. I know there is going to be another review of the situation in October, but on the back of your answers today, it seems that Scotland will remain out of compliance with Aarhus, and will remain, therefore, in a position in which citizens are going to struggle to get access to environmental justice. Does that concern you?

Those are your views on the process, not on the merit or otherwise of decisions. If the view of those who oversee the Aarhus convention in October is that Scotland is still not in compliance with it, will the Government take action, or do you believe, as you just said, that the balance is right and what we are doing is fine?

Is it possible that the climate science may say that we need to meet net zero before 2045?

Mike Buckley, your report contains a number of recommendations, and I want to focus on two of them. On chemical regulations, we have two systems working in parallel, at the moment. There is the UK’s system, and there is the EU’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—REACH—scheme. Then there is the EU emissions trading scheme, in which we have two systems that relate to each other but are not part of a single market in emissions trading. There are some issues with that because of market size, efficiency and everything else. Could you unpack what specific changes you think are achievable through a TCA renegotiation on those two areas? If David Hamilton and Peter Holmes are interested in chipping in on that, I will take their views as well.

Yes, and also ETS alignment more broadly—and potentially integration.

That came across well in your previous answer on the willingness to get in the room, come with an agenda and open up to that dialogue. Is the door open? If there is a willingness to talk about alignment with the ETS or any other detailed policy area, can the right people from the UK get into the room at European level—even if it is a room next door, as you say—start to bring an agenda into those conversations and build up that trust informally?

To bring it back to the question, the point that you are making is that there is a question about the extent to which it is worth investing in further alignment when the fundamental uncertainty exists that a new Government could come in and just rip it up or there could be a change in thinking.

Peter Holmes or David Hamilton, does either of you want to come in on my initial question?