Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Can I come on to that issue separately?

I will come back to you on that.

I am content to support the regulations because I do not see this as an issue of policy divergence with the EU. It is more of a technical issue about how lists of invasive species are drawn up and whether they are fully inclusive on a European basis, or whether they are drawn more tightly with regard to the likely spread of species within the UK.

I note that on the list of species that are to be effectively excluded from the list of invasive alien species, there are, for example, aquatic species such as water hyacinth, which are highly invasive. However, because they cannot survive in winter in this country, scientists have made a judgment that there is no point in including them on the list. I also note that there has been quite a lot of lobbying from the aquatic ornamental trade bodies who want to see that plant sold again within the UK.

My only point on that, which could perhaps be reflected in a letter to the cabinet secretary, is that we are obviously in an age of climate change. A mild winter might be very different in ten or 15 years’ time, as the climate gets warmer, and those kinds of invasive species may be able to get a foothold in this country as the climate changes. I am interested in what the review process looks like when the list of species that can or cannot thrive in this country is drawn up.

The other aspect on which it would be useful to get feedback from the Scottish Government is trade. As I understand it, the new regulations effectively will not apply in Northern Ireland because of the Windsor framework, and it will not apply in the Republic of Ireland, which remains a member of the EU. If those ornamental species are being sold in the UK, that raises a question about what implications there are for exports, say from Scotland through Cairnryan to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is just a query about how trade of those species is being regulated and the checks that exist, given that we do not have a phytosanitary agreement with the EU.

Mhairi, do you want to come in?

Okay. If there are no further comments on that, I will hand back to you, convener.

Sorry, I just want to say that there are other things that, in time, may be added to that list. Our understanding of carbon sequestration is rapidly evolving. At the moment, we are talking about salt marsh codes and blue carbon. Say that 10 years from now we start thinking about new markets. I am wondering to what extent the list in the bill captures everything. I will ask you to answer that briefly, Christopher, and then go to Jeremy and Jackie.

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.