Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are agreed. Gosh—that was simple and saved us from having a vote.

We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect by its deadline of 11 October 2022. Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a letter to the Scottish Government, informing it of our decision today??

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 5 is consideration of another consent notification for a UK statutory instrument that has not yet been laid.

The Scottish Government proposes to consent to the instrument, which, as the clerk’s paper indicates, relates to the new UK chemicals regulatory regime for persistent organic pollutants.

As discussed under the previous agenda item, a protocol has been agreed between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament for situations in which the Scottish Government proposes to consent to certain types of secondary legislation made by the UK Government as a result of EU exit. The protocol sets out how the Scottish Parliament may scrutinise such decisions. There is a statutory requirement that the Scottish Government’s consent be sought for this proposed instrument.

I refer members to the paper for this item. Again, multiple options are open to the committee on the consent notification. I will not go through them all again—they are exactly the same as those for the consent notification that we have just considered.

If members have no comments, I will move to the substantive question. Is the committee content that the provision set out in the notification be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument??

Members indicated agreement.

We are agreed. We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect. Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a letter to the Scottish Government, informing it of our decision today??

Members indicated agreement.

Now it is the deputy convener’s turn.

I have a couple of questions to finish off this session.

EU environmental regulation is interesting because it ends up pickling things in aspic and not allowing things to change. We tend to feed into the process, and the approach tends to follow a precautionary principle that says that no damage can be done. Although that might be the right approach, there might also be benefits from the proposed development. I have heard Lloyd Austin’s comments on that, but I am interested in Robbie Calvert’s and David Melhuish’s views. Do you think that the EU’s precautionary approach to the environment gives enough flexibility?

I am not saying that they are holding things up; I am asking whether they are preventing developments that might have benefits across the whole environment rather than just in the area that was designated or that falls within the designation for a species of flora or fauna.

A lot of chemical applications will be for on-label use but will involve a different permutation of the chemical application. They will have data sheets anyway, and, if companies have applied for use in the European Union, surely they will be submitting that information voluntarily, and the questions asked by the European Union will also apply to the HSE regarding the use of that chemical in the UK. Therefore, it should surely not slow things up that much.

I want to check that I understand this. The application processes in the UK and the EU will run in tandem, so a lot of information that will be asked for will be similar. I cannot see how things will be slowed down for companies.

I am sorry, Mr Ruskell—I did not quite hear that question.

I was hoping that Natalie Don was not about to say no there. We are agreed.

Minister, you can slip away now. I know that you are busy.