Chamber and committees

Have you fed that directly into the biodiversity strategy and the forthcoming climate plan?

Okay, thanks. I will stick with David Harley for my next question, and then I might bring Nick Halfhide back in. I want to ask about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which is now in place, although the dramatic cliff edge of a lot of EU legislation being rescinded did not materialise. You have perhaps noted the committee’s interest in the withdrawal of the legislation on the national air quality performance framework and the lack of clarity about what it will be replaced with. Does SEPA have reflections on the 2023 act and where we are now, and on its implications for environmental standards?

In the conversations that Zero Waste Scotland has had with particular sectors and businesses at a particular scale, what has the feedback been? Are there any concerns about unintended consequences or other issues?

My only point is that the committee has not had adequate notice of or time to consider the instrument. I do not object to what is proposed, but I am concerned about the 28-day rule continually being broken. I seek your guidance, convener, as to what we can do to urge Governments to ensure that the committee is treated with respect and that we have enough time to consider anything that comes before us.

I come back to natural capital finance. There is quite a debate about how those markets can be regulated in a way that builds in the right values and ensures that they have integrity. I am interested to hear your thoughts on that. I want you to comment specifically on the finance pilot and the memorandum of understanding that has been signed on that. The headline figure is that there is £2 billion-worth of funding. Will additional public finance come in on the back of that £2 billion? What is the mix of private and public funding? In addition, it would be useful to get your general thoughts on natural capital finance.

That is clearly an area of interest for the committee. I am sure that we would, as details emerge, like to see exactly how projects are emerging on the ground. It might be too early to see that at this point.

Staying with David Harley, the question is about the Environmental Standards Scotland “Air Quality Investigation Improvement Report”, which made a number of recommendations on how SEPA should progress its enforcement on air quality issues. What changes are planned on the back of that report? How has it affected your enforcement action on the ground?

Do you agree that dialogue with industries is really important? For example, I have heard criticism from the onshore wind industry that NatureScot did not consult with the industry on the development of the peatland guidance. Are you aware of that? How does NatureScot prioritise good-quality engagement with the various sectors that obviously have a vested interest in developing land, including the renewables sector? Clearly, we need to find a way through on these issues and ensure that development can proceed, but in a way that supports the objectives on climate and biodiversity.

Thank you.

I will go back to what David Harley said about the bathing water quality designation process. My understanding is that any application for bathing water designation in Scotland is required to meet a minimum threshold of 150 daily users. That differs from England and Wales, where there is no threshold for daily users or the number is much lower—I think that it is about 40.

Is SEPA looking at reforming that and making suggestions to ministers? Your point was that the situation is all fine in designated bathing water quality areas, at least over an entire season, but if an area where people regularly wild swim cannot be designated, who will monitor it? How will we get a partnership approach to address the problems of pollution in areas that people use, but not at a level that is above the threshold of 150 daily users?