Chamber and committees

I will slightly rephrase my question. NatureScot called it a “serious pollution incident”. Does NatureScot think that we are getting sewage overflows right in Scotland? Given that the evidence shows that there has been a 70 per cent increase in overflows in the past five years, does NatureScot not have serious concerns about that?

Some might suggest that the lack of information is due to the fact that only 10 per cent of the overflows are monitored, but the committee will no doubt discuss that.

Mark Roberts, ESS has set out several priorities and has carried out eight baseline evidence reviews. Do those baseline evidence reviews incorporate your priorities of

“Progress on climate change adaptation, including planning for extreme weather events”

and/or the assessment of

“Sewage discharge into the aquatic environment”?

If not, when do you anticipate having those baselines?

If only 10 per cent of overflows are monitored, and given that overflows have increased by 70 per cent since 2017, to about 563,000 hours, does that suggest that the problem of sewage overflows is actually far worse than the data currently suggests?

I will stick to the same topic in my question to John Kerr. In October, The Courier reported that raw sewage had been pumped into Loch Leven. At the time, NatureScot called that a “serious pollution incident”. The report asked the minister for a response, but she appears to have declined. A spokesman talked about historical investment and some general on-going investment. Given that incident, and the statistics that I just put to Jo Green, is it NatureScot’s view that the issue is not being taken seriously enough? Do you think that anything will change?

Thank you.

Good morning. Lloyd Austin, you began your answer to Monica Lennon by briefly mentioning EU legislation. The Scottish Government took a decision to keep pace with EU law. What impact would the bill’s provisions have on that decision? If it turned out that the provisions enhanced and improved protections, would it be right—as I assume that it would be—for the Scottish Government to use those protections rather than to dogmatically follow the EU’s position?

Lloyd Austin, I will go back to the first question that I asked you. You answered the second part of the question by saying that it was a hypothetical question. However, the first part of the question was about the impact that the provisions will have on the Scottish Government’s decision to keep pace with EU law. I do not think that that is a hypothetical question.

Given the potential for risk and significant delays in evaluating authorisations, why has the Scottish Government not engaged or consulted with stakeholders to assess the impact of the proposals?

Forgive me, minister, but may I press you on that? The type 1 notification that you submitted to the committee says:

“these new measures are aimed solely at ensuring the functioning of the GB BPR and, therefore, we have not undertaken any engagement, or any formal consultation, about these specific amendments.”

That seems rather at odds with the answer that you have just given. Can you clarify the point?

Thank you. Robbie Calvert, Lloyd Austin talked about clause 120 and suggested, I think, that it could be amended to make it better. In your view, clause 120 sets out safeguards that will ensure that the UK continues to meet its international obligations and includes provisions on non-regression, which are also in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. Does clause 120 provide sufficient safeguards against the weakening of existing environmental protections?