���˿���

Sorry, minister—I hate cutting across people’s answers, especially when I am joining the committee remotely, but I am interested in the specifics more than in a general view. How will that be monitored, audited and reported on? We can say that the culture needs to change, but how do we take the temperature of what is happening in practice? I am sure that ALACHO will tell us quickly enough if it does not think that things have changed. What will the Government do to monitor the situation in order to ensure that we are not just setting expectations but monitoring what public bodies do?

I am not sure that that answers my point, but what you have said is helpful and I will reflect on it and the committee can follow up on that issue.

It has been suggested that it would be helpful if bodies and people that the Scottish Government cannot place duties and obligations on—such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office and general practitioners—were subject to something like an ask and act duty, perhaps in the form of a protocol, and there have been calls for such a protocol to be put in place. However, those bodies are missing from the legislation. Are they missing because we do not have the power to compel or for another reason? Would you expect an ask and act duty to be embedded culturally in those organisations? What is the Government’s thinking on that?

Does that mean that you would seek an ask and act protocol, if we can call it that? You could say to the Home Office and the DWP, for example, that this is what we are asking public bodies in Scotland to do, that we think that it is best practice and that we would like to agree a protocol in relation to it. Is that something that you will take forward?

My apologies, minister, because I should have known the answer to the second part of the question. You are open minded about having more detail in the bill, but you obviously want to keep your powder dry at this stage, because of the engagement that you will have during the summer. However, I also asked you whether any secondary legislation or guidance will come back to the committee for scrutiny and what the process is. Hold on to that thought, though.

You mentioned ALACHO. Its concern is that the default action will be to refer back to the local authority, which defeats the purpose of the legislation. What reassurances can you give ALACHO that that will not become the default option?

I nominate Michelle Thomson.

Michelle Thomson was chosen as deputy convener.

Mr Ruskell makes reasonable points. On the question of whether, on balance, we should support the SI that is before us, I am minded to look at the cabinet secretary’s reply to the committee on 21 May, which says:

“The SI also revises and adds new conditions to substances in Annexes IV and V of the UK POPs regulation, which relate to the disposal of waste containing POPs. These proposed changes go beyond the requirements of the Convention and are designed to give certainty to operators and industry on their responsibilities when dealing with POPs waste.”

The SI goes beyond the requirements and gives certainty for operators and business, which is important.

Also, in the “EU Alignment” section, in relation to annex V, the notification document says:

“Therefore, while there is temporary EU misalignment, it is expected that the EU POPs regulation will also soon be amended in accordance with the Stockholm Convention.”

There is a temporary misalignment.

I am not seeking to block the instrument but, in allowing it to go ahead, we should ask for further information in due course on how the issue will be monitored by the Scottish Government and how realignment will be achieved. I do not dismiss or make light of Mr Ruskell’s comments, but I support the instrument as it stands.

I did not take part in the scrutiny of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, but it appears from what you and Jackie McCreery have said that that definition could change over time, because practices change. Therefore, it makes sense to have the definition in a code or secondary legislation and to keep a watching eye on it. Does that not make sense?

It is a case of being damned by faint praise.

Mr Nicholson, I am not quite sure about the background to this, but you suggested that, if good husbandry is not being undertaken, there are set processes for remedies that the landlord can follow to achieve a resolution, but that if good estate management is not being undertaken, there is not an equitable or balanced process for tenants to address that. Is there anything more that the bill could do on that?

That is helpful. I think that NFU Scotland has commented on that area. Gemma, is there anything that you want to add? Is there anything missing that should be in the bill in order to get the balance correct?

Can I check what you are saying? Is it your position that you are content with the balance that is struck in the bill, but on the basis that the relevant provision in the 2016 act is brought forward?