Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will do, convener. Thank you very much for having me here today to discuss the proposed statutory instrument to extend registration deadlines under the transitional arrangements of UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation. The purpose of the statutory instrument is to extend by three years the dates by which manufacturers or suppliers of chemicals in Great Britain—GB—must register their substances in UK REACH.

Following feedback, work is currently on-going to look at how registration arrangements might be improved in UK REACH. The extension is proposed to allow that work to be completed and to give business certainty on its obligations in the meantime.

By way of brief background, the UK REACH regulation replaced the equivalent European Union REACH regulation following EU exit. UK REACH applies in GB, and it regulates the marketing and use of the majority of chemicals on the GB market. The hard Brexit that was eventually negotiated meant that we were denied membership of the European Chemicals Agency; as such, we have had to set up an entirely autonomous regime that essentially mirrors that of the EU.

Registration under UK REACH is a significant undertaking for businesses in GB—likewise for the Health and Safety Executive, which delivers most of the technical functions of the UK REACH, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as the UK REACH policy lead. The proposed extensions to the registration deadlines arise from the significant financial and practical challenges that registration poses for GB businesses.

To put that into context, compliance with EU REACH was estimated to have cost UK businesses some £500 million. The current DEFRA estimate of cost to UK business under the new regime is between £1.3 billion and £3.5 billion. As well as cost to business, in Scotland, we have a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises that are unlikely to have directly interacted with the EU and will have relied on others in the supply chain to do the necessary on their behalf. Therefore, an extension is particularly important for Scottish business, its supply chains and, ultimately, consumers in Scotland.

Concerns have been raised, and potential improvements are being considered. The three-year extension is thought to be appropriate while that work is under way.

The committee will recognise that the concerns that I have set out are largely about business and costs, but you will also recognise that, in my role as Minister for Environment and Land Reform, I need to be content about the impact of any changes on the environment. Although the proposed extensions are far from ideal, I am satisfied that there are sufficient mitigations in place such that the potential for negative consequences for the environment is low.

By way of practical example of that, during the extended transitional phase, suppliers and users of chemicals in GB will continue to follow the safeguards that are in place under EU REACH, as all chemicals that are subject to the proposed extended deadline are already registered under that regime. Perhaps we can get into a little more of that in questioning.

In summary, I consider the situation to be far from ideal, as is the case for most things connected to EU exit, but the risks to Scottish business, consumers and the operation of the regime itself by not agreeing to the proposal are greater than the risk to the environment from consenting to it.

I am happy to take questions, and I will bring in colleagues, because there are some technical aspects to the issue.

That is a very good question. The area of chemicals is a complex split of devolved and reserved issues. For example, the environment is devolved, but health and safety is reserved. We have worked with DEFRA and with the Health and Safety Executive, which is the competent authority for these matters at UK level. I have reassured myself on some of the points about the impact on devolved matters that I was beginning to allude to in my opening remarks.

First, we are talking only about chemicals. The only chemicals that are affected by the transitional arrangements are those that are already under the EU REACH regime, so I am comfortable that the rules will continue to apply to them. Any new chemical or any novel use will have to be registered straight away and will not be caught by any extension that we are proposing here.

It is also about recognising that there is risk to not acting. The risks of not acting—having a system that is unworkable and a registration process that business and industry tell us they cannot comply with in the time that they will have to—are more problematic to business and the environment than the risks of acting. All that has been considered, and officials have worked very closely with DEFRA and with the Health and Safety Executive, which is the competent authority in all this.

Yes, I think that this is an example of the functioning of the common framework. Our getting to this point, and the cross-UK agreement that we have reached to get here, is a result and an example of the functioning of the common framework on chemicals and pesticides.

The engagement that I have had so far—the quite intense engagement over recent months—has principally been with religious stakeholders. However, I have no doubt that concerns are spread across the charitable and third sector.

I have not yet had a response specifically from the Church of Scotland.

We have engaged with stakeholders. You mentioned a consultation. I am talking about on-going stakeholder engagement, which I have had and which I think I narrated in response to Ms Hyslop’s question.

Equally, we have spoken to the Church of Scotland, the property law committee of the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Land Commission, the Scottish Property Federation, Scottish Land & Estates and Community Land Scotland. We have reached out to all those organisations and have informed them of our plan to lay the SSI. I do not know whether my officials have had responses from them that give us the thumbs up. I have not, but I am still convinced that what we have done is the right thing to have done.

It has been part of the conversations that we have had.

What I am proposing does not change the provisions as they were. When the controlling individual has to register, they will have to register their associates, as well.

I considered all the options that the Church of Scotland and other denominations put to me. Those included a full exemption from the register and an amendment to schedule 2 of the RCI, which would have created special treatment for “the main Scottish churches”, as they put it. That in itself is a vague term. However, there were other reasons why that was not acceptable, including the fact that that would immediately raise concerns among other stakeholders that were being treated differently from religious bodies. Consistency is important.

I considered all the Church of Scotland’s suggestions, and I continue to liaise with it. I think that that approach is appropriate, and I hope that it will help it.

Thank you very much, convener.

I am here to speak to legislation to address the concerns of some stakeholders who are in scope of the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land—the RCI. The policy intention of the RCI is to ensure that there can no longer be a category of owner or tenant where, intentionally or otherwise, their decision making or their control over a piece of land or property is obscured.

As members will know, the register stems from the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. The principal regulations that established the register were passed unanimously by the Parliament following scrutiny by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee via the super-affirmative procedure. Members of this committee will also remember unanimously passing amendment regulations in November 2021. I am very pleased to say that the register went live on 1 April 2022, as planned.

Despite the long-running and quite deep scrutiny, some stakeholders have raised concerns with me in recent months about the cost and administrative burden of compliance. I should be clear that there is no cost to make a submission to the register and that the process is fairly straightforward. However, preparation work is involved and, in practice, some within the scope of the register will instruct a solicitor, which, of course, carries cost.

From the engagement that I have had with stakeholders, the administrative burden arises principally where there is a substantial volume of titles and where there is a complex ownership structure. The register exists to try to shed light on and provide transparency on such issues.

I have listened to the concerns and, in response to them, I have laid the Scottish statutory instrument that is before the committee, which is to offer a one-year extension of the period for registration before the penalty provisions come into force. The period will therefore be extended from 1 April 2023 to 1 April 2024.

Extending that period will allow the register to continue with its integrity, and it will also allow a period in which the administrative task can be stretched and therefore ease the burden and spread the costs. I am particularly mindful of the requirement to do that as the third sector and charities face considerable strain just now because of the pandemic, Brexit and the on-going cost crisis. As the third sector and charities work really hard to support people in our communities to get through the cost crisis, I am mindful that I do not want to exacerbate any pressures on them.

I hope that the committee will support the regulations. I am happy to answer questions.

Yes—absolutely. Our consultation on the bill has concluded. We are still considering all the responses to that and formulating how we will take the policy forward. I suppose that we are at a delicate part of policy development, and I cannot say too much beyond what was in the consultation. However, the three principal provisions of the bill are to do with making the land rights and responsibilities statement statutory, having land management plans that will allow communities and landowners to collaborate on what land is used for and, of course, a public interest test that will, I hope, inject a degree of regulation and transparency into what is, thus far, a very unregulated market.