Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I am. I agree with Rebecca Pow, who wrote back to the committee—thank you for sharing those documents with me. As she put it:

“we believe that allowing the extra time could lessen potential burdens on businesses without significantly impacting on human health and environmental protections. We also recognise the potential for better quality data and maximising chances of compliance under the longer timescales.”

Yes, of course. Through the common framework process, we liaise closely and will continue to do that. My officials are part of the working group that is considering the development of the registration system and how it might change. We have been given assurances about DEFRA ensuring that there is sufficient capacity to get that work done in the necessary time.

When it comes to approving the final outcome, because of the statute under which the process is undertaken, Scottish ministers’ consent will, I understand, be required and, therefore, parliamentary scrutiny will be engaged. Also, that proposal will have to be accompanied by a statement in line with UK REACH article 1, which sets out the confidence that it is in line with environmental protections and does not threaten any of them.

Yes, we certainly will, and I suspect that further consultation will take place on the substance of whatever it is expected to replace that year.

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.

We worked with DEFRA in advance of its public consultation, which, I think, was answered by industry, trade associations and non-governmental organisations. That was a broad spectrum, although, admittedly, the majority of the respondents were trade and industry representatives. It was very clear that a three-year extension across the board was the workable option, in their view, as opposed to what I think the UK Government’s preferred option was: to extend the first category by three years, the second by two years and the last by one year.

On the backdrop of the assurance that, in the view of DEFRA and of the Health and Safety Executive, those extensions are not likely to be detrimental to the environment, I was happy that three years across the board was appropriate, if that is what trade and industry believe is necessary to make it right. It goes back to the point that I raised with Fiona Hyslop: the risk of not getting it right is substantial and, if we need that time, we need that time.

I will try to answer that and, if I need to hand over to my officials, I will do so, because they are involved with that just now.

The UK strategy is currently being developed. I understand that our teams are feeding into that and our position at this point is that we will withhold our approval for it while we make sure that the final version reflects the input that we have made and is in line with Scotland’s interests. That is similar to the position that Welsh ministers are taking.

Dan Merckel or Ailsa Heine might have more to add to that, but I will comment briefly on the EU strategy. We are keeping a watchful eye on it and I suspect that a lot of what we will feed into the UK strategy development will be a part of learning from the EU strategy, in line with our desire to keep pace with the EU.

Is there anything to add to that, Dan?

I do not think that, ultimately, there is a realistic alternative. We spoke about the common frameworks. Those are the way in which we have agreed to work together in the post-Brexit landscape and, so far, that has worked well.

One of the problems that I have with UK REACH is that we are no longer doing it on an international basis, as we did with EU REACH. To suggest that we could do something even more insular in Scotland would not be credible. It is better for everyone involved that we continue to work together, continue to take advice from the Health and Safety Executive and continue to consult.

As for the on-going work on how the registration process might be changed, I am comfortable with the fact that the Scottish ministers’ consent will likely be required to any of those changes, and that a statement in compliance with article 1 of REACH UK will be required, which will demonstrate how it does not represent a difficulty for the environment.

On the first point, I am not concerned that changes to the deadlines are a risk to divergence or convergence. What might change is still very much at the early stages, so I have to withhold my view on that point while we develop the process. However, we will certainly make the argument for divergence to be minimised as far as possible.

I cannot really speak for the industry or the UK Government, but my impression is that the industry’s barrier is the cost of obtaining the data that is required under UK REACH, much of which it does not own. We will therefore have to find ways to try to overcome that barrier. It is very much early days, but our position will be to minimise any divergence as far as possible as that process develops.