Seòmar agus comataidhean

The HSE is saying—my officials can correct me if I am wrong—that it needs more time to bottom out all the work that is associated with creating a new REACH system in the UK.

Yes, which is unsurprising, given the task that it has had to undertake because of EU exit.

The publication has been delayed. We have been assured that it is imminent and that it will happen before the statutory instrument is laid. My officials have seen the draft text of that; it has been shared during the drafting of the SI. You are right that the final publication has been delayed, but we have been assured that the HSE will publish that before it is considered by the UK Parliament.

When it comes down to it, it is an issue for the UK Government, but if my officials have any intelligence on what it has said about things coming back, they can come in now.

Thank you, convener, for inviting me to give evidence on the two UK statutory instruments.

Chemicals safety regulation, which the UK has inherited from the European Union, is complex. It is organised around how chemicals are used. However, as well as that sectoral approach, some regulations apply across the piece and introduce interdependencies between regulations. Such legislation encompasses reserved and devolved competencies, so Scottish ministers play a role in many aspects of decision making within a common framework governance structure. Neither UK SI diminishes that role in the UK regulations that it amends.

The first SI, which I will refer to as the HSE SI for brevity, concerns amendments to three separate pieces of chemicals safety legislation that operate across Great Britain and which the Health and Safety Executive has responsibility for, on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. Details are contained in the notification that I submitted to the committee, but, briefly, those concern: the classification, labelling and packaging regulation, which is about communicating the hazards of chemicals in the supply chain so that they can be transported, used and disposed of appropriately; the biocides regulation, which is about the placing on the market and safe use of biocides; and the prior informed consent regulation, which controls the import and export of specific highly hazardous chemicals. The HSE SI amends those three regulations in a number of ways that either improve efficiencies or address specific issues related to the resource required to operate them in a GB-only setting.

The second instrument, which I will refer to as the REACH SI, concerns deadlines by which companies must register their chemicals under the UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation—the REACH regulation.

Registration is a cornerstone of how the UK REACH regulation works. Not only does it allow companies to demonstrate that their chemicals can be used safely; it furnishes regulators with the information that they need to see what further controls might be required. However, without a delay, we run the risk of GB businesses not being able to register under UK REACH or, at the least, of companies incurring large needless costs, which I imagine is something that none of us wants.

08:45

This is the second time that the committee is scrutinising a proposal to postpone the transitional registration deadlines in UK REACH, and the further extension of deadlines is essential to allow work to be completed on a longer-term fix for the issue, which is taking much longer than anticipated due to the sheer complexity and on-going in-depth industry engagement on what is called the alternative transitional registration model—or the ATRM. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is leading that work, but devolved Governments are involved in it, too.

The HSE statutory instrument will maintain protections for people and the environment, support HSE’s delivery of regulation and, in some cases, should allow us to increase alignment with the EU. Under the UK REACH SI, companies supplying and using chemicals will still adhere to the conditions laid down for use under EU REACH. Any new chemicals introduced since Brexit need to be registered without delay under UK REACH, so they will not come within the scope of this instrument. As such, I am satisfied that we are maintaining standards set when the UK was still in the EU with both these instruments.

My officials and I are happy to take any questions.

You are perhaps referring to the notifications that have to go to ministers. I can address that. We would not have agreed to that if we thought that there would be any diminution in standards associated with it. We are satisfied that the notification of ministers is not really an issue or a requirement that will make any material difference in terms of the standards that will be upheld by the HSE.

What you are saying about the role of the HSE at UK level is really a question for the UK Government. If you are questioning whether the HSE has a number of roles that are in conflict with one another, that is something that you would have to take up with the UK Government.

I worked in energy and had to adapt quite a lot of HSE protocols into courses for the oil and gas industry, and I find it to be a very well-respected Government agency with a great deal of expertise. The question is whether it is ready and has the capacity to take on the massive task of regulation as a result of EU exit, and that is a question for the UK Government. The HSE requires more time to get things right, and it is the body that is tasked with doing that by the UK Government.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence on the draft climate change plan, and I thank this committee and other committees for the tremendous amount of work that has been done in scrutinising the plan over previous months.

I will bring to the forefront why we are here. The draft climate change plan has two key objectives: to provide a pathway for the Scottish Government to reach our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and to do so in a way that delivers our aspirations to improve the wellbeing and economic opportunities of the people of Scotland in a just way.

We rightly hear a lot about the costs of climate action, but we know that the potential benefits from climate action are significant. The benefits are wide ranging: low-carbon jobs that stakeholders in the offshore wind industry tell us about; stronger communities from improved public transport, which equalities organisations have highlighted; the improvement of our natural resources and our health and wellbeing through cleaner air; and warmer homes, helping to tackle fuel poverty across the country.

The Edinburgh Climate Change Institute at the University of Edinburgh estimates the value of those co-benefits for Scotland as totalling £6.3 billion over the period of the plan. If you wanted to break that down, it would equate to around £1,150 per person in Scotland. That is also a preventative spend for our public services and, in particular, our national health service, because the health benefits are significant.

Reminding ourselves of the benefits is critical to how we bring people with us on this journey. I recently heard from community leaders in our climate action hubs about the importance of highlighting the benefits if we are to maintain public support for climate action. I fully agree, which is why I have sought to ensure that the benefits feature strongly in the draft climate change plan. It is also why I am today reopening the climate engagement fund to increase understanding of climate change and to empower people across Scotland to take action in their local communities.

Here in Holyrood, I recognise that the Parliament has worked in collaboration with Government to get to this stage. Since publishing the plan, I have met MSPs from across the chamber to hear their views on our policy choices and priorities, the costs of climate action and the massive benefits that climate action can bring.

I have been clear on the importance of hearing directly from our communities. As such, we have funded five partner organisations to act as trusted messengers in their communities to deliver further public engagement and make the consultation as active and inclusive as possible. Those partners have delivered workshops and events to encourage people to respond to the public consultation, reaching people the length and breadth of Scotland.

We have, at the same time, received more than 500 responses to the public consultation, and I expect the independent analysis of those to be published soon. In addition to the evidence that the committee has heard, that feedback will improve the final plan. I am grateful to all who have shared their views with the Scottish Government or as part of the committee’s own call for views.

I am under no illusions and know that the hardest part of our transition is ahead of us, but I also know that, through the endeavours, skills and strength of our people, who are our greatest asset, we can deliver.

Although the Scottish Government will do all that it can, I must point out that it is simply not within our gift to control some of the challenges and that that will shape what we want to do with the plan. The UK Government must move much faster and do more in the key areas that are reserved to Westminster. I hope that we all agree on the need for urgent reform, not least on the price of electricity, which is a point that has consistently been made by contributors to the committee’s work.

I am grateful for the opportunity to answer your questions today.

Year on year, the responsibility for the action in portfolios is determined by the budget decisions, but we will feed back on the policy that each cabinet secretary wanted to put forward to us in relation to emissions reduction. They would also have to take into consideration any Government costs associated with that. We are talking about not just the costs, but the cost benefits. That is why we were working very closely with officials in those areas to get their expertise, not just because of the policy decisions and suggestions that they might make for the climate change plan, but because of the implications for how that would be delivered and costed.

The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 asks us to set out

“an estimate of the costs and cost benefits”,

so it is always going to be an estimate.

There are so many aspects to estimating the costs associated with all the actions associated with climate change. Some of them will be funding Government policies and initiatives, and others will lie in the investment space for private enterprise. We set them out as a whole-economy cost. We are not required by legislation to break that down, and, although none of this is easy, I suggest that, fundamentally, the cost could not be broken down into which element of the economy will have the benefits associated with action and which will have the costs associated with action. That is a whole-economy cost. We are the only country in the UK that has in legislation a requirement to estimate costs and cost benefits. The other nations in the UK do not have that. Whether they will change or adapt, I do not know, but we have set out our estimate on the whole-economy cost and the whole-economy benefits associated with the climate action that we have put into the plan. Some of it will be in Government spend, but it is impossible for us to predict what that will be, as it will depend on year-to-year budgets and what the programme for government is for the next however many years of the plan.

The advice that the Climate Change Committee gave to all Governments in the UK has factored in carbon capture and storage as a fundamental need if Scotland is to achieve net zero by 2045 and the UK is to achieve net zero by 2050. Negative emissions technologies and carbon capture and storage are baked into the CCC’s modelling, particularly to allow industry to decarbonise.

It is also a massive economic opportunity for Scotland. I am not telling Mr Stewart anything that he does not know because he will know that the many people have been working on the Acorn project and the many guises of a carbon capture utilisation and storage industry and sector in the north-east of Scotland for the past 15-plus years. The Acorn project and the Scottish cluster are fundamental to the plans that are associated with our net zero ambitions.

We have seen some movement there because the UK Government has pledged some funding to the Acorn project, but it is not of the significance that it requires for it to get going. We have recently seen carbon capture and storage money being given to other projects in the rest of the UK that are not as well advanced as the Acorn project.

The big prize in carbon capture and storage in Scotland is the size and capacity of the empty reservoirs in the North Sea that used to hold natural gas and oil. They are now depleted and have perfect geological qualities for the capture of carbon.

09:45

The capacity in Scottish waters is not only sufficient to capture the carbon that will be generated in the UK, but large enough to enable a sector that can import carbon from other parts of Europe that do not have such capacity, so it is a major economic opportunity. The work that is associated with carbon capture and storage for oil and gas workers and for the people who are skilled in the relevant technologies also presents an opportunity for a just transition.

However, on the fundamental point about emissions and the capture of the associated carbon, I would be very interested to hear what the Climate Change Committee says about that when you speak to it, because that is baked into its modelling and into the carbon budgets that it has recommended that we achieve.