Official Report 809KB pdf
REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Welcome back to this meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
The third agenda item for consideration is a consent notification relating to a proposed UK statutory instrument, the REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—or UK REACH—is the principal regulatory framework for chemicals across Great Britain. It is designed to control the risks that chemicals pose to people and the environment, and allows restrictions to be placed on their use, manufacture or sale. The instrument proposes to amend UK REACH by adding certain types of lead ammunition to the restriction list.
The committee’s role in relation to UK SI notifications is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s decision to consent to the change being proposed by the UK Government. If we are content for consent to be given, I will write to the Scottish Government accordingly.??In doing so, we have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on particular matters.?However, if the committee is not content with the proposal, it may make one of the recommendations outlined in the clerk’s note.??
Before we go any further, I invite members to speak if they wish to make any comments. I do wish to make some comments, but I am happy to take other members’ comments first.
I will be clear, open and honest with the committee, as I always am. I use lead ammunition to control vermin and deer. I remind the committee that we banned the use of lead shot over Ramsar and wetland sites in Scotland in 2004, and that that was different from what the rest of the UK did. That ban took away the risk that wildfowl might ingest lead, because it was no longer being used over wildfowl areas.
We are discussing a proposal to remove the use of lead shot, but I would argue that no adequate alternative is yet available and that what is available is extremely expensive bismuth or, in some cases, steel. The other issue is that, should you choose to replace lead shot, it would become impossible to use certain calibres or types of guns. For example, shotguns made prior to a certain date—probably around the 1970s—would not be proofed to use steel shot and many of them would become redundant. Some lower-calibre, high-velocity rifles would also become questionable in their use. For example, a .243 rifle would not develop sufficient ballistic energy at the point of impact, meaning that it would no longer, to my mind, be suitable for use on large animals such as red deer.
There are also issues about the risk of ricochet when using lower-density bullets. For example, copper has a far lower density than lead and is therefore more likely to ricochet, causing problems, whereas a higher-density bullet is less likely to ricochet.
To my mind, there is nothing in the financial resolution that has been put forward. Although I support the principle of moving away from lead shot, I am not sure that we are in a position to do that at the moment. I also find it quite odd that that very minor use of lead seems to be being singled out when the use of lead pipes in the delivery of water to many properties across Scotland is still considered to be acceptable, even though it causes a far higher risk. There is a similar situation with the use of asbestos pipes in a huge number of public water mains across Scotland, especially in the Highlands. There are thousands and thousands of kilometres of asbestos water pipes, but those are not being dealt with at the same time as lead shot.
For those reasons, although I support the principle of what is being proposed, I cannot actually support the proposals themselves, and I will have to abstain if the matter is put to a vote. I hope that I have made my reasons for taking this position clear—I support the principle, but not the delivery at this stage. I think that another three years on top of the proposed three-year transition period—or a minimum of two, taking it to five—would be far more suitable.
Bob, I think that you indicated that you wanted to pass comment.
Yes, convener. I just want to put on record what is on page 8 of the briefing that has been prepared for us on this matter. It says:
“A voluntary phaseout by 2025 on the use of lead shot that was led by UK shooting organisations has been shown to be largely ineffective at minimising the use of lead ammunition, and therefore effective regulation is required in this case.”
If UK shooting organisations were content to go for a voluntary phase-out, they must have thought it a practical thing to do, even though it turned out not to be successful in driving the change that we want to see.
I also note that—and this is verbatim from the briefing in front of us:
“The Agency only considered a restriction where appropriate alternatives were available, therefore small calibre bullets (=6.17mm) for live quarry shooting have not been included in the restriction as there was insufficient evidence that viable alternatives were available.”
I do not have any background in this matter, convener, but a briefing that has been prepared for us ahead of this committee meeting seems to substantiate the idea that this was a reasonable thing to do.
I get that your experience in this is very bespoke, convener, but it is only fair to put the alternative view or position on the record this morning, given that it is in our briefing papers.
That is absolutely right and fair. The point you have made about small-calibre bullets relates to such small calibres as .22, where there is no alternative. I think that most people would accept that .243 becoming, or remaining, a suitable calibre for red deer is questionable. You would have to go up to a .270, probably with a 95 to 100-grain bullet as a minimum, because a .243 would not have the effective knock-down capacity.
I certainly take your point, Bob. I do have experience of actually doing this, and I am just trying to get that on the record.
Okay. I appreciate that, convener. I do not intend to try to block the policy intent here, and I appreciate that that might mean our having to part ways in relation to how we cast our vote. However, that is no reason to ignore the individual concerns that you have raised, convener, which we could take up in correspondence with the Scottish Government.
I appreciate that offer, and I think that raising some of the issues with the Scottish Government might make the implementation of this proposed ban, should it be agreed across the United Kingdom, easier for lots of people. After all, it will affect the Scottish Government, too, because it employs stalkers in Forestry and Land Scotland, and they will probably have to change a lot of their rifles and weapons to allow them to carry out their duties as rangers.
Are there any other comments?
Now that there has been a fuller discussion, convener, I note that you have indicated that this will probably result in a vote, because there is division on this. I welcome the advice and background papers that have been provided to the committee, and what really stands out for me is that the notification outlines the reasons for lead ammunition being restricted and the fact that it impacts not only on wildlife, but on human health, too. Our papers advise that
“ingesting lead from ammunition is known to cause excess deaths in wildfowl and poison predatory species that eat contaminated prey or carcasses. It also highlights that humans can be exposed through consuming game meat that has been shot with lead ammunition.”
Those seem like quite serious matters that we should take into consideration. I have not heard anything that would persuade me not to support the proposal today, but I thought it important to put that on the record.
Having shot certain things, I have eaten quite a lot of lead in my time, and I seem to be fine on the back of it—although you might argue that point.
That is debatable. [Laughter.]
Mr Stewart, I like that you smiled at that.
I am now going to move to the substantive question. Is the committee content that the provision set out in the notification be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?
Members: No.
There will be a division. Because Michael Matheson is online, we will have to do a roll-call vote. I will go around the table and ask each member to vote.
For
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Abstentions
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 0, Abstentions 2. The proposal is agreed to.
12:00
Is the committee happy for some of the questions that I have raised regarding calibres, financial matters and alternatives to be put to the Scottish Government so that we can get a response?
Bob, I see that you want to come back in on that.
I am happy with that, convener, but—and I say this with complete respect and courtesy—as long as the wording of the letter does not recount the comments that you have made as the factual position. They might very well be the factual position, convener, but we have not taken evidence on the issue. If the letter were to talk about a suggestion being made, highlight some of the matters that you have drawn to the committee’s attention and then ask for a response, that would seem reasonable. We could also just refer the cabinet secretary to the Official Report and ask for a comment on that.
My answer would be that I would let the clerks draft the letter, and I would be very happy to share the draft with Michael Matheson once I am happy with it. In accordance with the way in which I generally respond to these things, I will do so without fear or favour to myself and ensure that we have got it right.
I know that this is a statutory instrument, convener, but I just wonder whether the Scottish Government is the right body to write to. At the end of the day, this is UK legislation.
The clerks have told me that, because the Scottish Government is acceding to this request, it would be the right body to write to, although it might well have to contact the UK Government to clarify some of the details. We will follow the procedure and the direction of travel, if you are all right with that.
Thank you very much. That is all that we are going to do in public, so we will now move into private session.
12:02 Meeting continued in private until 12:43.Previous
Draft Climate Change Plan