Chamber and committees

Yes, I am comfortable with 20 per cent. That has not been up for discussion as part of the development of the SI. If the Health and Safety Executive believes that 20 per cent is sufficient for it to get the kind of return that it needs, then I am comfortable with that. The point of the extension is that those checks will have to come after completion of the final registration deadline. Is that right, Dan?

I do not anticipate any further extension to the timescales. I suppose that it is not impossible; however, I understand that a lot of resource is currently being arranged in DEFRA to make sure that it is done in the appropriate time. I expect that we will be back at some point to discuss substantive changes to the registration process because, of course, examining that is what the extension is required for.

Obviously, SEPA is the regulator for environmental issues in Scotland and will be for the environmental impact of REACH overall, but the competent authority for the issue of registration is the Health and Safety Executive. That decision was made across the board with the Scottish ministers, the Welsh ministers and so on, so the Health and Safety Executive is the equivalent of SEPA in this, and we have therefore worked closely with it on the issue. Officials are keeping SEPA very closely updated on all these developments, and it is always welcome to give us its feedback.

I do not know whether Dan Merckel might want to say more about the engagement that he has had with SEPA, but it is certainly not the official body on this. However, the convener is indicating that we need to be as short as possible.

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.

It is about consistency. The register is live. Organisations are registering now and will continue to do so. I should say that, with the extra year, the Registers of Scotland will continue to work with stakeholders to support them to make the registrations. Of course, that will fall short of the provision of legal advice, as must be the case, but we will do everything that we need to do to support them.

On your question about companies, one policy rationale for the act, which I was not involved with, was about avoiding duplication. Companies were not involved in this because of what they are required to submit to Companies House. I cannot remember what the name of that register is, but perhaps my colleague Paul Richardson will know.

Let me be clear: I thought that the original year was sufficient; the extension is an allowance for the concerns that have been raised with me.

I would never encourage anyone to fill out a public register with anything but the utmost accuracy. Four bits of information are required: the details of the recorded person—that is, the owner or the tenant of a long lease; the land details; the ownership details; and the associate details. I would not necessarily expect all the complexities of legal title to be narrated, but individuals should seek legal advice on that. That is not something that the Government can provide.

I will respond to a couple of points. First, on engagement with the Church of Scotland and other religious bodies, I think I have already said this, but I am happy to reiterate it: that engagement will be on-going. I, my officials and the Registers of Scotland will be involved in that. We are very keen to make the best use of the additional year and to support religious bodies and others through the process. As I have said, we will do that thoroughly. However, I must be clear about the fact that we will not provide legal advice.

On Fiona Hyslop’s point about the charities bill, I have considered that. That is a result of me having sat down with the Church of Scotland and said, “Tell me what you think I can do to make this better.” I went away and considered every option that the church put to me. One of the things that it raised with me was the charities bill, but that is at stage 1. What I can see so far is that it will require the name of the trustees to be registered, but that does not in any way link to the property. Basically, it is that link that the RCI seeks to bridge. We have to make an assessment. We do not want duplication, but we have to consider whether the other register does the same or more than what we are proposing. With the charities bill, my conclusion so far is that it does not, but I have considered the issue.