I understand that you would like to see a breakdown of the taxonomy detail. A lot of the material for the taxonomy is for internal governmental purposes to allow us to make decisions on the budget. However, I confirm that it is not just for my portfolio or for transport or rural affairs, land reform and islands; it is across the Government. For example, it is also applied to health spend—a great deal of work has been done in the health space to reduce the emissions that are associated with health spend.

The taxonomy is at the level of detail that we can provide to the public, but I will not commit to producing any more documents without taking that request away to consider. However, I can provide more detail on how the taxonomy is being used.

It will include the emissions impact and the mitigation and reduction options that are implemented and how all that is reflected in the climate change taxonomy. I will write to the committee with the detail of what that will look like so that you know what to expect.

The extension means that we will not have a comparable database until a year later, so in this transitional phase, we will continue to rely on conditions that were set out when we were still part of the EU. The EU registrations database is still publicly available and is still the resource for those outside the UK who are looking for information on chemicals. Therefore, the HSE SI will not have a negative impact on alignment, compared with the current situation.

You are right, to a certain extent, that the HSE has asked for flexibility and discretion. For example, the CLP regulation will be implementing an internationally agreed system for classifying hazards, which, I should point out, comes under a United Nations environment programme.

When it comes to requiring flexibility, you know my views, Mark. I would rather that we were still in the EU and part of the EU REACH system. You and I were on the same committee in the previous parliamentary session, when we discussed the concerns that you are bringing up now about any deviation from EU alignment being a very real risk and dependent on the flavour of the UK Government from one session to the next.

The Health and Safety Executive is the regulator, and I expect that it takes its duties on the control of hazards associated with chemicals absolutely seriously. I expect that there would be an intense mirroring of the standards at EU level as much as possible, but, of course, it will be a UK system that is governed by the UK Government of the day.

Environmental non-governmental organisations are right to point to the fact that, with a separate system, we might have a UK Government in the future that does not want to align with the EU. The Scottish Government wants to align as closely as possible with EU regulations and standards.

I am satisfied, as it stands, that the flexibility that the HSE is asking for would be for very particular circumstances, and that it would have to get agreement from all Governments in the UK for any deviation to happen.

My officials might have further information on what has been set out by the HSE.

It is fair to say that the HSE has not been publishing as much information on this as we would all like. My officials and I have certainly had conversations about that. As you rightly say, we are talking about decades of regulation at EU level having to be unpicked and a system having to be built from scratch in the UK. The HSE is taking time to do that in a way that is robust and with the amount of resource and capacity that is required. Five years ago, we said how much of a task that would be, and that has been borne out by the fact that we now see delays. It is so complex to build a new system at UK level that replicates decades of regulation. It used to be at EU level and all the systems used to lie at EU level, as well.

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.