Chamber and committees

Thank you for clarifying that. I am sorry for treading on Liam Kerr’s toes.

Okay, thank you. I thank the minister for attending today and giving those answers. I want to move to the next agenda item, if I may. Minister, I am sure that you will want to slip out to carry out your other duties while we consider the UK statutory instrument.

Our next item of business is to formally consider the type 1 consent notification sent by the Scottish Government relating to REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023 in light of the evidence that we have just heard and the additional letters.

Before I go further, I remind members that, as a farmer, I use chemicals, so I have some knowledge of the chemical system—just so that there is no dubiety about that.

If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In writing to the Scottish Government in that way, we have the option to pose questions or to ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments.

If the committee is not content with the proposal, we might have to make one of the several recommendations, which I could go through. Are there any comments from committee members on that point?

As no other members want to make a comment, I now move to the substantive question for this item, which is whether the committee is content that the provision set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument.

If we agree to that, we can write to the Scottish Government along the lines that have been suggested to say that we want to be kept informed of the pace of the change and of any review of chemicals in the future. I think that doing so would be useful. As part of that, we could—as the deputy convener suggested—write to Rebecca Pow to thank her for her prompt response and ask her to give a bit more detail and information on the alternative transitional registration and on what divergence means.

Are committee members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The clerks are happy as well, so, now we know what we are doing.

I was going to pause the session to allow for a changeover of witnesses, but they changed over before we even had a chance to complete our business, so we will crack straight on.

Our next item of business is an evidence session with Circularity Scotland as part of our consideration of the deposit return scheme. I refer members to the papers for this item. Circularity Scotland will have a crucial role as the scheme administrator, and today’s session is about hearing more about that role and about overall preparedness for the scheme’s launch. I am pleased to welcome David Harris, the chief executive; Irene Steel, the chief finance officer; Simon Jones, the chief operating officer; and Donald McCalman, the programme director, all from Circularity Scotland. Thank you for accepting our invitation.

I also welcome Fergus Ewing, Maurice Golden and Brian Whittle, who are in attendance for this session. I will offer you a brief opportunity to ask your questions near the end of the session, so that committee members can ask their questions first.

I believe that David Harris would like to make an opening statement.

I hear what you say, but if I was a convenience store in a local village, I am not sure that I would feel that I was getting the representation that I needed. I will come back to that, if I may, at the end.

The first set of questions comes from Jackie Dunbar.

I am slightly confused. Will you clarify the position so that I understand it? SEPA enforces regulations that the Parliament put in place. Are you saying that SEPA does not have to abide by those regulations? Can it apply them as it sees fit, if it thinks that an organisation is moving in the general direction that is wanted? That is not my understanding of how the law works, but is that what you are saying? I am interested in hearing you repeat the point.

Mark, I am going to have to ask you to be brief, on the basis that other committee members want to speak.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a consent notification on the REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023. This is a United Kingdom statutory instrument for which the UK Government is seeking the Scottish Government’s consent to legislate in areas of devolved competence. The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making these regulations within devolved competence, and in the manner that the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government.

At our most recent meeting, we considered the notification and agreed to request further information from relevant regulatory bodies and the UK Government about the proposed extension to registration dates and the impact in Scotland. Additional letters have been received, which I believe all committee members now have.

We also agreed to invite the Minister for Environment and Land Reform to give evidence today. We have until 31 March to respond to the Scottish Government’s notification so, straight after today’s evidence session, we aim to come to a view.

I am therefore pleased to welcome Màiri McAllan, Minister for Environment and Land Reform. Minister, thank you for attending at short notice. I also welcome Dan Merckel, chemicals team leader, and Ailsa Heine, lawyer, both from the Scottish Government.

We have around 20 to 25 minutes for this item. Before we move to questions, minister, I believe that you would like to make a very brief opening statement.

I am happy for you to come in, Dan, but I think that the minister has made that point clear. Fiona Hyslop, are you happy with that?

Thanks, Liam.

I have been quiet but I will now ask a question at the end.

We have seen the length of time that it took to build the Beauly to Denny power line, and I have watched the building of the substations at Beauly and Blackhillock—which are getting bigger and bigger—and seen the problems caused to, and the consternation of, local people who live near them or see them.

Would the correct signal be to transmit that energy as hydrogen in underground pipe networks, which seem to require less infrastructure and are less of a scar on the landscape? Should everyone put out that signal, or is that too simplistic?