Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is good to hear that, having started with 10 per cent and 15 per cent, there was engagement and listening and you settled on those other figures.

That concludes our questions. I thank the minister and his officials for giving evidence.

We turn to agenda item 3, which is consideration of the motion on the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-11978.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee recommends that the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 (Expiry of Section 10: Extension) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Patrick Harvie]

The question is, that motion S6M-11978, in the name of Patrick Harvie, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Thanks for that.

I go back to the reference in the regulations to “a board”. Could you go into a bit more detail about what that means and about what you imagine the chair and the commissioners will be doing?

That was really helpful—thank you. Indeed, it is, I would say, reassuring.

I am also interested in understanding in what situation the Scottish Government would appoint only one commissioner who is

“representative of ... the food business or ... third sector”

and only one commissioner who possesses the “expertise or experience” with regard to the list of “food-related issues”. Again, why would we not want all commissioners to fulfil at least one of those criteria? I understand that this is about flexibility, but I just want to understand what you are imagining here. I know that you are trying to create flexibility in order to bring all kinds of people in, but surely, as you thought through the SSI, you would have imagined certain scenarios where that might have been the case.

It is clear from the committee’s fisheries adviser’s advice, as well as the stakeholder evidence that has been sent to the committee over the past few days, that the SSI before us is necessary but is not sufficient to restore the Clyde cod stock. As the deputy convener has said, we are aware of the PhD work on the Clyde stock assessment, which is being supervised by the marine directorate and the University of Strathclyde. The committee’s fisheries adviser, Professor Paul Fernandes, said that such an assessment is necessary in order to properly manage the Clyde stock and that peer review is not essential for it to be used to inform policy.

As many of our comments and questions today have indicated, there is concern about the scientific evidence. I would appreciate a commitment from the Government that the PhD work in relation to the SSI will be shared with the committee, although I understand that it is a draft. That is the work of the marine directorate and Professor Mike Heath at the University of Strathclyde on the state of the stock and the recommendations for recovery.

I would appreciate a commitment to using the latest science, including that PhD, when such SSIs are developed—I am thinking, in particular, of the replacement SSI on the Clyde cod closures from 2026 onwards. I would also appreciate it if the Scottish Government marine directorate could begin scoping additional measures to protect the stock, especially bycatch reduction measures, because the latest science says that that is the main pressure.

Thanks for that. It is good to hear that that work is being done. I understand that the Strathclyde university assessment provides clear evidence confirming the results of peer-reviewed studies that show that high fishing mortality, not disturbance of the sea bed, is the key cause of low population size.

I go back to my earlier point that bycatch from nephrops trawling is part of the issue. It is interesting that we end up returning to bycatch in a discussion about creeling, but I think that we need to keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that it is trawling that is the issue.

Earlier, in response to a question about the benchmarking of the stocks in the west of Scotland, Allan Gibb made a point that I want to bring into the conversation. In a letter to the committee, Gillian Martin said:

“In the West of Scotland ICES benchmark report (ICES 2022), it is made clear that … , the best scientific evidence indicates that … Clyde cod are very likely to be a distinct stock from the rest of Division 6a”

but that they are lumped together with those cod—that is, the other west of Scotland cod—because of “data limitations.” I want to get the message out there that those stocks are considered to be separate.

That comes back to the issue around data that we have been getting into today. I know that we carry out our work on the basis of scientific evidence, but we are now asking what that scientific evidence is and who is using which evidence. Elena Whitham made a good point about gathering evidence in partnership with the sector and with the tremendous marine environmental non-governmental organisations that are doing work in the area. We need to get a much better understanding of the picture that we are looking at, and Gillian Martin’s point about data limitations shows that there is work to be done if we want to get the best picture of what we are trying to support in terms of stock recovery and so on. I go back to my point about the fact that we are trying to ensure that there is a flourishing fishery across all sectors.

So, you are just using the term as a quick, catch-all, shortened way of saying all of that.

I would just like to get a few things on record. I was a strong advocate for the inclusion of the Scottish food commission in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022. We have seen examples of strong commissions that have achieved transformational change, such as the Scottish Land Commission, or which have pulled together different strands into a whole-system approach, such as the Just Transition Commission. We absolutely need that kind of thing now in Scotland, but, in order to do those things, the commission needs the right expertise and experience.

The appointment of the chair and commissioners is central to how the culture of the Scottish food commission will develop and, in turn, how it will carve out its place and a reputation for stewarding the 2022 act and holding national Government and relevant authorities to account. The appointment group will set the tone for how areas of work are driven forward, particularly in respect of policy coherence and holding ministers to account for how the 2022 act and the good food nation plans impact, or are impacted by, the plethora of existing—and future—policies and legislation.

As such—and given the focus on the transformation of our food system—it is essential that a group of highly engaged individuals who are comfortable with systems thinking are appointed. They must have a breadth and depth of experience and skills as well as lived experience of our food system. It is not desirable for places to be reserved for any specific sector or stakeholder group, as all commissioners will need to be able to consider the impact on multi-stakeholder and public groups and be skilled in understanding the tensions, power dynamics and interests at play.

Looking at the text of the regulations, I think that in regulation 2, which relates to the appointment of commissioners, the third paragraph is the weakest of the three and is quite oddly worded. I have concerns about what it means and how skills and “expertise” will be established and prioritised within recruitment. I understand the desire to keep the provision broad, but it is important to ensure that commissioners have the appropriate skills and experience. Appointed commissioners will need those core skills and competencies, and it will be worth checking how that will be managed through the person specification appointments process. The key is to ensure that those skills and competencies are not dependent on sectoral expertise or a candidate’s connections and that a commissioner should not be appointed to represent particular interest groups.

I will vote for the secondary legislation, but I strongly encourage the Scottish Government to go further. Not only should it consider the desirability for the board to include one member who fulfils the criteria that are set out, but it should consider how much more effective the commission will be if all members fulfil all those criteria.

The food commission will not have an easy job. Our country is not well served by the current operation of our food system, which is letting down producers and consumers alike and is putting pressure on our healthcare system and our environment. However, if the food commission has the right expertise and know-how to put things into practice, our food system can, instead of contributing to problems, contribute to solutions, which will help us to reach net zero; improve health and wellbeing; strengthen national food security and local economies; provide good jobs; and ensure that everyone in Scotland can afford and enjoy the world-class food that is produced in our good food nation.

Do you have a sense of how the marine directorate could pursue work to understand how many there are? I know that remote technology is now available—in fact, I think that I forwarded information about that to the marine directorate—but that is more to do with losing gear. If we have tracking equipment that can prevent fishermen from losing gear, which causes a marine litter problem, that could also help us to understand the number of creels in the water. Do we need a policy on that? What could we do to get such an understanding? We are having to make decisions without having the full picture.