Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would like to get some clarification on the right to food. It sounds as though you are saying that you support there being a right to food in Scots law, that the issue is only the vehicle through which that is introduced, and that it would be more appropriate to include such a right in the human rights bill that will be introduced later in the parliamentary session. I apologise if this is an obvious question, but can a right to food be specified in only one place?

To clarify, does that mean that it would not be possible for the right to food to also be in this bill, or is it just a preference? I am trying to establish whether the issue involves a legal technicality or a political choice.

On the topic of targets, we heard from the Scottish Food Coalition that it would like to see high-level targets in the bill around things such as a living wage, collective bargaining rights for food workers by 2025, and the halving of childhood obesity and food waste by 2030. I appreciate that you have just talked about targets in the bill and said that the national plan will need to set out indicators and measures. Do you agree that targets such as those suggested by the Scottish Food Coalition should be included in those indicators and measures?

May I briefly bring us back to the right to food? The cabinet secretary and James Hamilton said that it would be more effective to have such a right in a human rights bill, as opposed to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. However, at this stage, you cannot confirm that a right to food in the human rights bill will explicitly link to the good food nation plan—I understand that that is just to do with how the legislative process works. Why have you chosen to introduce the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill before you introduce the human rights bill?

What is the Scottish Government’s view of how the precautionary principle could be applied in relation to planning applications for aquaculture and other coastal and marine installations, where knowledge and information are incomplete?

Thank you. I have no further questions.

I understand that the legislation will allow the Government to subsidise fishers. It is important that the subsidies are pinned to delivering public and environmental outcomes. Examples of those outcomes are in the United Nations sustainable development goal 14, which states:

“By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies”.

I feel that Scotland should be leading the way on that issue, but the proposed regulations do not seem to provide for any such conditionality. They provide wide-ranging powers and leave the awarding of subsidy to Scottish ministers’ discretion. In fact, recent rounds of funding have seen money given for new, more powerful engines and bigger nets, without any link back to what that might mean for sustainability. How will the Scottish Government ensure that subsidy that is created using the regulations does not contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, as set out in the UN sustainable development goal 14?

Will you confirm whether the Scottish Government agrees with the principle that subsidies should be linked to public and environmental contributions and improvement?

If those initial regulations—this framework—does not include conditionality, I am not sure how the Parliament and members can have faith that that will come later on. How will the Government use the regulations to incentivise a move towards sustainable forms of fishing? Is there any further detail?

I want to raise a couple of issues and ask whether they could be included in the letter to the Scottish Government.

I understand that it was scallop divers who identified the site originally, which would have been verified later on. However, following that, diving, reel fishing and trawling are all included in the ban from the area. It would be good to get a bit of information on the evidence base for that. I understand that it is based on NatureScot’s advice, which stated that flapper skate eggs are sensitive to a number of activities. The list of activities mentions diver egg collection but it does not mention diving for scallops. I am concerned that there is a difference in sensitivity with regard to different activities but that they have all been categorised in the same way.

I understand that the committee in the previous parliamentary session—the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee—wrote to the minister in March last year, when the first instrument on the extension of the MPA at the site was laid. The letter in response from the minister said that part of the process to consider the need for permanent protection at the site would involve a socioeconomic assessment and public consultation, which do not seem to be happening until later on this year.

I know that it is emergency legislation, but it has been almost a year since the first instrument was passed. There is a question about why more has not been done to gather the necessary evidence in the interim period.