Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

Yes—but I will make one further point, and the member may want to address this as well.

We are exploring how the national marine plan could respond to consultation feedback, including stakeholder requests for marine spatial planning and implications for existing users. That is the vehicle by which a lot of these issues will be addressed.

I have sympathy with the intent behind the amendment, but I point to the fact that any amendment that altered regional requirements without regard for the national framework could actually prove impractical without further legislative reform, and it might be associated with actions that are the opposite of what Maurice Golden is looking for. I am happy to have further conversations with him about it, but, fundamentally, it would not work with the existing law.

I am happy to take a comment from Maurice Golden.

Yes, sure.

When I first saw the amendment, convener, I was immediately supportive of the idea of using products such as the shells that have been mentioned as part of a circular economy. I am very sympathetic to that aim. Ahead of stage 3, I want to have a conversation with you to bottom out the concerns of the stakeholders to whom you have spoken about red tape.

However, I will explain why I cannot support the amendment at this point. Presently, there is a regulatory framework with SEPA that already allows a waste item to be moved out of the waste stream and used for other purposes. Although I sympathise with the amendment’s aims, I do not think that creating a new duty on ministers to make regulations is necessary to achieve the intended outcome.

The amendment would cut across existing regulations on waste, which are currently aligned with EU law in that area. The existing framework already provides a workable route to enable beneficial uses of scallop shells when they are properly treated and used to replace other materials. For example, SEPA has an agreed position on clean pulverised shells being used as an agricultural liming agent. It has also worked with the Galloway Fisheries Trust and others in industry to facilitate the River Bladnoch trial this year to improve water quality for wild salmon. In addition, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, we have powers to provide that certain descriptions of waste are not household, industrial or commercial waste.

Convener, in asking members to support your amendment, you talked about red tape being associated with the process. I need to better understand what the issue is, because we might not have to go down the route of amending the bill. I make the offer that, if you do not press the amendment, my officials and I can have a discussion with you to bottom out the real issues and see whether they can be addressed by working with SEPA rather than by amending any legislation, because my officials and I believe that there are already things in place that should allow for exactly what you want to happen.

Before I speak to each amendment in connection with my portfolio, I will say that consideration has to be given to the level of reporting duties and publication requirements that are being proposed through amendments in this area. Although such duties can have a place, such obligations can divert substantial time and resources away from delivery and the action that we all want to see. There needs to be a clear assessment of whether there are already reporting requirements in place and whether duplication is a possibility.

In diverting capacity from bodies of civil servants who are required to produce reports or other types of ancillary documentation, we must always ask ourselves whether we are making best use of their expertise and effort. I am repeatedly told by members of public bodies and, indeed, MSPs how overstretched they are, so we have a duty to take into account any administrative burden that we might unnecessarily place on them.

It could sign up to something that is decided on at the conference of the parties. Obviously, Scotland does not have a seat, because we are not a nation state at the conference of the parties, so we are reliant on the UK Government to negotiate the situation on our behalf. We are looking for mechanisms in the bill to ensure that the Scottish Government is consulted and included in the discussions at the conference of the parties. When an agreement is made by the conference of the parties, we mean to have consent over its devolved aspects, because we cannot have the implementation of things that we have not signed up to. It is as simple as that, I suppose.

There is another aspect to this, which is about ascertaining the breadth of activities that might happen in this area. The consultation will also give both Governments an understanding of what is taking place beyond national jurisdictions. I have given the convener a few instances of things that we know with regard to marine research and whatever, but, through the consultation, we hope to have a better understanding of who is carrying out what activities, and what the connection is to both the UK and Scotland.

I have to be very careful about what I say, because we are negotiating at the moment, although I understand that the committee might want the detail of what we are negotiating on. Concurrent powers is one area that we are looking at. It is not a case of being able to tell you all the potential areas for compromise; what we want is consent powers. We want consent for Scottish ministers and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament. That is the bedrock of the Sewel convention and the bedrock of devolution. If I were—

Clause 13, which is on emergency directions, has also been negotiated, and it is probably a more straightforward area of negotiation. However, clauses 11 and 13 need to be bottomed out, because we need to make sure that, even in emergency situations, we are aware of what is happening and that we are involved when the secretary of state takes action.

In part 2.