Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I suppose that the provision of area-based management tools, such as MPAs, would be a component of that. That is why it is so important that we have consent.

I do not know whether I can answer the question about HPMAs, but, as Douglas Lumsden has pointed out, fisheries management tools are the domain of the Scottish Government and it is for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise what is happening in that area. I do not think that that potential scenario is likely to happen.

In effect, marine protection is a power that sits with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, so we would not want to see a UK Government minister having powers over marine protection.

That is why it is important that the Scottish Government has a presence at any conference of the parties, wherever that might be. Before the UK Government goes to negotiate at a COP—at COP30 last month, for example—it will give us an indication of how it is negotiating. When you are at COP, the hope is that you are at least able to find out from officials on the UK ministerial team how the negotiations are going.

It is not very official and not very concrete, unfortunately. We do not have a particular constitutional role in the UK negotiations. However, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh and Scottish Governments usually attend the conference of the parties, and we all have meetings with the UK Government ahead of attendance. I would prefer it if those discussions with the UK Government were formalised.

As it stands, the UK Government makes decisions as to what it can sign up to on behalf of the whole UK. I would like the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive to be more involved in those agreements but, as it stands, they are not. How much the devolved nations are included also depends on the flavour of the UK Government. Ahead of COP30 in Brazil, we had a certain amount of sight on the UK’s negotiations, and we expect that respect between the devolved Governments and the UK Government to continue.

The fundamental problem with the BBNJ bill is that, when it was put together, there was a complicated mix. We heard about rocket launches, carbon capture and storage and all sorts of things that may or may not happen in those areas beyond jurisdiction. It is a complicated mix of devolved and reserved impacts. That is why it is important that, as we agree to the BBNJ bill and there is legislative consent, we are absolutely satisfied as a Parliament and as a Government that we will not have situations in which future secretaries of state could make decisions on what happens in the areas that affect devolved competence.

I suppose that the provision of area-based management tools, such as MPAs, would be a component of that. That is why it is so important that we have consent.

I do not know whether I can answer the question about HPMAs, but, as Douglas Lumsden has pointed out, fisheries management tools are the domain of the Scottish Government and it is for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise what is happening in that area. I do not think that that potential scenario is likely to happen.

In effect, marine protection is a power that sits with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, so we would not want to see a UK Government minister having powers over marine protection.

That is why it is important that the Scottish Government has a presence at any conference of the parties, wherever that might be. Before the UK Government goes to negotiate at a COP—at COP30 last month, for example—it will give us an indication of how it is negotiating. When you are at COP, the hope is that you are at least able to find out from officials on the UK ministerial team how the negotiations are going.

It is not very official and not very concrete, unfortunately. We do not have a particular constitutional role in the UK negotiations. However, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh and Scottish Governments usually attend the conference of the parties, and we all have meetings with the UK Government ahead of attendance. I would prefer it if those discussions with the UK Government were formalised.

As it stands, the UK Government makes decisions as to what it can sign up to on behalf of the whole UK. I would like the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive to be more involved in those agreements but, as it stands, they are not. How much the devolved nations are included also depends on the flavour of the UK Government. Ahead of COP30 in Brazil, we had a certain amount of sight on the UK’s negotiations, and we expect that respect between the devolved Governments and the UK Government to continue.

The fundamental problem with the BBNJ bill is that, when it was put together, there was a complicated mix. We heard about rocket launches, carbon capture and storage and all sorts of things that may or may not happen in those areas beyond jurisdiction. It is a complicated mix of devolved and reserved impacts. That is why it is important that, as we agree to the BBNJ bill and there is legislative consent, we are absolutely satisfied as a Parliament and as a Government that we will not have situations in which future secretaries of state could make decisions on what happens in the areas that affect devolved competence.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Biodiversity Beyond Natural Jurisdiction Bill and legislative consent in relation to it. As you have just said, the bill will implement the BBNJ agreement, which is a significant United Nations landmark agreement to protect biodiversity. We support the aims and we are keen to ensure that, with the Parliament’s consent, the UK can ratify the agreement in time for it to take place at the first conference of the parties.

However, our support for the UK bill as introduced is, unfortunately, not straightforward, due to two significant challenges. First, it spans a complex mix of devolved and reserved competences covering a wide range of policy areas, which was not reflected in its initial drafting.

Secondly, the timeline has, from the off, been incredibly difficult. We were not afforded sufficient time prior to introduction to engage with the devolved aspects, which meant that, although we managed to secure rapid amendment to certain clauses for introduction, the remainder have had to be analysed and negotiated in parallel with the bill’s passage. Consequently, I have lodged an initial LCM for some clauses, but have reserved our position on the rest.

I must put on record my deep disappointment and frustration that the timeline has been so tight, and that I have not been able to provide a full LCM to the committee. The Scottish parliamentary scrutiny process—our democratic devolved legislative process—should not, I believe, be rushed, and I have highlighted my concerns in that respect to the UK Government. I had a meeting last week with the lead UK minister, Seema Malhotra, and prior to that I set out all our concerns in a letter.

I can speak to the initial LCM that has been lodged and the amendments to clause 18 that were tabled in the House of Lords yesterday, and where we are still engaged in intensive negotiation, I can speak to our general approach to robustly protecting devolution, despite the challenges presented by the timeline.

Negotiations are still on-going, and we want to keep the committee informed of their outcome as quickly as possible. You have my word that we will do so.

The sorts of activities that will be impacted are in the marine protection and marine research areas, including sea fisheries management, marine licensing and the implementation of international agreements with regard to Scotland. I cannot foresee where things might come into conflict, but it brings us back to the point that you have just made, convener. The bill covers issues of devolved competence in which the Secretary of State for Scotland would be the sole actor. That would go over the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and they would not be able to scrutinise the secretary of state’s decisions in those areas.

This is a fundamental issue that we have seen with other LCMs in the past—and believe me, I completely share your frustration about the timeline, convener. We have not been able to do our analysis as fast as that, and we need to be sure what we are signing up to. Moreover, as everyone in this place knows, we must ensure that the Sewel convention is adhered to.

Therefore, I cannot give you a list, as such, of all the potential issues—I think that you used the word “conflicts”, convener—that might arise, because I cannot foresee what might happen. However, the fundamental point is that we cannot have a situation in which a UK minister is making all the decisions on what is a devolved competence without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.