Seòmar agus comataidhean

Active shark finning has been banned in the UK since 2003, and we have a “fins naturally attached” policy in relation to that. Throughout that time, the personal import of shark fins has still been permitted. There has a been a 20kg allowance in relation to imports, and that is what the bill will draw to an end. We do not think that there has been a tremendous amount of trade in that time. As far as I am aware, since 2017, across the UK there has been much movement, but it is important that the loophole is closed, which is exactly what the bill seeks to do.

On your second point, there are some exemptions in the bill, but they apply only in cases when the act of importing a product that contains shark fins or a shark fin is for the benefit of conservation of the species. That is the only case in which such products would be permitted to enter the country.

I would have to look into that in more detail, but that will be covered by the import ban. I could not give you an idea of the scale of that trade. Again, my officials might have further information on the specifics of that question.

That is why the import ban covers shark fins and things containing shark fins.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak about the Shark Fins Bill and the associated legislative consent motion. Shark finning is the practice of removing fins from a shark at sea and returning the finless body to the water. The Shark Fins Bill is intended to ban the import and export of shark fins that have been obtained using that cruel practice.

It is a private member’s bill that was introduced by Christina Rees MP in June 2022. The bill passed the committee stage in the House of Commons on 16 November with broad cross-party support, and I understand that it passed its third reading in the United Kingdom Parliament last week and is now due to be considered by the House of Lords.

It is right that we maintain the ban on shark finning practices in Scottish waters and ban the import and export of detached shark fins or things containing them.

I was pleased that we were able to secure an amendment to ensure that appeals against certain decisions of the Scottish ministers relating to exemption certificates and final penalty notices are to be made to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland rather than the UK-wide First-tier Tribunal, which deals with reserved matters. The amendment reflects that those matters fall within devolved competence. I understand that there has been constructive working between my officials and officials in the other fisheries Administrations throughout the bill process, which is on-going, to ensure that there is that co-ordination on the implementation and ultimately the enforcement of the bill.

I am really pleased to recommend supporting the bill, as it aligns with key Scottish Government priorities, including reversing biodiversity loss and enhancing marine environmental protection. The bill also reaffirms Scotland’s firm commitment to animal welfare and ensures that we speak with greater credibility when we are advocating for shark conservation on the global stage. That is why I have recommended the legislative consent motion on the bill.

You are absolutely right. That was one of the things that shocked me when I looked at the information on the issue. The practice has been banned in the UK since 2003, and it does not generally take place here. There are other figures. For example, I think that 73 million sharks are needed to provide every 1 million to 2 million tonnes of shark fins that are traded. It is a cruel and horrendous practice, and the bill is an important step forward in trying to put an end to the trade and in discouraging the practice.

As I said, the discussions are on-going. We are looking at retained EU law with the UK Government in relation to what will be preserved. I cannot give a definitive response to that question now, but we will, of course, consider that issue.

The costs of the bill relate mainly to any additional powers that we would ask for in relation to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. It is not possible for us to quantify that cost at the moment without knowing how many potential cases might come forward. Additional training would also be needed. As I said in a previous response, as far as we are aware, there has been no trade since 2017, but, without knowing how many cases could come up, it is hard to put an exact figure on that.

I ask my officials whether they have anything to add in relation to that cost.

That has been one of the interesting issues during this process and in the discussions on the bill. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs analysis estimates that the impact on business would be in the region of £200,000. One positive thing about the bill is that it not only covers shark fins but prohibits the import of products that contain shark fins, such as tinned shark fin soup. It encompasses those products.

When you look at what we are doing in relation to agricultural transformation, you will see an increase in this year’s budget in comparison to last year’s. When you look at the overall climate change-related spend and what we are investing over this year, you will see that it is up £90 million on what we invested over the previous year. That covers the investment between our sustainable agricultural capital grant scheme and the agri-environment climate scheme.

I absolutely agree with you. We want to make it as easy as possible for people to take part and to be part of that transformation.

You touched on—other members might want to come in on this—carbon audits and the low uptake. We are really disappointed by the low uptake of the scheme so far, but that is why the work that we have been undertaking with the agriculture reform implementation oversight board—ARIOB—has been important in helping us to design schemes that are easy to access and offer the right incentives. I believe that we have provided that through the scheme, even though the uptake through it has not been what we would want to see.

This is the first year of the scheme’s operation. The committee might have suggestions as to how we can better communicate things. We have done our best to work with the various organisations and stakeholders to get the message out as far as possible to explain what help and support is available. I am happy to take any suggestions on how that could be improved.

Ultimately, the co-development and co-design process that we are working through for future policy is to help us get over some of the hurdles. We do not want to put up barriers and we do not want to make the transformation and some of the changes that we need to see difficult for our farmers and crofters. We want to make it as easy as possible, and that is what we are trying to do through the schemes.