Seòmar agus comataidhean

Your point about scientific research and evidence is an important one, and, of course, we want to ensure that our evidence base is as robust as possible. However, given the nature and size of our marine environment, it is just not possible for us always to undertake every bit of research that we would like. In a previous appearance before the committee, I talked about how we can work with others, be they our academic institutions or the industry, to help us with the various bits and pieces of research that we need to carry out.

As for your reference to blanket restrictions, I do not know whether you are referring to, say, the 3-mile limit, which I know there have been calls for. That is not something that we have been considering, because that kind of blanket approach is not a route that we would like to pursue. We do not think that it would have the impact that some might think, and we do not agree with those sorts of blanket restrictions. That said, we will, of course, continue to undertake the work that we need to do and identify any research gaps that we might have. That process will be very important.

I am happy to come back to you on the specific issue of monitoring. I think that, if we implement a policy, it is important that we find out what the impact of that has been and see whether it is meeting the objectives that we hoped that it would.

I am happy to look at various suggestions that have been made. In relation to aquaculture, when I went to Colonsay, I saw the impact that more direct investment from a company has had. I am happy to continue to have that discussion with the industry.

I cannot give you a definite date at the moment, because various pieces of work are being done in relation to the plan, but I would be happy to keep the committee updated on that work.

Other work is being done in relation to population and depopulation. I cannot remember whether I touched on this during my previous committee appearance, when we were discussing the islands plan. Part of the work is to undertake pilots with the convention of the Highlands and Islands. We are looking at other work that we can take forward, which is continuing in the background. I would be happy to come back with more information on the addressing depopulation action plan.

I am happy to follow up in writing, but I will say that a number of pieces of work have been undertaken. The recent avian flu outbreak has been the biggest we have ever seen. We have lost a third of the world’s Svalbard barnacle goose population, and we have lost more than 7,000 gannets—5,000 from the Bass Rock alone.

Yes. It is horrifying to see what has been going on.

In relation to domestic flocks, work is being carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency to consider changes. For example, we do not ask people to register birds if they have fewer than 50, so that work is considering whether we need to change that. The aim is to learn lessons from what we have been through in relation to domestic flocks.

NatureScot has a task force on wild birds. I will provide the committee with more information on that, because it provides fortnightly updates on the work that it is undertaking.

I give the assurance that we are looking to learn from the situation. It is hard to intervene, especially in relation to wild birds, but we must take whatever action we can—if not to prevent such outbreaks, then at least to manage them as best we can.

I am happy to appear before the committee to discuss the order. As the consequential amendments in the order are not contentious and seek to tidy up existing legislation, I do not intend to address the committee for very long.

The order seeks to amend and repeal primary legislation and to amend and revoke secondary legislation. The changes that the order delivers are consequential to the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 and to provisions in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which I will refer to as the 2006 act. The provisions in the 2006 act were commenced last year by way of a commencement order.

The licensing regulations and the relevant provisions of the 2006 act came into force on 21 September last year. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2022 ensures that existing legislation reflects the recent changes and, where appropriate, substitutes references to now revoked or repealed legislation with references to the licensing regulations.

I highlight that it was not appropriate to bring into force the provisions of the 2006 act that repealed various acts of Parliament until the new Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 were made. When the regulations came into force, we were then able to commence those provisions of the 2006 act in order to repeal the enactments, because they were then superseded by the licensing regulations.

Now that the enactments have been repealed and new provision has been made in the form of the licensing regulations, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2022 will ensure that the statute book is updated accordingly.

I will end my remarks there.

The bill allows the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to consult whomever they deem appropriate in the preparation of their good food nation plans. Amendments 11, 11A, 75 and 80 would amend the bill to make specific provisions about who should be consulted. Our view is that it would never be practical to list in the bill everyone who should be consulted, and the inclusion of a partial list might inadvertently give the impression that those who are listed are of greater importance or should be given greater weight than those who are not listed.

Amendment 4 would require the Scottish ministers to lay a statement alongside the national good food nation plan to detail how we carried out the consultation in an accessible and inclusive manner and to provide the responses that we received. The Scottish Government is always required to conduct consultations with an eye to accessibility and inclusivity and, given the importance of that, I understand why Colin Smyth lodged the amendment.

However, it would be useful to better understand the additional benefits that the member intends the amendment to provide—for example, we often receive significant numbers of consultation responses, which are already published with an analysis of the responses as a matter of course. We do not see a particular additional benefit to laying the consultation responses before Parliament, but I would be happy to work with the member between stages 2 and 3 to better understand the amendment’s aim and see whether we can come to a solution together.

I urge the committee not to support amendments 11, 11A, 75 and 80, and I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 4.

Amendments 13 and 24 would require the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to act in accordance with their respective good food nation plans. The Government’s view is that the current wording of “have regard to” is the appropriate legal duty. Indeed, it is a legal duty that the Parliament has endorsed on numerous occasions elsewhere in the statute book, as I have mentioned in previous comments.

A duty to act in accordance with something would be appropriate for guidance that sets out how a function is to be carried out. In the case of good food nation plans, which would include outcomes and indicators as well as policies, such a duty would not be as effective.

The good food nation plans will be relevant to a wide range of policy areas and functions. A duty to have regard to the plans, which is the wording in the bill as introduced, will ensure that the plans are appropriately and effectively considered in those contexts. The current wording is, as I stated, the appropriate legal duty and a meaningful legal requirement. The duty to have regard to something is an obligation to consider it when making a decision.

I disagree with Rhoda Grant’s use of the word “only” in relation to a relevant authority being required to have regard to the plan and her comment that the duty does not hold any weight. Ultimately, the duty means that Government ministers and public bodies could be challenged in court for failing to have proper regard to the plans. There are many examples in which that has happened. Therefore, stakeholders will be able to hold the Scottish Government to account.

Taking all of that into account, I am of the view that the current wording of “have regard to” is the appropriate legal duty and I urge the committee not to support amendments 13 and 24.

I will first address Rachael Hamilton’s point and the question that she put to Karen Adam. We have covered that wording in previous discussion of other amendments. The words “have regard to” are used specifically because they have a legal effect. I have already outlined that ministers will be held to account for that, and they have been held to account for it previously. There is strength in that wording and it provides the ability to hold the Scottish ministers to account.

I will now address the amendments in the group. The bill, as introduced, confers several powers on the Scottish ministers to make regulations, and it provides that any regulations that are made using those powers will be subject to the negative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. The committee’s stage 1 report requested that the first exercise of the power conferred by section 4 to specify functions for the Scottish ministers, and any exercise of the power conferred by section 7(2)(c) to make a public authority a relevant authority, should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 60 and 68, in the name of Alasdair Allan, provide for that extra scrutiny, as is recommended in the committee’s stage 1 report. Accordingly, I am grateful to Alasdair Allan for lodging the amendments, and I encourage the committee to support them.

The committee’s stage 1 report also recommended that there should be a formal provision for consultation with regard to specifying additional public authorities. I agree that additional scrutiny would be appropriate in this case. Karen Adam’s amendment 59 proposes a requirement for consultation if a new public body is to be added to the list of relevant authorities. I agree with that amendment and ask the committee to support it.

In our view, amendments 59, 60 and 68 add an appropriate level of additional scrutiny of the Scottish ministers’ powers to make regulations under the bill.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendments 62, 63, 66 and 67 would make regulations that are made under sections 7(3)(b) and 10 subject to the affirmative rather than the negative parliamentary procedure. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has indicated that it is content that the negative procedure is appropriate for those powers. For that reason, I urge the committee not to support those amendments.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendments 61 and 65 would make regulations that are made under section 4 subject to the affirmative rather than the negative parliamentary procedure. However, as noted in relation to the other amendments in the group in Beatrice Wishart’s name, the DPLRC was content that regulations under section 4 should be subject to the negative procedure. Alasdair Allan’s amendments 60 and 68 are in response to the approach that was recommended by the committee—namely, that the first set of regulations that are made under section 4 should be considered under the affirmative procedure, with subsequent amendments considered under the negative procedure. I am of the view that Beatrice Wishart’s amendments go further than the approach that was recommended by the DPLRC and this committee. For that reason, I urge the committee not to support amendments 61 and 65.

In summary, I urge the committee to support amendments 59, 60 and 68 and not to support amendments 61 to 63 and 65 to 67.