Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you for going into that.

My next question is about the Marine Scotland budget. It looks as though that has grown by around 45 per cent since last year’s budget. Targets have been missed or pushed back for important policies such as the marine protected areas network, which was due in 2015, and for ensuring good environmental status and ending wasteful practices such as discarding. Has the additional funding that Marine Scotland received in previous budgets been appropriately spent?

Ambitious commitments are definitely important, but the most important thing is that they are actually met and delivered. I hope that we can look forward to that.

My final question is on the marine fund Scotland, which I believe is £14.5 million. Around the world, in the wake of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—the environment and sustainability are increasingly being seen as important, and citizens and campaigners are calling for them to be prioritised. However, funds are being targeted at things such as getting larger trawlers in order to be more energy efficient, or getting more efficient nets, rather than looking at moving away from unsustainable practices such as dredging and trawling.

Will there be conditions attached to the £14.5 million for the marine fund Scotland to ensure that there is a drive to use more sustainable measures in fishing?

My first question relates to fisheries. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the EU has taken action to put an end to the practice of discarding in fisheries. I understand that it is the Scottish Government’s stated position that it wishes to rejoin the EU. Is the Scottish Government committed to a discard ban? If it is, what steps is it taking to introduce such a ban?

My second question is about the management of fisheries. I understand that UK fisheries are currently managed under the UK Fisheries Act 2020 and that the SNP in Westminster opposed that legislation but the Scottish Government in Holyrood gave it legislative consent. Does the Scottish Government intend to introduce its own legislation to govern fisheries in Scotland—for example, a Scottish fisheries bill?