Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I can understand why you are putting that question to me, but we have not been a signatory to the BBNJ agreement as a nation state—

Yes, I can. Clauses 2 to 10 impose obligations relating to the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources. I am sorry for using acronyms, which I always said that I would not do. I usually like to give the full names for things. These clauses impact on devolved matters through the level of impact of the provisions on Scottish actors. We think that the impact will be limited, but the bill provides an exemption of the provisions for fishing and fishing-related activities. Only a small number of organisations are involved in collecting and utilising marine genetic resources. However, part 2 raises questions about the impacts on devolved matters and the role of devolved institutions.

As I said, the clauses are still subject to on-going negotiation with the UK Government in order to bottom that out. As we explore the protections with the UK Government, we need first to ensure that we have consent associated with any devolved areas, but we are hopeful that we can then conclude the negotiations.

That is, in effect, a summary of what is in part 2 and why it is important that we have consent.

Yes—subject to negotiations. As it stands, we cannot support those provisions, and we need to ensure that the negotiations put mechanisms in there that give the Scottish Parliament oversight and respect devolved competence.

Yes. It is about awareness and consent.

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.