Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

Yes. That is the issue: what could happen in the future and how might that have an impact? You have raised a good point. I will bring in Joanna Dingwall.

We are trying to negotiate. As I said, we want to be able to tell the committee that we have been successful in our negotiations and that we have come to conclusions with which we are satisfied, in the same way that we were with the amendment to clause 18 that was tabled at the House of Lords bill committee yesterday. We are happy with that amendment, which related to environmental impact assessment obligations. It can be done, therefore, and we are hopeful that it will be done.

Yes.

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.