Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome our second panel of witnesses, with whom we will discuss the role of the Scottish public agencies on nature and the environment. They are Terry A’Hearn, chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; Grant Moir, chief executive officer of the Cairngorms National Park Authority; Graham Neville, the area manager for northern isles and north Highland at NatureScot; David Signorini, the chief executive of Scottish Forestry; and Andy Wells, investment and sales programme director at Crown Estate Scotland.

I invite each of the witnesses to make a brief opening statement.

On the topic of enforcement, it has been suggested that SEPA has gone a bit soft and that it has lost its teeth. I am thinking, for example, of the flaring at Grangemouth. I know that there is an argument for taking a carrot-and-stick approach, but when we hear that leakages of sewage from Scotland’s water system have risen by 40 per cent, I have to wonder whether you have lost your stick and whether there is too much working with companies and not enough enforcement. Is that a valid claim that could be laid at your door, Terry?

Thank you. I ask Grant Moir to answer those questions.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of two notifications from the Scottish ministers for consent to two UK statutory instruments. I refer members to papers 3 and 4 and to page 17 onwards in our pack of papers.

Under the protocol between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, the consent notifications have been categorised as type 1, which means that the Scottish Parliament’s agreement is sought before the Scottish Government gives consent to the UK Government making secondary legislation in areas of devolved competence.

Do members have any comments on the consent notification for the Sea Fisheries (Amendment etc) (No 2) Regulations 2021?

With regard to the Wine (Amendment) Regulations 2021, I wrote to the cabinet secretary, asking for an amended notification, as I felt that the level of information that we received was not sufficient to inform the committee’s considerations. A response was received yesterday and members have been sent a supplementary paper. I am now content that the information that the Scottish Government has provided is sufficient to inform parliamentary scrutiny.

As members have no comments to make, is the committee content for the provisions set out in the notification to be included in the proposed UK SI?

Members indicated agreement.

In the letter that I received from the cabinet secretary, she apologises for not providing the full 28 days for parliamentary scrutiny and says that the reason was confusion at official level about whether the SI met the criteria for a type 2 notification. I intend to write to the Scottish Government to ask for some form of guarantee that such confusion will not happen again and that the committee will not be left with so little time to scrutinise any future instruments properly.

Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a letter to the Scottish Government to inform it of our decisions today?

Members indicated agreement.

We move on to questions from Ariane Burgess on the national planning framework 4.

Yes.

Last, but not least, I invite Danny Renton to speak.

You made a suggestion about baselining information. It is a very general and broad statement to suggest that dredging has been solely responsible for destroying our inshore nurseries. That is why baseline information is so important in informing our decisions.

Shetland has done a huge amount to address the crowded sea argument and to remove unnecessary conflict. There are other areas of Scotland, such as the Solway Firth, where fixed and mobile gear fisheries work well together. Rachel Shucksmith, do you believe that we need legislation and additional funding to ensure that we have such successful partnerships across Scotland?