Chamber and committees

We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to consultation. Some of our proposals could be technical in nature, and we could be talking about certain administrative changes, too, and it would not be proportionate to carry out a full statutory public consultation on some of those measures. That is why there is variety with regard to the different instruments that we are using in the bill.

In some areas, we have set out whom specifically we would be intending to consult. For example, in section 10, we have included a duty to consult the keeper of the registers of Scotland and those

“likely to have an interest in”

registration, and, under section 23, we would consult such persons as considered “appropriate”. There is a variety of other instruments in the bill, too.

I want to set out and make it clear to the committee more broadly that we have a general duty to consult. I might have set this out in my letter already, but we have published “Right First Time: A practical guide for public authorities in Scotland to decision-making and the law”, step 2 of which sets out the process that we have to undertake. It also sets out that a decision might be unlawful if failure to consult means that we are not in possession of the information that we need to make a rational decision. Therefore, it could be unlawful for us not to have consulted throughout the process.

As I have said, when we introduce secondary legislation, we will set out in the various impact assessments whom we have engaged with and what the outcome was, as well as look at the various impacts. It is hugely important that we undertake that engagement with stakeholders—after all, it is key to any policy that we bring forward—but I think that our tailored approach, with the variety of instruments that we have introduced, is quite important, too. We need to ensure that our approach is proportionate to each instrument that is introduced.

Again, I am more than happy to consider that. When I have taken other pieces of legislation through the Scottish Parliament, that issue has been part of the discussion that we have had, as has been the appropriate level of consultation for each of the powers. Again, I am more than happy to consider the committee’s views on the instruments that we have set out and what we have set out in relation to consultation. However, I think it important to highlight to you—and to other stakeholders, too—that we have a general duty to consult, whether or not it is specified in the legislation.

Obviously, there is a variety of powers in the bill as introduced. I hope that I have been clear in setting out, in the delegated powers memorandum and in my response to the committee, why we have proposed taking the powers that we have, the extent to which they will apply and the rationale for that.

Some of the powers that we have introduced in the bill mirror other powers that exist in previous pieces of legislation. In some cases, it is a read-across to make sure that we have the same powers in place and that we have the same rules applying, for example, to smallholders as to some other tenancies. It is important that those powers are in the bill.

Some of those powers could have unintended or knock-on consequences elsewhere. I believe that we have drafted the bill in the correct way to have the powers that we seek to have. I am happy to look at any concerns that the committee might have about particular powers having such consequences.

Obviously, there are differences between primary and secondary legislation, but it does not necessarily mean that committees cannot take evidence. Indeed, I have appeared before committees and given evidence on negative instruments, and I know that committees can invite people to give evidence, too. They have those scrutiny powers, and it is important to emphasise those points.

I will provide a further update on that. Once I have confirmed what that is going to look like, I will write to the committee and provide that information.

Yes, absolutely. I brought the regulations for the commission to the committee earlier this year. We announced that we had appointed Dennis Overton as its chair a few weeks ago, in mid-August. That is an important first step in establishing the commission, and we will look to recruit further members.

We want to make sure that the commission is up and running at the same time as we introduce the plan. We think that that timeline makes sense, but I am happy to keep the committee updated as that work progresses.

The point about evidence-based decision making is absolutely right. Such evidence is factoring into the work that we are taking forward on fisheries management plans. I would not disagree with that point, because that is hugely important. We want to base FMPs on the best available evidence, and the stocks that we have focused on initially have been those on which a wider set of information is available.

I absolutely agree. We certainly do not want to wait until the forthcoming TCA before we put across our position on what we expect the agreement to look like. I had a brief initial meeting with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed, in the summer, just after his appointment. The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity and I, together with those from the other devolved Administrations, will be meeting the UK Government on Monday. I hope that that will provide a bit of a reset for relations with the UK Government, which is what we need. We will be able to approach such issues and make known to the UK Government our interests and the areas that we see as important. Fisheries are disproportionately important to Scotland and our wider economy, so we want to ensure that our interests are represented as much as possible.

We have some other expectations for a future TCA. We have set out our position on what a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could look like, because the arrangements could certainly be improved. It sounds as though the UK Government wants to head in that direction, too, so that we can remove some of the barriers to trade with the EU.

We are clear in all our discussions with the UK Government that nothing should be done at the expense of industries that are important to Scotland. It is hugely important that we have a seat at the table and can feed in to discussions. I will certainly be seeking that through my engagement with the UK Government.

Do you mean in relation to the whole TCA more broadly?

I do not know what the timescales are just now. Annabel Turpie has moved to a temporary position because of the various moves that are taking place. Perhaps Iain Wallace has more to say on that.