Chamber and committees

We have set out that we believe that we have the capacity and the resources to deal with that. Any expected or anticipated costs have been set out in the information in the BRIA, but of course we would continue to keep those under review.

Absolutely. It would be beneficial on all those fronts. I also mentioned the spatial element. We know that the data that we collect will be partly personal or commercially sensitive data, which we have to be very careful with. However, we would aim to aggregate and anonymise it and potentially make it publicly available, as it would be useful information for people in many areas to have.

You raise an important point. First, I highlight that any matter in relation to the level of penalty that is imposed is for the sheriff or the court to decide in each case. It is up to them to determine that, and we would not, and should not, have any locus in that regard.

We had a commitment previously to look at the overall enforcement penalty regime. We still intend to undertake that work, but we have a number of on-going pieces of priority work and other important matters that we need to consider in place of that. We are not intending to do that immediately, therefore, but it is still an important piece of work that we will be doing in future.

Absolutely. As I outlined earlier, we recognise that—as the committee will know from the evidence that you have heard and received in relation to the matter—stakeholders across the piece have an interest in looking at the spatial data in particular. That is why, as I said earlier, we have to be careful about how we use the data. With regard to the privacy elements, we have worked with the Information Commissioner to ensure that we are adhering to all our obligations in how we handle and process data. If we can aggregate and anonymise that data, we would then be in a position in which we could seek to make the information publicly available, which I think would help in relation to all the issues that you have outlined.

Yes. We do not want our Scottish vessels to be at a disadvantage compared with anyone else, so the draft regulations are really important in ensuring that they are not disadvantaged and that we have that level playing field.

The standard data transmission and retention duties are outlined in the legislation that we have introduced. I am happy to share the data protection impact assessment that we undertook. There will be a living document, which we will have to update, but I feel that we have set out the information, and more of the detail will be provided in the guidance and the privacy notices.

Thank you for inviting me to the committee to speak to the regulations.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 establishes a Scottish food commission, and, as we work towards that goal, one of the first tasks will be to appoint the commission’s members. The schedule to the act stipulates that the appointments of members to the commission

“are to be made in accordance with regulations made by Scottish ministers.”

This instrument provides the necessary framework for the appointment of those members.

The purpose of the instrument is twofold and relates directly to the appointment process for members. It aims to

“provide that the Scottish ministers must have regard to the desirability of ... a member who is representative of interests of the food business sector and food-related third sector bodies”

and to

“provide that the Scottish ministers must have regard to the desirability of ... a member who has experience or expertise of food-related issues in relation to”

a range of “relevant matters.”

Those requirements provide an important context and refer back to the aims of the 2022 act. They will provide a meaningful and relevant framework for Scottish ministers when making appointments, but they will do so without being overly restrictive or limiting with regard to the potential pool of candidates, and they will ensure that a degree of flexibility is maintained in the process.

The instrument also ensures that, due to their flexibility, the regulations are future proofed in respect of the changing needs of the body throughout its existence.

I am happy to take questions and to hear any comments that committee members might have. Thank you.

In my previous responses, I have set out the commission’s role, which is also set out in the legislation, and I have also set out the timescales and why various sections of the act will be commenced at relevant times. That is to ensure that the commission is in place to enable us to take forward the work in the plan and to help us to review and monitor its progress.

I am sorry, but I am not entirely aware of the reference to the “board” that you have mentioned. Lisa Nowak or James Hamilton might have more information on that.

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the motion that is before the committee. The order was laid on Thursday 11 January. I note that, since then, letters have been exchanged between the committee and the then Minister for Energy and the Environment, Gillian Martin, on some follow-up questions.

As with the previous order, this order seeks to maximise protection of spawning cod and the habitats in which they are likely to spawn by prohibiting all fishing activity in two specific areas of the Firth of Clyde during the spawning season. Disturbance is a key feature, and that is why previous exemptions were removed in the 2022 order, which has helped to deliver the maximum protection possible.

I acknowledge that the closures have a short-term impact on some local fishers. However, the action is necessary to allow the stock to replenish, which, ultimately, will be beneficial for fishing interests. It is a complex issue, and I appreciate that it has elicited strong feelings in the local area. That is why, following a consultation last year and in the lead-up to the closure, my officials have been working with local fishers.

In addition, on 31 January, the then Minister for Energy and the Environment met the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. At the meeting, the Government’s commitment to work in partnership with the CFA and to undertake additional research during the closure period was underlined.

Revising the closure areas is a pragmatic and evidence-based solution that reflects our commitment to protecting spawning cod while minimising socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities. Ultimately, we have a duty to balance environmental and economic issues.

I am happy to take any questions that committee members might have.

Yes, I am happy to give some initial comments, and perhaps Coby Needle will come in on the back of them.

The order is based on the same evidence, because it is the best scientific evidence that is available to us on which to base the decision.

It has been a couple of years since I last came to the committee in relation to the order. Monitoring work has taken place during that time, and the results of that were set out in information to the committee from the minister, Gillian Martin. Very few spawning cod were found during the monitoring work as a result of the closure, which could suggest a couple of different things, one of which is that the closure is in the right place.

However, to return to the initial point, I note that we are basing the order on the best scientific evidence that is available to us, which is why the work still stands.