Chamber and committees

That is why the import ban covers shark fins and things containing shark fins.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak about the Shark Fins Bill and the associated legislative consent motion. Shark finning is the practice of removing fins from a shark at sea and returning the finless body to the water. The Shark Fins Bill is intended to ban the import and export of shark fins that have been obtained using that cruel practice.

It is a private member’s bill that was introduced by Christina Rees MP in June 2022. The bill passed the committee stage in the House of Commons on 16 November with broad cross-party support, and I understand that it passed its third reading in the United Kingdom Parliament last week and is now due to be considered by the House of Lords.

It is right that we maintain the ban on shark finning practices in Scottish waters and ban the import and export of detached shark fins or things containing them.

I was pleased that we were able to secure an amendment to ensure that appeals against certain decisions of the Scottish ministers relating to exemption certificates and final penalty notices are to be made to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland rather than the UK-wide First-tier Tribunal, which deals with reserved matters. The amendment reflects that those matters fall within devolved competence. I understand that there has been constructive working between my officials and officials in the other fisheries Administrations throughout the bill process, which is on-going, to ensure that there is that co-ordination on the implementation and ultimately the enforcement of the bill.

I am really pleased to recommend supporting the bill, as it aligns with key Scottish Government priorities, including reversing biodiversity loss and enhancing marine environmental protection. The bill also reaffirms Scotland’s firm commitment to animal welfare and ensures that we speak with greater credibility when we are advocating for shark conservation on the global stage. That is why I have recommended the legislative consent motion on the bill.

You are absolutely right. That was one of the things that shocked me when I looked at the information on the issue. The practice has been banned in the UK since 2003, and it does not generally take place here. There are other figures. For example, I think that 73 million sharks are needed to provide every 1 million to 2 million tonnes of shark fins that are traded. It is a cruel and horrendous practice, and the bill is an important step forward in trying to put an end to the trade and in discouraging the practice.

As I said, the discussions are on-going. We are looking at retained EU law with the UK Government in relation to what will be preserved. I cannot give a definitive response to that question now, but we will, of course, consider that issue.

The costs of the bill relate mainly to any additional powers that we would ask for in relation to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. It is not possible for us to quantify that cost at the moment without knowing how many potential cases might come forward. Additional training would also be needed. As I said in a previous response, as far as we are aware, there has been no trade since 2017, but, without knowing how many cases could come up, it is hard to put an exact figure on that.

I ask my officials whether they have anything to add in relation to that cost.

That has been one of the interesting issues during this process and in the discussions on the bill. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs analysis estimates that the impact on business would be in the region of £200,000. One positive thing about the bill is that it not only covers shark fins but prohibits the import of products that contain shark fins, such as tinned shark fin soup. It encompasses those products.

Discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on retained EU law are on-going. We had a meeting with the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations at the start of the week. Retained EU law is an on-going issue, and we continue to have those discussions to see what the impacts will be. I have not raised the member’s specific point, which relates to the Shark Fins Bill. As I said, it is an on-going process.

Active shark finning has been banned in the UK since 2003, and we have a “fins naturally attached” policy in relation to that. Throughout that time, the personal import of shark fins has still been permitted. There has a been a 20kg allowance in relation to imports, and that is what the bill will draw to an end. We do not think that there has been a tremendous amount of trade in that time. As far as I am aware, since 2017, across the UK there has been much movement, but it is important that the loophole is closed, which is exactly what the bill seeks to do.

On your second point, there are some exemptions in the bill, but they apply only in cases when the act of importing a product that contains shark fins or a shark fin is for the benefit of conservation of the species. That is the only case in which such products would be permitted to enter the country.

Absolutely. As I have said, we are trying to provide as much clarity, certainty and stability as possible, recognising the turbulence and challenges that businesses are facing. We know that those pressures are acute in our agriculture sector, for all the reasons that we have talked about. We have brought forward payments—we have made them at their earliest-ever stage—to help with cash flow, which we know has been an issue. We will continue to provide that stability over the coming financial year.

I have talked about the funding that we have already paid out through the basic payment scheme for greening. More than £424 million has been allocated towards that. The £65.5 million that we are getting out the door in LFASS payments has also been mentioned.

Let us look at the coming financial year and the budgets that we have in place. You touched on crofting. It is really important to mention some of the schemes that we continue to fund and look at. Our cash injections will help those communities. We have the croft house grant scheme and the crofting agricultural grant scheme. We have also provided extra funding to the Crofting Commission to deal with some of the particular crofting issues that we are aware of.

That is how we intend to provide support, and as much stability and clarity as we can, at a really challenging time.

I absolutely agree. To be honest, if I could put a lot more into that capital scheme, I would. However, I have outlined in my previous responses the challenges with regard to our capital budget. We have not seen the replacement funding come through, which has made things particularly challenging.

The first round of the sustainable agricultural capital grant scheme was very popular. However, as we received reduced capital allocations, we had to target that scheme where we thought that we would have the most effect, which is why we focused it on those elements, in particular, and why we are looking to fund those pieces of equipment that we know will have the biggest impact.

Of course, I would always welcome more funding and a bigger capital allocation, because we would then be able to do more. As it stands, with the budget that I have, and in relation to capital, we have to use and target that in the best way that we can.