Chamber and committees

Thank you for that insight. It sounds as if the committee will possibly have a role in scrutinising some of that work.

Continuing in the same vein with questions of ministerial accountability and oversight, I note that, in its submission to the committee, Seafood Scotland said:

“We have been trying for over 20 years to encourage increased consumption of locally produced seafood with little assistance from policy to deliver this despite initiatives such as Health Eating in Schools (2008) and industry funded (short term) programmes of support.”

It was disappointed that there was no accountability with regard to policy initiatives. How will that situation improve with the bill? How will the Parliament have oversight, and how will ministers be accountable for delivering the bill’s objectives?

There were two parts to the question. The first part is about how ARIOB is looking at the relationship between land use and the aim of NPF4. Then there is the question of how the committee can track that. Will we receive an interim report so that we can guarantee that there is transparency over the direction of travel for ARIOB?

It is welcome that the Scottish ministers have the ability to set the criteria for what is a relatively new fund. What relationship does the fund that we are discussing have with the £100 million UK Government’s seafood fund? How will it complement that fund? That fund has tranches on innovation, infrastructure, training and skills. Is there a crossover here, or are you planning to fill the gaps through the stakeholder engagement to which Finlay Carson referred?

What are the duplications?

But, after all, it is public money.

Do you have a view on what role the Scottish Parliament has in scrutiny of the bill?

Mark, do you have any views on that?

To expand on that, how much engagement do you expect to have on that specific question? You want to flesh it out. What expectations do you have of your engagement?

I have a question about strategic land use, which my colleagues will also ask about in a while. It is probably directed to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands. Respondents have noted a lack of clarity on how NPF4 will relate to developing agriculture policy. Will the agriculture reform implementation oversight board be informed by NPF4 in its development of agriculture policy? Will the committee receive an interim report on progress to ensure transparency and coherence regarding the relationship between NPF4 and agriculture policy?

The instrument enables the Scottish ministers to specify the procedure for making an application for a grant or loan under the scheme. With the previous funding, you were unable to make decisions on assisting the fishing industry with aid directed at statutory costs of a business but you were able to support non-statutory investments. Does the instrument change the ability of the Scottish ministers to do that? I will give you two examples. Assistance may be given for

“improving the arrangements for the use of catch quotas or effort quotas”

and

“contributing to the expenses of persons involved in commercial fish or aquaculture activities”.

To my mind, those are defined as statutory costs. Would the instrument change your ability to make decisions on those aspects?