That gets us very quickly to the heart of the issue around environmental principles in the bill. If you will forgive me, convener, I will just tease this out a bit. I have written to the committee in response to its question, but it is important that we are sure that we know what we are talking about, particularly because we will consider later today proposed amendments to the bill—one from Mr Ruskell, one from Claudia Beamish and, I think, some from Tavish Scott. There are therefore proposed amendments to the bill to deal with the issues that we are discussing.
We should try to put to one side the issue of animal sentience, not because I do not believe that it is necessary but because it is well covered in Scots law. Indeed, the first legislation on it was in 1912 with the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, which was passed when Asquith was Prime Minister and McKinnon Wood was the Secretary of State for Scotland. That legislation prevented actions to
“infuriate, or terrify any animal ...or cause any unnecessary suffering”.
Animal sentience is understood and is not in question here at all. There has continued to be legislation on that issue, including legislation in 2006. That legislation exists. Keen as I am on European matters, I know that not every principle derives from European law. There are principles that exist in the law in Scotland.
The question is what the bill will do and what other things need to be done to protect environmental principles. It is important that we look at that carefully. The bill will take into our law regulations and laws that have come from Europe over the past 46 years, which we have been a part of making. Those laws and regulations will come into our law. Any law or regulation that respects or is based on the general principles or the guiding principles—it is important to recognise those two things; there are general principles that allow action by individuals and guiding principles that have led to the creation of the law and which underpin it—will automatically continue to apply, because it will have been taken back into our law. The bill says that that will all be there and be ours and will continue to affect us. Therefore, if we are moderately content with the situation presently—things can always be improved—we should be moderately content with the situation that will exist after Brexit day. That is presuming that Brexit happens; I make that point, because I still do not think that Brexit is an inevitability—we should always make that point.
What will happen beyond that date? There are three issues to address, the first of which is what the bill can do about that. The answer to that is nothing. The bill is not about changing policy after exit date; it is about ensuring that what we have now will continue to be part of what we will go forward with.
We could look at what will happen in two different ways, both of which are useful to us. The first way is to say that the keeping-pace power in section 13 of the bill, which has been subject to a great deal of discussion and many amendments—I will speak to amendments later today to ensure that the scrutiny of that is stepped up and the way in which it operates is sharper; I believe that those amendments are useful and informative and will help to make the bill better—is important. The keeping-pace power in itself will allow us to continue to do things that are underpinned by the guiding principles and observe the general principles.
An example of where the keeping-pace powers become useful to us is in aquaculture—I know that that is not the committee’s direct responsibility. The list of fish diseases that require action by the Scottish Government will change; it changes from time to time as new diseases are identified or become prevalent. Those are automatic changes within European legislation. Unless we have a keeping-pace power, we would have to go through a lot of primary hoops in order to put changes in place. The keeping-pace power allows us to do that, and that guides where we are.
The final question is whether there is more that we could do. I entirely agree with the view on that of the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham. She wrote to the committee on 31 January. In section 2 of her letter, she talked about on-going consideration of how best to achieve the aim of ensuring that we meet not just the letter of environmental law but its spirit—that is precisely the point that has been made.
Are there things that we should still do in the bill to allow that to happen? It is quite clear that we cannot change or improve European law. We could keep pace with European law, but we should also consider whether other legislative routes will arise over the next year and a half to two years that we could use prior to Brexit to do things. We should now discuss and consult on that. As we move from stage 2 to stage 3 of the bill, I will consider whether we can make a commitment in legislation to ensure that that matter is considered in terms of future legislation.
I am sorry for the lengthy explanation, but it is a very detailed area. I entirely concur with the view that we want to ensure that we are doing those things. This is not the bill in which we should do them. There are things in the bill that will allow them to happen and go on happening. We should recognise those and, as legislation and regulation develop in this field, we should look for ways to ensure that they are consulted on and made more firm. That is where I think that we should be.