Item 2 is the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Justice; Eamon Murphy and Gill Wylie, from the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department; and Alastair Smith, from Scottish Executive Legal And Parliamentary Services.
Thank you, convener. Ross Finnie has asked me to explain to the committee the background to the amendment on regulating order enforcement powers. The final summary of the consultation responses has been circulated to committee members. I am happy to answer as best I can any questions on the summary or the consultation process.
In cases in which a grantee wants to undertake enforcement, how will that be funded? Will the funding come directly from the Executive?
We have made available some additional funds, but the grantee could still be responsible for the employment of the people identified.
That is correct. In addition, in some cases—the Solway is a good example—the fishery will be so lucrative that it will be possible to generate enough income from it to pay for enforcement. In such circumstances, there will be very little reliance on SFPA resources.
Is that the result of a system of imposing a levy on landings?
Yes. There is more than one way in which income can be generated. As well as the levy that is imposed on landings and on the use of cockle bags, a hand gatherer must pay a licence fee of £300 per annum and the owner of a vessel or a tractor must pay a fee of £10,000 per annum. As one can imagine, that will generate quite a large income.
I will ask a question that people who are involved in fishing have put to me. If we increase some of the costs, will that not lead to people seeking to minimise their costs by adopting a black fishery approach?
We would not expect that to happen because such operations are beyond the pale. Any operator who sought to abandon their legal status and to become an illegal operator would be taking a substantial risk. If our proposed amendment is accepted, there will be greater enforcement powers, which we think will allow us to be more effective in preventing illegal operations. As I have suggested, gaps exist in the current provisions; those gaps are being exploited by unscrupulous individuals and organisations. The amendment is therefore in everyone's best interests. There are substantial amounts of money to be made and it is reasonable that those who gain should make a contribution.
We have the usual excellent briefing from SPICe—which is just as well, because there are not many fisheries in Glasgow Anniesland. The briefing says that the SFPA would be able
As legislation stands, the SFPA does not have the power to carry out its duties in a regulating order area. We have to try to fix that. In all sorts of cases, the grantee is unable to enforce a regulating order, and the role will fall to the SFPA—which is as it should be. However, the intention of the original legislation was to allow the grantee to enforce regulating orders, although it did not say how, where or when. We felt that we should abide by the original intention and allow that to happen in cases in which the grantee was inclined to enforce regulating orders itself. There is therefore a two-pronged approach.
If the grantee is unable to enforce regulating orders, it calls in the SFPA. Is that the procedure?
Yes—under a memorandum of understanding between the two.
How exactly will the grantee enforce regulating orders? Will the grantee be required to appoint a bailiff—for want of a better word? Will there be one named individual?
Grantees could employ a number of individuals, who could even work for the SFPA. I will ask Eamon Murphy to clarify that.
Different options are available. The grantee could employ people itself, but it is much more likely that we would seek a kind of secondment arrangement, or an arrangement whereby the people are appointed and, crucially, trained and given the necessary background by the SFPA, and then either seconded or transferred. Some employment arrangement would be put in place so that people work for the grantee but have the benefit of an SFPA background.
So you envisage that the enforcement officer would be someone from outwith the group of local fishermen.
Yes, but they could have had a fishing background before moving into this type of employment. In some instances, a fishing background would be very useful. However, the people would become proper enforcement officers and would have the right training, background and knowledge to allow them to do the job properly.
Enforcement officers' powers would be considerable—powers to gain access to land and vehicles, powers to seize documents, powers to inspect catches, etc. Would it not be more straightforward for it automatically to fall to SFPA staff to do that work? If there is a different way of raising revenue from the catch, that could just go into the SFPA budget.
One solution would be simply to increase staff complements and to levy charges. However, this is all about developing partnerships; it is about the SFPA working alongside local agencies. We must remember that the grantees have a management function: they have an interest in ensuring that the area is properly managed and, in a sense, they are best placed to know the local issues and to carry out local scrutiny.
The powers are wide, but it is a fact of life that they need to be wide to allow effective enforcement. They are based on the powers that are currently applied throughout the country by the SFPA. All sorts of things can be done under the powers, but a mechanism will be in place to ensure that they are applied properly and by the right people so that there are no problems with people being accused of going beyond the duties and functions that they have.
I appreciate that. Your point about the powers makes sense, but I note that you propose that officers may
The appointments will be made by the SFPA on behalf of ministers and it will be for ministers to decide what the best structures are. I am sure that Ross Finnie will reflect on the point that Jeremy Purvis makes.
You said that one member of the SSMA is seconded from the SFPA and that the other is an ex-employee. That does not sound like much of a defence of the proposed way of doing things, given that that will not necessarily be the case in the future.
No, it will not. Positions will be held by those people who are thought to be the most capable of doing the job. At present, it happens that one member of the SSMA has a background in the SFPA and the other is seconded from it, but they could be people with different backgrounds if that was thought to be appropriate.
Does that not reinforce the point that Jeremy Purvis made? For members of the public and those involved, dealing with the SFPA is straightforward. You used that as evidence when you said that the current members of the SSMA will be good because they came from the SFPA. That is perfectly sensible, but the situation might change and future members could have different backgrounds, so it does not seem to be a good argument for supporting the amendment.
As I said, I am sure that Ross Finnie will reflect on the point that Jeremy Purvis made. Ultimately, however, the SFPA will be a conduit for a decision made by ministers. The key point is that the responsibility lies with ministers and not with the SFPA. In that sense, the structures are neither here nor there. The important thing is the way in which ministers exercise their responsibility, but if there is something for Ross Finnie to reflect on, I am sure that he will do that.
I note that Ross Finnie has written to the Environment and Rural Development Committee on the matter and, no doubt, it will discuss the matter. Through the clerks, we should perhaps liaise with that committee to find out whether any other technical points arise.
The Environment and Rural Development Committee will discuss the regulations tomorrow.
I bow to your knowledge, given that you are a member of that committee.
Indeed.
If we liaise with the committee formally rather than having you as a spy, that will be a better approach.
Indeed. I just wanted to warn you that that liaison will have to take place soon.
On Maureen Macmillan's advice, our clerks might want to speak to speak to the clerks to the Environment and Rural Development Committee tomorrow.