Chamber and committees

Some of the witnesses at last week’s meeting argued that it is incoherent to delay the human rights bill, given that the Scottish Government’s clear priorities include ending child poverty and addressing the housing emergency. How would you respond to that view?

Finally from me at this point, we heard last week from Professor Alan Miller about his work with the national collaborative to represent individuals who are experiencing substance use issues. The collaborative has been working at pace the length and breadth of the country to develop a charter of rights for individuals who are seeking assistance in that regard, and that was to be incorporated into the human rights bill that was to be brought forward.

Last week, it was mentioned that the delay in the bill might give rise to an accountability gap. People have been working on the charter of rights without the accountability framework that goes along with it. How are we going to ensure that individuals will, without the right to achieve a high standard of physical and mental health, be able to get the support that they need from their local areas?

Thank you for that.

Finally, minister, in the letter to the committee, you outline how the system is created with fairness baked into it, as far as possible, to allow people access. I take on board Ms Chapman’s comments about access to legal aid, and you have set out the impact on the court service if the instruments are annulled, but could we look beyond that, at the associated tribunals and chambers, where there are generally no fees for the public to attend? What impact would annulment have on those settings, given that we are looking for people to have access to justice when it comes to housing, and to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, for example? What could the consequences be for people?

Like my colleagues, I have some sympathy with the motions that Maggie Chapman has lodged. We all want a system that has fairness baked into it and that provides access across the board. As a former Women’s Aid worker, I have seen time and again the issues that women face in trying to access justice. We have heard from the minister about the fact that we have already dealt with some exemptions in that area, which were very welcome.

I take on board Ms Chapman’s comments about the fact that we do not have a level of detail about where the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service would seek to make changes in relation to the difference of £4 million, but £4 million will make a difference if we do not proceed with the instruments that the minister has lodged. I sympathise with Ms Chapman’s points, but the committee has been clear about seeking more information in the future about how we deal with access to legal aid and justice. I hope that that information will come forward in future evidence sessions.

If we cannot pinpoint an average cost for that, is there a comparison that we can make with our neighbours in the rest of the United Kingdom? How do our fees compare with those in the rest of the UK?

I will briefly follow up Professor Kaiser’s point about the engaged and knowledgeable fisheries sector that exists in the States. I want to come back to Elaine Whyte and ask her to touch on engagement among her association’s membership. We have been driving a huge amount of data gathering for a long time, and we are actively considering how we manage our stocks of cod in the Clyde. How do we use our existing structures, such as the groups that have been set up, to re-engage with those fishers, who could potentially be the ones who help us to collect temperatures and other data and to feed those into the science? It is easy for them to become disengaged and to become one of the individuals that Alastair Hamilton was talking about, who are no longer—or never have been—interested in the issue. How do we address that?

I have tried to reformulate my questions in my head, because a lot of them have been answered, as is always the case in round-table discussions. There is such rich, in-depth discussion going on round the table.

It is absolutely right that we are looking at the topic in the space of collaboration and co-management. Indeed, the draft “Joint Fisheries Statement” said:

“Our future vision is that industry should take a greater, shared responsibility for sustainably managing fisheries, while making a greater contribution towards the costs. This can include, for example, work to develop new management practices and contributing to fisheries science, being more actively engaged in fisheries management decisions, and co-designing future policy.”

We have just heard about joint endeavour. If we get to a space where we are doing things with people and not doing things to them, we will take all the communities with us. We have just discussed the FMAC, the regional groups and the regional marine planning partnerships. I had some questions about their effectiveness and whether the model is the right one and the one that we should be using. We have already strayed into some of that, but does anybody want to put a little more meat on the bones of that? I am not looking to hear what the future model should be; my question is whether we are, right now, realising the intention that was set out when the local partnerships were set up to feed into the wider system. What could change now, and rapidly, while we are looking forward?

I do not know who wants to answer that first. I would like to hear the views of Elaine Whyte from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, and also the views of Alastair Hamilton, because he sits on one of the groups and is in charge of leading that. I will then open it up more widely.

You just answered my next two questions, which were about OURO. I wanted to understand how it works in practice—how it is financed by the industry and its being compulsory for farmers to be members of it.

This my final question. Is any of the ring-fenced sanctions money going where it is supposed to go, which is into conservation?

We can see from the report that, where there is introgression, it is concentrated around where aquaculture is happening as opposed to the migration of smolts into some of the rivers, which was one major concern. Some fears may therefore be allayed, but there absolutely still is evidence of genetic introgression.

I have found everything that you have said to be quite fascinating. It has answered some of the questions that we have been asking all along.

Following the questions about escapes, I have a couple of questions about sanctions. Notwithstanding the desire to have 100 per cent containment, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report said that there are

“strict penalties ... in place in Norway ... and recommends that appropriate sanctions should be developed and introduced in Scotland.”

Do you consider the current sanctions on escapes to be appropriate, or should we have stricter measures in place?