���˿���

As far as I am aware, New Zealand asked for this during the negotiations primarily to benefit some of the smaller producers that provide mainly for the home market at the moment but could see an opportunity to export to the UK.

Thanks for inviting me to speak about the regulations. On 28 February last year, the United Kingdom signed a free trade agreement with New Zealand. During negotiations, the UK committed to making three minor changes to domestic legislation on how wine and other alcoholic drinks are described and marketed.

The Scottish Government remains of the view that the best option for the UK as a whole and for Scotland is the one that Scotland voted for—that is, remaining in the European Union. The Scottish Government’s default position is to align with EU law where appropriate and where that is in Scotland’s interests. However, as a responsible Government, we are required to observe and implement the United Kingdom’s international obligations. The instrument is required to implement the New Zealand free trade agreement.

The changes that are set out in the instrument will bring some flexibilities to how wine and other alcoholic drinks can be labelled and marketed. However, it will not impact on the practices that are currently employed by producers and traders, who can continue to label and market as they currently do.

The changes allow producers and sellers of wine and other alcoholic drinks slightly more flexibility in respect of the information that they choose to include on their labels. The instrument will make three changes to retained EU law.

First, the instrument will allow any wine product to show alcoholic strength to one decimal place—for example, the strength could be 12.2 per cent or 12.7 per cent. Retained EU law currently limits wine to being labelled to show alcoholic strength to whole or half units—for example, 12 per cent or 12.5 per cent. That will continue to remain a possibility for wine that is marketed here or exported.

The concession to label wine to a single decimal place is not new. That possibility was already extended to Australian wines by the EU in its wine trade agreement with Australia, which the UK retained after exit.

The instrument will also introduce a change to rules concerning the labelling of grape varieties for wine that is marketed in Great Britain. It will require that, where more than one grape variety is listed on a wine label, the named varieties must total at least 95 per cent of the content of the wine. Current retained EU legislation requires that to be 100 per cent. The changes will mean that up to 5 per cent of the content may consist of varieties that are not shown on the label.

The changes that are proposed in the instrument will provide businesses that market and produce wine of multiple grape varieties with the scope to vary the production of a wine, to bring improved consistency and quality. UK domestic wine producers have warmly welcomed the flexibility that that will bring.

The regulations will also allow flexibility in how the terms “alc”, or alcohol, and “vol”, or volume, appear with the numerical alcohol content on wine and other alcoholic beverages. The current rules require that “alc” appears before the numerical alcohol content of the drink and “vol” after. The instrument will allow the term “alc” to appear after the numerical alcohol content of the drink.

Together, those changes will facilitate the trade between the UK and New Zealand. They may also help smaller producers in both countries who might wish to exploit a niche for their product in the market but for whom the size of the order would mean a full label change that would not be economically viable.

I stress that the changes are optional. We expect that many in the industry with established markets in Northern Ireland and/or the EU will continue to label and market wine as they currently do to support sales in those markets.

The Scottish Government consented to a Great Britain-wide consultation seeking views from stakeholders in the sector and more widely on the proposal, and the UK wine industry firmly supports the changes set out in this instrument and welcomes the flexibility that it provides.

I hope that I have said enough to assure members of the need for this instrument. It represents just one part of the changes being made that will allow the new free trade agreement with New Zealand to come into force, but in making those changes we have taken the opportunity to give our thriving wine and alcoholic drinks sector flexibility that will support it to trade in the future.

Finally, the instrument also amends article 11 of retained regulation (EU) 543/2011 to correct a minor error that is contained in regulation 5(5) of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Modifications) and Agricultural Products, Aquatic Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

I would have to look into that in more detail, but that will be covered by the import ban. I could not give you an idea of the scale of that trade. Again, my officials might have further information on the specifics of that question.

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.