Chamber and committees

I will come to Bruce Wilson, but if it is okay, I will roll in my final question. We have spoken a lot about the strategy and the high-level objectives, and delivery plans will come on the back of those. I understand that the first one will come in December. Will you briefly give us your understanding of what the delivery plans should cover? What essentials should come out of that?

Bruce, do you want to go first and wrap up my previous question?

Before I hand back to the convener, does Craig Macadam have any reflections on coherence in freshwater policy?

Thanks.

I will go back to the point about delivery plans that we discussed with the first panel. The message that I got from the first panellists was that they would like the delivery plans to be effectively embedded in the strategy. Is that your position? Are you looking for more specificity in the strategy?

Are you arguing for first setting the delivery plan—for, say, freshwater or marine—and building that up into a strategy? It feels quite chicken and egg.

What would you like to see in a freshwater delivery plan?

On that, from the business perspective, how important is it that Stormont gets up and running again? If you take an issue such as gene editing, it is possible that there could be a distinctive position on gene editing in the European Union, a separate position at UK level and other positions in the devolved Administrations around the UK. When you are thinking about those issues, where do you place the work of Stormont and the committees of Stormont on that specific bit of scrutiny?

Thank you. What do the other witnesses think? Garry, do you want to come in?

Okay. Thanks, Laurence. Paul, do you want to comment? [Interruption.] We are struggling to hear Paul.

Laurence, do you want to comment from a Shetland perspective?