Chamber and committees

That is my ultimate aim, and I want to make sure that we get it right. However, as I said in my previous response, it is challenging because, although it seems that we have a huge area of sea surrounding us and a large coastal area, it is an increasingly busy space, with lots of different and competing interests that we must manage. We are working our way through some of that to see how we can balance all those interests. Specific stocks will only be in a specific area at a specific time and, as you mentioned, there is renewable energy and we have our marine protected area network and are looking to develop our highly protected marine areas. We are in the process of looking at some of that work at the moment.

We also have statutory processes to follow, whether we are establishing MPAs or looking at the planning and consenting process for offshore renewables, but we are very much trying to get to grips with those issues so that we are as fair and balanced as possible. There is some reference to that in the JFS, which talks about some of the other measures and the need to ensure that the ambitions that it sets out are aligned with other management measures around MPAs.

There is no doubt that this is a difficult and complex area, but I hope that it is one that we will be able to work our way through.

That issue was subject to a lot of discussion during consideration of the legislative consent memorandum for the Fisheries Bill. The setting of the total allowable catch for the UK is reserved to the secretary of state. That is the case for all stocks bar one, the responsibility for which is delegated. A key example relates to Clyde herring. The Scottish Government takes the lead on building the evidence in that regard and in setting the TAC. We also consult with our stakeholders, which advise on the TAC for the stock, and the information on the TAC is then given to the secretary of state for determination. As far as I am aware, there have been no issues in that regard, and we do not anticipate there being any.

We will have to examine that and keep it under review. We provide resources to our regional inshore fisheries groups to enable them to operate. By their nature, they bring together fisheries interests and people who have not traditionally been represented by other organisations, because they are smaller businesses. We have tried to develop those fora to enable them and give them the capacity to engage, but if any issues emerged with capacity and resources, we would monitor the situation. However, I hope that those groups will play a part in the process, along with our other stakeholders.

I hope that you will have seen the plans set out in the JFS. We have tried to focus on stocks that are of commercial interest to our industry in Scotland, and we also wanted to put our initial focus on developing FMPs for stocks on which we already knew much of the detail. That is not to say that there will be no further iterations of fisheries management plans or any more plans beyond 2022, but I think that we have put our initial focus on the right place.

I know that plans proposed by other administrations cover non-quota stocks. We will of course be monitoring the development of that work, but it is far more complex. I think that our initial focus is the right one, but Paul McCarthy and Allan Gibb might want to elaborate on some of the issues that might arise if we were to focus on other areas.

That is a really important question and, as I set out to the committee the other week, the process that led to the introduction of that Scottish statutory instrument was not ideal—far from it—and did not meet the standards of co-management that, ideally, we would like to have and have had previously with stakeholders.

I apologised for that at the time but, of course, we want to ensure that we learn lessons from what happened. The legislation and the joint fisheries statement set out the importance of co-management and working with our stakeholders. We are committed to that; we want very much to achieve that.

We have talked today about the future catching policy. Again, that is being developed in consultation with our stakeholders. We have also set out that we intend to engage with all our stakeholders after the closure. We will monitor things throughout the period of the closure to see how we can improve them; that collaboration is really critical.

As I told the committee previously, the situation on the Clyde cod closure was far from ideal. We want to learn lessons from that, because we recognise that co-management is vital and we want to have that going forward.

Yes. I start by noting that Marine Scotland’s science is recognised for the expertise that we are able to provide, but leaving the EU means that we do not have the same opportunities for collaboration with our EU partners that we had previously. Perhaps Paul McCarthy or Allan Gibb would like to elaborate on that. Do we have specific examples of previous collaborations?

We are always looking at how we can improve our science and collaboration and at how we develop evidence. Allan Gibb raised that point at our previous appearance at the committee in relation to collaboration that we would like to have. We will be working with our stakeholders and academia on how we can better collaborate on specific areas that we might wish to look at in the future.

I have touched on further collaboration; the question about where we can look to collaborate with other partners is really important.

Paul McCarthy might have more information on specific bodies and the collaboration that happens with NatureScot.

After we laid the original Scottish statutory instrument, we listened to our stakeholders. As a result of that, we tried to bring them together to see whether there was a means by which we could work together to find a solution. That resulted in the SSI that we discussed at the committee. Through it, we are still trying to meet the policy objective of protecting spawning cod while ensuring that we protect the areas where spawning takes place. The engagement led to our reducing the size of the overall closed area by 28 per cent, which will allow more fishing activity to take place.

The process leading up to that decision was not ideal. However, we tried to listen. I reflected on the evidence that we heard, which ultimately led to our changing our position. We listened to and engaged with our stakeholders to find a solution to some of the issues that had been identified.

I agree. It is a hugely complex issue, and there are lots of competing interests that we must try to balance throughout the process. The JFS, the framework and the Fisheries Act 2020 set that out—they identify that there can be competing interests and that there are various factors to take account of when trying to reach difficult and challenging decisions.

Although the process for the Clyde cod closure was not the most straightforward and was not conducted in the way that we like to engage with our stakeholders, the decision that we reached about the revised closure was the right one.