Chamber and committees

Yes.

Absolutely. We have discussed the various iterations of the islands programme at length with the committee; we have had direct allocations, and we have run the competitive bid model before, too. Of course, there are pros and cons to each of the models, but we have genuinely taken on board the feedback that we have heard from committee members, as well as from people who are utilising the fund, and we have made changes and adapted the islands programme funding in response to some of that feedback.

Of course, if you or other committee members have been hearing other comments on the carbon-neutral islands programme and how it is operating, I am more than happy to listen to and take on board that feedback to see whether any improvements can be made for the future.

I have not had any submissions in front of me, so it is not possible for me to pull out that information. As I said, it will happen imminently if those decisions have been taken. However, as I have had no submission in that respect, I cannot set that out for you.

A couple of weeks ago, I set out some of the timescales that we are working to, and I hope that that was helpful. I hear the comments that you have referred to on what people feel about the initial draft of the plan. Obviously, it was the initial draft that we consulted on, and we saw the feedback, so we will give that careful consideration as we develop the plan.

I know that we have not published the results of the consultation yet, but we had a really strong response to the consultation, and what came through the scrutiny process for the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 was the level of engagement that we were required to undertake. Of course, it is also in our best interests to undertake that engagement. That process included a lot of engagement with children and young people, and we generated a significant response.

I ask for a bit of patience, because it is taking time to work through the responses in order to look at what changes to the plan might be needed before it comes back to Parliament for scrutiny. I want to ensure that the plan is in as strong a position as it can be, in recognition that this will be the first iteration and that we do not have all the information and data that we need—although that situation will improve with further iterations of the plan. We are committed to bringing that work forward, but we need time to work through the considerable number of responses that we received before we bring the plan back.

Certainly, from the portfolio perspective, there are a number of priorities. The first of those is delivering on the commitments in the future fisheries management strategy, which was published a few years ago. That will help with our overall transformation.

We are starting to see some of the policy work come through. I appeared in front of the committee in relation to the rolling out of remote electronic monitoring. That is a significant policy development. We are also working on some other critical areas, such as working through the detail of the future catching policy.

At my committee appearance a couple of weeks ago, we also talked about the fisheries management plans. Of course, those are a key priority, too.

International negotiations always remain a key priority. We have talked about the different policy areas and how they all contribute to the outcomes of those negotiations. Ultimately, we want to ensure that we secure the best possible opportunities for our industry in Scotland. As I outlined, we have seen more than £600 million-worth of opportunities over the past couple of years.

The committee will be interested in the work in relation to inshore fisheries. We have introduced some interim measures on inshore fisheries, which is part of the work that we are doing to transform how we deal with those fisheries and the overall road map to inshore fisheries management improvement.

In a few weeks’ time, I will appear in front of the committee in relation to aquaculture, which the committee has been looking at in some detail. In our programme for government, we set out some of the commitments that we are looking at on that. Ultimately, the key focus for that part of work is delivering on the recommendations that came out of the Griggs review. The consenting pilot work is a key component of that work that we have been delivering over the past year.

I hope that that helps to give some of the key priority areas for my portfolio and what we are looking to continue to deliver over the coming year.

I would absolutely refute that. Again, there could be benefits as well as negative consequences of other models. I would have to do a full comparison to see whether that should be considered. The origins of the current situation are that, around 2009-10, various elements of marine policy were being brought together as well as compliance. However, I have not undertaken the work to see what the benefits are against other ways of operating and what the costs would be. I am not in a place to make a judgment on whether the set-up for marine science in another administration would be more or less beneficial to the way that we operate.

Absolutely. We are looking at that all the time, and we are assessing how we can ultimately be more efficient, using new technology to our advantage. There are a number of different areas that we can consider. One is to submit logbooks digitally. Over the past year, only about 3.5 per cent of the FISH1 logbooks were submitted electronically. That proportion is now over 12 per cent, so people in the fisheries offices are clearly encouraging that.

In relation to the technology that is used with our marine protection vessels, I visited one of those vessels a few months ago to look at a pilot that is being undertaken with drone technology.

Absolutely. I take that point on board.

There was a specific recommendation that discussions should take place about the future allocations. The interim situation that we have was never meant to be a full-time solution.

That could be the figure that was provided to the committee.