Seòmar agus comataidhean

As, I think, we said in the consultation, we agree with the overall objectives. The situation is similar to the situation with replacing the CAP. The new CAP has 10 objectives and, although our framework might deviate in the technicalities, we are, ultimately, looking to achieve the same aim. The same applies in relation to our future catching policy. We have the opportunity to look at how we can put in place a better operation in Scotland that does all the things that we want it to do.

We want to stop the unwanted catch in the first place where we can, and we want to ensure that we have a simple and effective system that delivers on the objectives that we know that the EU wants to achieve. It is not possible for me to set that out precisely because, again, I have not been through the consultation analysis. There could be changes on the back of that or things that we need to consider in more detail. I would be happy to keep the committee updated on the next steps.

You are absolutely right. I looked at the session that the committee held with Professor Griggs, and I am glad that it held that session and that it was able to go through that discussion with him.

The work that Professor Griggs did was really important, and there were some quite stark findings in it. Some of the review was really disappointing to read, especially his comments about the lack of trust and about the vitriol that exists. From discussing matters with him, I think that he had many experiences that he had not seen in any other sector. A key issue for us is how we can rebuild that trust, move from the place in which the relationships are so poor and try to improve those.

One of the key actions that we have taken since the report has been establishing the Scottish Aquaculture Council, in which we have tried to bring the broad range of interests together around the table and to progress some of the recommendations. That is still in its very early stages. We had our first meeting towards the end of June, and we are due to have the second meeting shortly. I am keen that we progress with that positive piece of work, and I hope that that can start to rebuild trust.

I will try as hard as possible. It just shows the broad range of work that goes on across the portfolio, though, which is why we are running out of time in which to address all the areas.

Spatial planning already has to be considered in relation to developments. That is set out through the national marine plan and regional marine plans, and we have also outlined that in national planning framework 4. Everybody will be aware, especially when we are looking at protected areas or features, whether they are MPAs or PMFs, that the specific features for which they are protected should be taken into consideration in relation to any decisions that are made regarding the siting of developments.

One thing that I would be happy to follow up with, if the committee would like, is a summary of where we are in relation to some of the previous recommendations that were made. A point that I want to make clear to the committee is that, although we are, of course, taking forward the Griggs recommendations, that does not mean that all other pieces of work have gone out the window.

I will just highlight other work that we have brought forward. We have published our response to the salmon interactions working group and we have taken action in relation to that. We have also progressed and completed a lot of the recommendations from the previous committee’s reviews, and we are still making progress against others. I am happy to provide information to the committee about progress against each of those commitments, if you would find that helpful.

I recognise and have heard that concern about potential delays. We know, because it was highlighted through the review, that there are a number of processes involved when we are looking at a salmon farm being put in place, and that people have to apply for various licences from various different bodies. The consenting task force has been doing a piece of work on timescales, many of which are met, but we know of examples where that has not happened. If you have been contacted about specific issues, please write to me to make me aware of them. I would be happy to look into them further.

Absolutely. Our islands team works across the Government, because many such issues are cross-cutting. For example, fuel poverty and associated issues are of huge concern to me from a rural and islands perspective, but I know that they cut across the portfolios of my colleagues—for example, those of Shona Robison and, in relation to buildings insulation, Patrick Harvie.

First, we ensure that we are viewing such issues across the Government, to see what we can do to address them. However, it is important that our islands team also has opportunities for outreach. They were with me when I was in Orkney last week, and they were collecting such data and information, which is really important for us to obtain. One of the groups that I met there had undertaken a piece of work, and other work is being done in Shetland. We want to collect all that information to ensure that we have a grasp of just how big the issues are before we consider what we can do to help our communities to address them. That is a priority for us.

I am sorry, George—do you want to come in?

It was exactly because we had consultation and engagement on the policy. As you know, we have announced that we will withdraw the policy; that is because we listened to our island communities through what we heard in the consultation and engagement process. When we set out the results of the consultation, the responses were fairly evenly split, but it was clear that island communities did not want the islands bonds policy. They had concerns about it; they thought that more could be done to retain populations in island communities and felt that resources should go towards that. We listened to what we heard, which is why we have announced that we will withdraw the policy.

I will address a couple of those comments. We never thought that the islands bond would be a magic bullet for addressing the problem of depopulation on our islands; it was never intended to be that. The engagement and consultation that we undertook were really important, because they have informed the next steps that we will take. As a direct result of consultation feedback and of listening to suggestions about how we might take things forward—communities, of course, had their own ideas about what could be done—we have committed to looking at some practical policy tests.

What happened has not delayed tackling depopulation on our islands. That has always been a priority and an objective in the islands plan, and we are still taking forward proposals. We need to tackle a host of issues in a holistic way. What happened has not delayed the work that we have done. The policy could have been a tool; we consulted on it, but we think that it would not work, which is why we are not taking it forward. However, that has not delayed or held back any other related work.

I am sorry, but I have now forgotten the key part of your question.

When I said that the outcome of the consultation was balanced, that was probably not entirely fair. You are absolutely right: the people who were not in favour of the proposal were from our island communities, but pretty much everybody else in the world thought that it was a fantastic idea. In my role, it is really important to listen to our island communities and to be open to various suggestions on how other things might work. I have no doubt that we would, if we had ploughed on regardless, have got even more criticism.

I emphasise that the suggestions that we want to take forward come from that positive and constructive engagement. Various consultation events took place virtually and on islands. After the consultation closed, the islands team went out again to various engagement events and discussions with communities. That has formed the basis of the practical policies. As I say, we want to try some of the ideas and see whether they work and can have a positive impact.

No, we absolutely will not. We still want to meet those objectives, and we set out the policies that we did because a blanket, one-size approach does not fit all.

The landing obligation is very complex at the moment, which is why it is difficult for people to comply with it. There are 480 exemptions within it, so it is a very complex environment. We want to reduce unwanted catch, look at different measures for different sectors of the fleet and move away from the one-size-fits-all approach. We also want to be more accountable.

If we are able to capture all that information, we will have a better idea of discards and people will be better able to account for them, which will mean that we have a better picture of stocks and can fish more sustainably in the future. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve. That has been construed as rolling back, but I would challenge that, because we are trying to make the system more transparent, simpler and easier to comply with. Those factors are very important. The reason that we go out to consultation is that we want to know what people think about what we are proposing.

No problem. I will try to address all of those points.

I welcome the report that the SSF produced on spatial squeeze. I am due to meet the federation in a few weeks and, no doubt, the matter will be a large part of our discussions. Other fisheries stakeholders raise the issue with me, too.

I completely agree with what you said about fish being an important protein source for us going forward. That is why we identified it—and, indeed, specifically point to it—in our blue economy vision. However, there is no doubt that there are competing pressures on our marine environment.

When you see the area for which we are responsible, our marine resource looks quite large, but, of course, there are a lot of competing uses for that space. There are offshore renewables, and we are also developing our marine protected area network and considering the delivery of highly protected marine areas. I know that that work is of concern to the fishing industry, too. The processes that we go through are absolutely critical to ensuring that fisheries’ voices are heard through the consultations that we hold and that they are part of the engagement. An example of that is the ScotMER programme, which, although about energy research, also has as part of it a fishing group to examine and help us identify, for example, what gaps there are in the evidence that we might need.

We need to continue such engagement and work collaboratively across Marine Scotland to ensure that fisheries’ voices are heard. We are trying to manage our way through the matter as much as we can. If anything, all the global crises that we have seen mean that we need to have energy resilience, but our food security is critical, too, so we must enable that. Fishing is also an important part of many communities—indeed, that will be the case in your Shetland Islands constituency as in our coastal communities around Scotland.

We are trying to manage our way through the situation as much as possible. That is where our planning and consenting processes are really important to ensuring that fisheries’ voices are heard.

Was your other question about national marine plan 2?