Seòmar agus comataidhean

The process of developing the statement has shown how effectively the four Administrations in the UK can work together. It also, importantly, shows the alignment that we have on the high-level goals and ambitions that have been set out in the JFS.

The process also shows how devolution should work. A key consideration has been that we want to ensure that devolved powers are respected and adhered to. The agreement that we have set out in the joint fisheries statement and the framework identifies that. It sets out the high-level ambitions while allowing us the flexibility to determine the individual policies that are right for our industry and sectors.

It has been a positive piece of work. We will continue to see how it develops, but it shows that we are aligned on our ultimate objectives for the issues that it covers. That is not to say that that has always been the case and that we will always agree on every element. One example on which there has been disagreement—which we have raised with the committee previously—is the UK seafood fund, which cuts across devolved competence and spends in an area that is entirely devolved. That has caused confusion for the industry. It spends in areas that we already plan to fund in Scotland. However, although there are specific issues, the process shows how we can work together positively and effectively.

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.

I am sure that you will be.

I refer to the example that I provided earlier of the future catching policy and REM. The future catching policy sets out how we will meet not just the national benefit objective, but the other objectives that are set out in the Fisheries Act 2020. It is critical that the delivery mechanisms that we use for our policies meet the objectives that are set out. I would say that the future catching policy is an example of how we will meet that objective.

The proposals in the consultation were developed following consultation with our stakeholders, because, as I said, if we implement that policy, we want to ensure that we get it right. That will involve discussion and consideration of the responses to the consultation so that we can shape a policy that will deliver on the objective.

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.

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.

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?