Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

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.

Hopefully, they should all work together well in terms of meeting the overall objectives. We have the overall framework which, unlike other frameworks that I know that the committee will be considering, predates those other elements, as I outlined in my opening statement, which is why it is almost split into two parts. We have the joint fisheries statement, which sets out the overall policy ambitions that all the administrations would look to achieve as part of the framework, and we have the memorandum of understanding, which goes through the day-to-day elements of how the administrations would work together and resolve any conflicts that might arise. The memorandum of understanding also contains the operational agreements, which concern some of the more day-to-day technical issues that we would look to align on. Together, that is quite a cohesive package of measures that should enable us to work together in a positive way.

As I said at the start of the session, the fact that the four Administrations have agreed the overarching ambitions that are set out in the JFS and are aligned on them is positive. That shows that we can work together effectively in areas such as these while respecting devolved competences.

I do not think that the UK Government itself has thought through how the Fisheries Act 2020, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Bill will all work together or align. The full ramifications of fisheries and aquaculture coming within the bill’s overall remit have not been made clear to us, and we need that further guidance so that we can see how that legislation will work in practice. However, from what we have seen so far, full consideration has not been given to the interaction between these key pieces of legislation.

I do not know whether Paul McCarthy or Allan Gibb would like to elaborate.