Seòmar agus comataidhean

When you mentioned the route map, did you mean the innovation strategy that we have published?

Oh—our delivery plan. As I said, we have to try and prioritise. I recently met Elaine Whyte of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association on the work on Clyde cod. I set out that, broadly, the science and innovation strategy is about how we can best utilise the resources that we have across the piece and collaborate with others, such as academic institutions and the industry. A number of programmes that involve us working and collaborating with the industry are already under way.

I understand the criticism that that there has been of the interim measures for inshore fisheries, and I have discussed with you some of the specific issues that have been highlighted. An opportunity has emerged from that, in relation to the science in particular, to work with the industry to see how we can improve in areas where data gaps exist. That has been a positive element of work.

That there was a need to introduce those interim measures was not just our view; the industry itself recognised that, given the situation that it is experiencing on the ground. Of course, we must keep those interim measures under review to ensure that they are doing what we need them to do and to look at any potential changes.

We are continuing to engage with stakeholders on those measures. Over the past few weeks, I have heard directly from stakeholders to see how we can continue that collaboration.

Do you mean that in relation to the marine planning element as well?

I will hand over to Rebecca Hackett, who will probably be able to say a bit more about that. I am not leading on the development of the new national marine plan 2; that is being led by the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gillian Martin, although we work closely together on it. There has been specific engagement with our fishing industry to ensure that we get its views, and discussions are on-going in relation to the development of the new national marine plan, so I would not want to pre-empt what will come out of that engagement process on how we proceed further.

I do not know whether you want to add anything, Rebecca.

Given that we are working within the constraints of the overall budget settlement, as I outlined in my opening comments, it is especially important that we try to maximise some of the income streams that we have. I highlight that, over the past year, more than £9 million of income has been generated. Much of that comes from marine licensing fees; some comes from our science work; and some comes from other contracts in relation to compliance and our aerial surveillance work, which we undertake on behalf of the joint maritime security centre. We have had £9 million so far, but it is always important that we keep that under review and look at where else we can maximise any potential income streams.

Yes.

Obviously, it was really disappointing to hear that, and it is not something that we want to hear about the directorate. I know that the committee has undertaken visits and you have spoken to some of the team directly. We are fortunate to have some brilliant people across our marine directorate, who are passionate and really care about what they do. Of course, it is never nice to hear such comments but, on reflection, some of the criticism that was levelled at the directorate—in relation to the science and the international reputation—was unfair, because I genuinely believe that we are well respected and well regarded. When you look at our science, the fact that we have a lead in a number of the working groups in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea very much played a strong role in the organisation of events that have taken place there. We have strong relationships with different stakeholders and other academic institutions. I do not quite agree with some of the criticism that was levelled in that regard, because I think that our science and our team of scientists are well regarded.

That has the potential to be really exciting, actually, and quite transformative.

We have discussed REM, which I think will provide a number of benefits, particularly in relation to some issues, and capabilities in terms of overall compliance.

There are a few different areas, but we are always looking to see how we can use new technology to the best possible advantage. Even with the three vessels, the two RIBs and the aerial surveillance, we cannot be everywhere all at once, and we have a vast marine area around our coastline to monitor. That is where all the new technologies can assist us.

You are absolutely right. As part of the fisheries management strategy that we published a few years ago, we made a commitment to undertake a review of penalties. We have a survey that is live at the moment and will be open until the end of September, which asks questions about that. You are absolutely right that we must ensure that the fines are proportionate. I highlight that that work is under way and that we are gathering views.

I am more than happy to consider the different issues. When we touched on that a couple of weeks ago, I highlighted one example in particular—the overall level of inspections—in which we look to proactively publish information. We have been doing that for a few years. We are trying to be more transparent—we received a lot of queries about that area. I am more than happy to consider looking at that.

I know that we have a number of open datasets. We also have a huge volume of information pages and documents that are published and made publicly available, but I suppose that that is largely in relation to our marine licensing and planning and the outcomes of marine assessments. If you feel that there are particular areas in which information is not being published but should be, please let me know of any concerns. We certainly publish peer-reviewed scientific papers and our official statistics.