 nineteen meeting of the rural affairs islands and natural environment committee in 2022 before we begin. Could I remind those committee members using electronic devices to switch them to silent. We have apologies from Finlay Carson, our convener, who won't be at committee for a few weeks and we wish him speedy recovery. We have substituted Edward Mountain today and could I invite Edward to declare any relevant interests? Cymru. Rhefn i'n ddwylliant, dwi'n gweithio'r ddrwyaf, yn unrhyw o'r ddechrau, ac yn ystod yn ymweld, sy'n gweithio'n unrhyw o'r ddwylliant, i'w gweithio'r ddwylliant, ac yn unrhyw o'r ddwylliant. Rhaid i'w ymddi'r barli a'r bifcatile. Rhaid i'w ddwylliant i'w ddwylliant i'w ddwylliant. Rhaid i'w ddwylliant i'w ddwylliant i'w ddwylliant i'w saman ffisheru. I'm also a charter surveyor, although I am not practicing at the moment, but it's one of my qualifications. Any other details that the committee needs to see are laid out in my register of interests, Camila. Thank you, Edward. Agenda item 1, our first item of business today, is to decide whether to take item 4 in private. Are members agreed? Yes. Agenda item 2, the draft joint fishery statement. Our second item of business this morning is two evidence sessions on the draft joint fishery statement. First, we'll take evidence from stakeholders, followed by a session of the Cabinet Secretary and Scottish Government officials. I welcome this morning a panel of stakeholders attending remotely. Professor James Harrison, University of Edinburgh, Elspeth MacDonald, chief executive officer, Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Helen MacLachlan, future fisheries alliance, Charles Miller, executive director, sustainable inshore fisheries trust and Elaine White from the community's inshore fisheries alliance. I would now like to invite questions from members. I shall bear with me. Too many bits of paper here. I invite the stakeholders to elaborate on their view that the draft joint fishery statement lacks ambition in setting out a new post-EU fisheries framework for the UK. If I could start with Professor Harrison, please. There are various things that the draft joint fishery statement has to achieve. The first thing is that it is designed to be part of a common framework. We need to remember what its prime objectives are, and that is to ensure some sort of consistency in the way that the four fisheries administrations in the UK proceed in implementing their own measures over the years to come. Inevitably, there is going to be some flexibility for each of the fisheries administrations, but equally, in order to achieve its ultimate objectives, the joint fishery statement has to have enough in there to ensure that there is consistency. A balance has to be struck between those two things. For certain issues, I think that the balance is probably about right. Issues such as co-management—there are lots of different models across the UK—there is no reason that we need a single co-management model in all the jurisdictions. On other issues, if there is too much inconsistency approach, I think that there could be problems down the line. One example that I might give would be discards—the idea of four separate discards regimes without much coherence between them could cause problems both in terms of fishing operations but also in terms of enforcement. I think that how that balance is struck will vary from policy to policy, and sometimes it gets it right. Sometimes there are questions to be asked about how that balance between consistency and flexibility is struck. I imagine that there will be further questions on the fisheries objectives and the interpretation of those, and I certainly have things to say on that. I also imagine that there will be questions about the fisheries management plans, which I think is where there is a real lack of ambition, but I do not want to take too much time in a preliminary observation if we are going to come back to those. We are, thank you. Can I move on to Elspeth MacDonald, please? Convener, and thank you for inviting me to speak to the panel today. I agree with some of the comments that Professor MacDonald has just made in terms of this being part of a framework, a much broader framework. I think that it is important that we understand the complexity of what officials have been attempting to do here in trying to draft something that gives that coherence where coherence is necessary but flexibility where that is desirable. I think that where we would see a lack of ambition is in terms of moving away from the constraints of the common fisheries policy and the rules that have been set there for many years and that the industry has had to follow. It feels that those are very small steps in terms of moving away from the regulatory regime that we currently have and perhaps missing an opportunity to look more innovatively and more. When I say radically, I do not mean that in a cavalier way but perhaps of taking a different approach. I think that some of the text around the landings obligation, sorry, the means of managing discards in the future and the fact that it is not taking us terribly far away from the landings obligation in terms of what we see here is an example of that. We do not underestimate the difficulties of drafting a document like that. It is really challenging to strike that right balance, but we would have liked to see more ambition set out here. I think that there are a number of areas of inconsistency that I am sure we will touch on as we go through the session today. I thank Helen McLaughlin for her comments. Thank you and thanks for the opportunity to be here this morning. I think that from the Future Fisheries Alliance perspective, that is an alliance that represents WWF, RSPB and the Marine Conservation Society, I agree with quite a few of the comments previously in terms of that there are a lot of things to be welcomed in the statement, but there is an overwhelming lack of detail in terms of how some of those welcome statements will be delivered. In terms of actually how they will be met, we are at a point now where we have the opportunity to do things differently. If we look across our marine environment, we are not doing very well with almost under 70 per cent of assessed stocks in a healthy state. That is more when you take in those stocks that we do not have data for. We have large amounts of by-catch of sensitive species being caught and in fisheries. To improve things, we need to do some things quite differently, and I am not sure that we are convinced that there is enough evidence of what that will be within the JFS. A couple of examples. We appreciate the sensitivities of devolution and four nations coming together and being respectful of the settlements, but, for example, on climate change, we are very welcome commitment to an acknowledgement that the fishing sector or the supply chain itself has the ability to make changes to contribute to the net zero future. However, there is not very much in the detail of how that will be done, and they could have said that we agree that, by a certain date, we will be setting out a series of milestones that we need to achieve, and that would have been something that could have been possible. Similarly, with one of the recognitions that remote electronic monitoring with cameras, for example, is a key way to underpin sustainable management and really gain change going forward, they could have come together and said, we recognise that, and, by a certain date, we will be looking at setting out how we will roll that out, and those were missed opportunities, but I will stop there, as I am sure that we are going to pick up on various pieces as we go forward, thank you. Thank you, and can I invite Charles Miller for his comments? Yes, good morning, and thank you as well for giving us the opportunity to talk today. I am slightly echoing what you have heard from the other witnesses. We welcome the concept of the JFS, an opportunity for a basis for coherent management regime across the different parts of the United Kingdom, and we welcome the fact that it commits the authorities to take account of the natural environment and the importance of an ecosystem-based approach. Those are important things to have in there. The fisheries objectives within them are broadly ones that we would endorse and adhere to, but where I think there is a lack of ambition is around—we have heard from the other stakeholders—the lack of time-bound commitments and the aspirational tone, if you like, of a lot of the document, and that it is really very heavily caveated at times. Whilst there may be elements of it that are really quite welcome, they come with their phrase in such a way as to make it clear that there is not actually a binding commitment to make certain moves in the directions in which the objectives are kind of identifying. I am endorsing the same general thrust, and I will leave it at that because I appreciate the other things that you have come back to. I echo a lot of the points that have been made before, but it is important to remember that this is a strategic overarching document, so the detail will always be difficult to fill in anyway. We have four devolved nations, and they will have different priorities. The key is going to be in the implementation of how we interpret those things. For instance, I am looking at points. The fact that each of the devolved nations—in fact, each of the regions in the devolved nations—may have a different level of resource to deliver each of those key targets that are outlined. I know that, certainly, in some of the regions around about Scotland, there is a very different resource, even in IFGs. How they deliver is going to be in relation to the capacity. As well, it is important to raise the fact that we have not only different systems, but different priorities for our fisheries. When we are talking about things in the statement, such as commercially important stocks, what is commercially important to different regions will vary. I think that it is a very sensible idea to have one, but I do not know how it is going to square the circle of things such as Northern Ireland's trade advantages over somewhere like Scotland. It cannot. However, as a strategic document, I think that it is very helpful. James, you touched on this, so I will direct the question to you. In your opinion, does the joint fisheries statement provide enough detail to explain how the fisheries policy authorities will achieve the objectives in the UK Fisheries Act? I will restate the objectives, as I said earlier. It adds very little. Admittedly, for some of them, there is probably little that could be added, but I think for others, I certainly would have liked to have seen more. In particular, I was disappointed that, at the beginning of the document, there is a reference to the various international instruments, both binding and non-binding, that the UK is speaking to give effect to, but they are not then used in order to give a bit more substance to them. The precautionary objective would be a good example. I think that there are two paragraphs in the draft statement that really just restate what is said in the act about the precautionary approach, but there is a lot more that could be drawn upon from various international instruments, be it the UN Fish Docks Agreement, be it the Food and Agriculture Organization Code of Conduct and Responsible Fisheries, which emphasises that the precautionary approach in fisheries has to be applied broadly. It is not just about a negative duty not to use a lack of science as an excuse for not taking action, but also a positive duty to always be more cautious when taking fisheries decisions. I think that those are going to be critical issues in giving effect. I agree completely with Elaine White that it is going to depend on the individual measures that are taken by fisheries administrations in order to give effect to the act and the statement, but the statement has to give some guidance to them on how they do that. At the moment, it really is lacking. Those are difficult issues. As you saw a few weeks ago when you were discussing the pod closure in the Clyde, those are very challenging issues. The more guidance that can be in the joint fisheries statement on what the precautionary approach means, for example, what the ecosystem objective means, the easier it might be for fisheries administrations to actually make more robust, transparent and clear decisions. Thank you very much for that response. Is there anyone else who wants to come in on that question? If not, I will move on. I would like to direct the question to first Charles Miller and Helen McLaughlin. Do you have concerns about the way that the joint fisheries statement proposes to meet the sustainability objective, the climate objective and or the by-catch objective? In particular, do you think that the measures that are proposed are enforceable? Do you think that there are adequate time frames set out, which you already mentioned in your openings? Is the language strong enough to require, rather than merely encourage, actions to be taken? Sustainability objective, the climate objective and or the by-catch objective? I think that without drilling down into each specific one, we have the same kind of problem running through all of those issues, which is that there is a lack of detail there. In a sense, we see that almost immediately. If you look, for example, at the ecosystem objective, you then look at some of the fishery management plans that have been proposed in Scotland. The whole point of an ecosystem objective is to take everything into account, essentially. Then what we have is fishery management plans, which are single species. That seems to me to be a kind of indicator of the problems associated with this document. Even from the get-go, there is a failure to actually see the potential implementation through fishery management plans being resulting from the objectives. Somewhere along the line, there is a problem there. It is this broader lack of, as I said earlier, time-bound commitments. It is this aspirational nature, if you like, of the document. If we look at some of the other, there are references at various points about exploring potential and opening up government to consideration. There is very little there that is actually binding. That is this scheme that runs through it, I think that is fair to say. Thanks very much, Charles. I think that it is really helpful that you point out that, on one hand, we are trying to look at an ecosystem objective here. Meanwhile, we are singling out a single species. Maybe that is a piece around shifting awareness of this greater awareness of ecosystems and needing to look at the interconnectedness of everything, and then, therefore, how do we take care of a single species? Helen, can I address that question to you as well around the objectives? I am being specific around the sustainability objective, the climate objective, or the by-catch one, but you are welcome to bring in anything else if you want to. Thank you. I agree with Charles. I think that we are at a point now where we realise that we do need to manage our fisheries with consideration to the broader environmental impacts. Making sure that we put in place the ability to do that is going to be key going forward. The fisheries management plans are being seen as one of the main means of delivering on management per se, but the time-bound commitments to recover depleted stocks and to deliver that broader ecosystem-based approach do not have much evidence of exactly how that will happen. I think that we would hope that there would be more in the JFS to touch on that. We have a whole raft of issues at the minute that really do need to take account of not just target stock but what are the wider impacts. The by-catch objective, where you are talking about the impact of fishing and sensitive species, as I said earlier, is to look at marine mammals and seabirds being caught in their thousands each year. Those are issues that we have known about for decades in terms of things such as harbour porpo, by-catch and gill net, and we have increased evidence in seabirds data, the impact there. Yet the way that is being proposed is a flag to what is called a by-catch mitigation initiative, a document that we expected to be published at the end of last year and it remains still to be published. We think that it may be in May but we are not sure. However, to have a statement that flags the delivery to another document about which stakeholders have no clue what it entails is really quite a big emission in our eyes. There are some things that we could have seen in here. We know where high-risk fisheries are and where some of the hotspots are. What is needed is not just more statements of, we would like to do something, it is about, okay, we are actually going to be doing X, Y and Z. We need change in the water, we need change in those fisheries to address the mitigation of those by-catch issues and then in turn the monitoring of those. With the climate change one, what I said previously was the case. We absolutely welcome the recognition and it is absolutely true that throughout the whole of fisheries supply chain there is a job to be done in assessing climate impacts and where those can be reduced. However, the detail in the statement really does not go much beyond consider where we can do that. It does not give much detail in what sort of options there might be available. We are hopeful that things will come down the line, but we are at a point of we need to have ambition and we need to be bold in what we do to turn things around over the coming years if we are going to meet those net zero ambitions. Thank you, Helen. That was a very helpful response. Just wanted to pick up on the by-catch mitigation initiative that is due to come out. Is that a Scottish Government or is it a joint document? It is a joint administrative piece, so it should talk to all four nations, but it is unclear how engaged all the four nations have been in the detail of that. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Arianne. A brief supplementary from Mercedes Willalba and followed by questions from Jim Fairlie. Thanks, convener. Just while we are on the subject of fisheries objectives, I wondered if perhaps we could hear from Elsbeth Macdonald and Elaine White whether your organisations have any specific plans or policies which you propose would be needed to meet the climate change objective specifically? The climate change objective is particularly interesting. There are a number of points that we need to recognise here. Something that I feel flows through this document, and we have not really touched on yet today, and I think that Professor Harrison mentioned it. What we are looking at here is something that is trying to address what are extremely complicated issues. I think that we have to recognise that we do not understand all of these issues, and there is a lot that we do not know, and there are many things that perhaps we will never know. For example, the document touches on the importance of blue carbon in the context of the climate change objective. There is much talk indeed about blue carbon, but we must recognise that we have a fairly limited understanding of the issues of blue carbon and what impact, if any, fishing has on that. We have to be cognisant of the fact that what we are trying to do here and what the document is trying to do and what the fisheries administrations are trying to do is manage something that is extremely complicated, where there are a lot of uncertainties and unknowns. Also, in relation to the climate change objective, it is important to recognise that, when you compare fisheries to other activities, fisheries is starting in a pretty good place. If you compare the impacts of fishing in the context of food production to other protein sources, for example, we are starting in a better place. It is important to see that broader context. That is not to say that there are not more things that the fishing industry can do to mitigate emissions, reduce emissions as far as possible, and that very much is a key part of the industry's activities as it tries to make its operations more efficient and therefore more carbon efficient. Clearly, that is going to be a really important part of our future fisheries management, but we just need to recognise too that our sustainable, successful fishing industry and our fisheries production is part of our journey towards net zero and is not just something that needs to be managed in the context of reaching net zero. We are part of that journey. There is much still to do, but there is much also that we still do not understand. Thanks, Elspeth. Mercedes, did you invite Elaine to speak? Yes, if we have time, that would be good. We have indeed responded to the future of fisheries management consultation, in which we have outlined our ambitions, which are things like looking at how we can make our fleet smarter. A lot of the inshore boats in particular are maybe up to 60 years old, so it is ways that we can potentially modernise those fleet. We are working on a strategy at the moment to look at that because it is very much needed. To caveat that, what I will say is that capacity is at an all-time low within the inshore fleet just because of the many different challenges that are coming towards them, but there is a very strong will to look at how they can improve their environmental standing, as well as their efficiency. I will also think when it comes to climate change and how we understand that and respect to resilience. We have to look at the resilience communities aspect of it as well. We have to think that, for instance, as someone mentioned the COD discussions, we now in the climate, for instance, have sea bottom temperatures of eight degrees from our members. CODs are usually found in four to seven degrees. That means that, when we talk about restoring stocks, we might not be able to restore those stocks, but we might be seeing other stocks coming in, things like—I know certainly that we have members in this all-way here—very keen to look at bass fisheries. We have members in the Western Isles who are keen to look at spar dogs, fisheries. I think that looking at how the climate is changing and how the stocks are changing and how we can make those communities fish in a more sustainable way in reflection of their stocks is very, very important for us. Of course, we certainly need to move on. I am going to direct this to Professor Harrison. We are talking about the international obligations and how that has worked through the whole GFS. You said in your briefing to the committee that, if no international obligation exists, it would appear that a secular estate cannot act unilaterally, and the consent of the devolved administrations may be needed for the determining of a fishing opportunity, and so far as the determination falls within the competence of a devolved administration. Do you have concerns about that? Can you expand on what your concerns would be? I certainly can. The Fisheries Act is very clear in section 23.2. I have got it in front of me. A determination of fishing opportunities may be made only for the purpose of complying with an international obligation of the UK. The rationale for that is that basic principles are that fisheries are devolved, but that foreign affairs and international negotiations are reserved. It is in those reserved areas where we see the Secretary of State having exclusive powers. There is a duty to consult when they are setting fishing opportunities. I do not see, in the draft statement as it is, that reflection of section 23.2 of the Fisheries Act, with its limitation on the powers of the Secretary of State, to set fishing opportunities only for the purpose of complying with international obligations. I have a question at least about whether that is compatible with the balance that was struck in terms of devolution in the Fisheries Act. I would encourage the Fisheries Administration to look at that again and see why that particular condition is not reflected in the fisheries statement. If there is not an international obligation, the Scottish ministers should be playing a much greater role in setting fishing opportunities. The other three devolved nations should have a much bigger say in any of those negotiations, just to clarify what you are saying. Whether there are international negotiations, I am saying that the UK Secretary of State has the power to make the determination, but not all fishing opportunities relate to shared stocks. The Fisheries Statement gives the impression that the Secretary of State has that power to make Fisheries Opportunity determinations over all stocks. That is the question that I am asking. I am not convinced that, under the act, the Secretary of State has that power and that Scottish ministers do not share stocks with other nations where there is no international negotiations, then Scottish ministers should have a stronger role in determining fishing opportunities. I was interested in what Elaine White was talking about in her first contribution. It is a hugely complex thing to deal with fishing. I know from a farming point of view that people talk about farming, but a whole farmer has no relation to an arable farmer in the east coast of Scotland. It seems to be 10 times more complicated in fishing. It would appear from Elaine White's evidence that there needs to be a much tighter agreement with the devolved Administrations to decide what is happening in their waters. Is that a fair assessment? The vast majority of stocks in the UK waters are shared with other countries, other neighbouring states. In most cases, the Secretary of State is going to have that power on section 23 of the act, but there might be other situations where they do not. I think that that should be reflected accurately in the fisheries statement. Elaine, what is your view? I agree with that. It would be good to have some clarity on that. From my perspective, more of the uncertainties over unevenness of decisions probably comes from even domestic bodies that we have. For instance, in a region, you may have marine planning, naturescot, fisheries department, agriculture department, renewables department, all making decisions that might not tie up. Ultimately, there is no point in having quota for a species if you do not have it in the area. There is no point in having quota if you cannot do it because there is a renewable site there. There are those types of join-ups, and it is about capacity, even at a domestic level. Of course, the strategic level will be for the ministers to decide, but I would say that the devolved nation is having as much control over its waters because it understands them the most. In the same way, I would say that a local area is having as much control as it can over its area because it understands them. Thank you, convener. I just want to push on that a little bit with James, if I may, because surely the beauty of the fact that it is slightly vague allows the devolved administrations to discuss who should be the lead person when negotiating internationally as far as the uptake of quota when we are unable to fill that quota ourselves. I believe that we have an obligation to exploit the quota if we have not got to the sustainable yield limit. Therefore, surely there could be some merit in Scotland taking the lead on some aspects, England taking the lead on another, and surely that is the merits of what is being suggested. Do you agree? I think I am making a slightly different point because I am talking about situations where we might want to constrain fishing opportunities but there is no international negotiation. The point that I am trying to get across is that in that situation it should not be the UK Secretary of State who is exercising that power on behalf of the devolved administrations. It should be the devolved administrations working together with the Secretary of State and jointly coming up with the fishing opportunity. The flip side of what I said is exactly what you have just said. It would be the devolved administration who have the majority of that stock, who may well take the lead on it and encourage every one of the devolved administrations to follow along those lines. Therefore, it achieves it both ways. As we have been alluding to, international negotiations have an impact just as a changed landscape more generally post Brexit has a wider social impact on fishing and other rural communities. I know that a number of us are keen for this committee to look at specifically in the future. However, how do negotiations themselves impact on delivering policies in the GFS? Can you give examples of how those negotiations determine the ability to implement those policies? I'm sorry, how big you're born. I address it to Professor Harrison in the first instance. I think for those stocks which are shared with other states, and that may be other coastal states in the region, there are some stocks which are paddling stocks that also exist on the high seas and there's a need to negotiate with those high seas fishing states as well. There will be a significant impact on what we can achieve domestically without cooperating with other states. It's the same stock, so there needs to be some level of coordination where there is a shared stock concern. What examples I would give to go to the fisheries management plans? A number of the stocks for which the Scottish ministers are responsible for developing fisheries management plans are shared stocks. It doesn't make sense to have a Scottish fisheries management plan, the Scottish waters, that doesn't take into account what other states are doing for the same stock in their own waters. Indeed, there are already long-term management strategies for many of the stocks listed there, such as Blue Whiting, Atlantis Scandal and Herring, that will have to be taken into account in the development of those fisheries management plans. I think that this complicates fisheries management hugely where you have multiple states fishing for the same stock. Perhaps another example of that complexity is through the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the UK and the EU, where as part of the governance of that treaty, there are a number of specialised committees that have been set up. One of those is the Specialised Committee on Fisheries. There are around 70 shared stocks between the UK and the EU. Indeed, there have been discussions and annual negotiations between the two parties on those stocks for the past two years. Many issues are likely to be remitted from those negotiations into the Specialised Committee on Fisheries. That committee has barely got off the ground at the moment yet, but we know that there will be issues that are remitted there. We know about non-quota stocks, for example, that there will be much work to be done through that specialised committee. We need to recognise the delivery of some of the policies and achieving some of the objectives that are set out in the act and through the joint fisheries statement may indeed be impacted by how things are progressed and moved through that process through that specialised committee. That is perhaps an example whereby these international negotiations and international discussions on fisheries management, as well as fishing opportunities, may start to have an impact on how the objectives of the act are delivered. Elaine White Thank you very much. That is a point where I see the ambition as a concern. How I see the future being and how policy might work out is different. We have been included as an inshore organisation in the international negotiation co-groups this year, which has been very helpful, but also very distant in a way, because it seems that the issues of the inshore are maybe quite far away. We had talked about potentially having access to quota, about potentially looking at stocks that we would not have normally been able to fish to allow local communities to diversify. My major concern through these discussions has been the fact that we are looking at potentially giving out new additional quota and not looking at how we redistribute quota that we do have at the moment. There is a lot of talk about lack of access to third countries, so having the larger fleets have to pick up quota opportunities. That has led to a lot of swaps from potentially inshore communities to allow that to happen. I am very supportive of all sustainable fishing, regardless of the scale of which it happens at, but I think that there needs to be an understanding that there is probably still a massive disconnect between what the opportunities are for the smaller fleets to potentially be more resilient and more less of a monospecies, because they are not really in that discussion. There is a priority in making sure that the boats that we have at the moment stay at sea. I think that we have to be looking at how we, potentially with a squeeze on inshore communities, we need to look at how we can make it sustainable for them as well. That is what I would like to see an ambition to really include those new communities and new partners in a way that is sensible. I have a brief supplementary from Rachael Hamilton. On the TAC, the UK advocates science and evidence-based approach on managing those stocks. What is the reality of that? Do you believe that that approach is fair and balanced in those quota exchanges? I think that, from that point I mean earlier, about complexity and recognising that, whilst we know some things, we do not know everything, there are lots of things that we do not know and there is a lot of uncertainty around some of the things that we do know. I am sorry to think about Rumsfeld here, but if we think about the situation at North Sea Cod, for example, science is telling us something, telling us that the distribution of codes in the North Sea is very different from what it was 20 or 30 years ago. It is telling us that there are not, there do not appear to be very many codes in the southern North Sea, but they still appear to be quite numerous in the northern North Sea. That is what the data collection tells us, but then we have models that are then used to make predictions and to provide fisheries patch advice about these stocks. What those models do not necessarily do is take into account what is likely to have changed. For example, we think that it is widely thought, not just industry think, but there is a general view that many of our first species are shifting northwards as a consequence of warming seas. Elaine mentioned this, climate change driven, but the scientific modelling is not keeping pace, it is not reflecting what are perhaps quite fast moving changes in our environment. Science and evidence should underpin decision making, but we have to recognise who that science and evidence might be lacking or is out of date or needs to be improved. That is a point that I have made in my comments on the Joint Fisheries Statement. There are many references to science throughout the draft GFS, but they are quite inconsistent. It talks in places about best available science, and that best available science might not actually be very good. So making decisions on something that is perhaps quite poor science because it is either out of date or it is not particularly comprehensive. I think that we have to recognise that the best available science at times might not actually be very good. In some places in the document there is ambition talking about being world class on science and world leading. In other places we talk about we might not have good enough science, so we will just have to make decisions based on where there may be data gaps. Science is really important in all of this, but it is also really important that we understand the limitations of it and where actually it might not be very good. I think that industry would be very keen to be working with Governments about how that fishery science can be improved and to have constructive and ambitious questions about what might be possible on the scientific front, so that we can make better decisions. Thank you. Elspeth is a very brief supplementary from Arianne. Thank you, convener. Elspeth, I want to continue on the theme of the science piece. Last week, the cabinet secretary announced the consultation on remote electronic monitoring with cameras to gather data and feed it into decision making and policy setting. I would love to hear from you your thoughts on the remote electronic monitoring and is that something—you know, they talked about rolling it out and I know that it is still in a consultation stage, but just to hear your initial thoughts on that in terms of giving you the science, your organisation, your members, the science they need and the Government the science they need to make better decisions. I think it is important that we make the distinction and understand the distinction between in terms of what data and information might be being gathered for. So, if REM is being used in the context of assurance and compliance, then I think we have to see that as distinct from data gathering for scientific purposes. I think what we have to be very clear about is what is the purpose of the data that would be being gathered through the proposals around REM. Of course, we will be looking very carefully at that consultation and responding to that consultation, but I think it is really important that we do not conflate the issues between monitoring and compliance and assurance and scientific data gathering. I think there is much more that we need to do in terms of work that we could do with developing Government and industry surveys, for example. There have been lots of things that we have tried to develop with Government and we would be very keen to have those discussions, but I think that we have to make that clear distinction between compliance and that clear distinction around data gathering for scientific purposes. Can I move on to questions now from Jenny? Thank you, convener. Elaine White in her introduction mentioned that there are different resources across the different inshore fishery areas and also that really regional areas differ across Scotland. In her last answer, Elaine, you talked about the need for communities to be able to diversify their catch. I wonder if you could expand a bit on that, where you would like to see the JFS, how it provides opportunities to that, and perhaps if Charles Miller has got any thoughts on that as well. I am not sure that the JFS can pin it down. As I said at the beginning of the statement, I think that this is an overarching strategy document. I think that where we are going to pin those issues down is at the devolved level and at local management levels. We talked about removing two different types of ports. Potentially, in the future, we would be looking to have the same catch. We cannot potentially go to a lot of stocks because we do not have access to that quota. I think that it is about international negotiations, potentially people understanding that there may be a will to diversify. As I said, we have been very much involved in the negotiations, but we are very much the new kid on the block. I think that the priority has been keeping some of the larger boats going that are very used to international negotiations. I think that it is about making sure that we make the case that those communities round the coast need to have some way in. Because they are not fishing something, that does not mean that they do not want to. We may have science in the future that reflects them enough to say, well, you can move from potentially a monophyte to a different opportunity that may put less stress on the stocks. It is just bringing that home. What we have at the moment is the fact that no quota will be distributed. At no quota, we do not know what that will be in a year-to-year basis, and it might be a stock that nobody would want to fish in the inshore. It is how we can be flexible enough to meet those flexible needs. I think that that can happen domestically, rather than just through the GFF. I think that there is a really important issue here around how section 25 of the UK Fisheries Act is integrated into all of this. That is essentially the aspect of the act that relates to the distribution of fishing opportunities. It is really important that we do not lose sight of this, and that the GFF brings this out. There is a lot of criteria that it establishes around environmental performance, the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the regulatory requirements relating to fishing, those sorts of things. There is also an important one here about the contribution of fishing to the local economy. That is quite an important factor in determining how the fishing opportunities will be allocated around the coast. It is tying it into this wider concept of the community and coastal benefits. It is not just a simple question of track record. That is a really important point that needs to be reminded. Can we move on to the questions from Rachael Hamilton? The joint fisheries statement says that FPAs are committed to further developing inclusivity and involvement. I just want to get the views of the panel whether they believe that currently co-management exists. Do they believe that, within the framework, future policy should be co-designed in a better way? Can I get some examples of how it works and how it does not work? I think that we have engagement in Scotland. We have stakeholder engagement. We have consultation. We have quite a lot of discussion, but I do not think that that is always translates into what we would call co-management. I think that there is an opportunity now looking at the way in which we can do differently in Scotland and in other parts of the UK to really think about how we engage the right people in discussions around how we design our fisheries management going forward. Inquisibility and involvement is a very positive aspiration, but it is important that it involves and includes the right people who have the necessary understanding and knowledge to become involved in co-designing and co-managing things. You do not want to be in a position where you have such a broad church, perhaps, and perhaps with some people in that church who do not necessarily have all the necessary knowledge and understanding to design effective fisheries management and how we go forward, but you absolutely want to have the right people from whatever parts of that church that have the relevant knowledge and information and can be part of that co-design process. At the moment, we have forums for engagement and discussion and consultation, but they do not really feel genuinely co-designing and co-management. I think that there is much more that we can do there, but it is important that we have the right knowledge and input into that process. Are there any examples across the globe of good co-management? There may be. I do not know that I have any immediately. From the discussions with colleagues that have worked in New Zealand, they have been able to pioneer fisheries management plans in ways that I think have been successful. I think that there have been some good examples there. I think that the early thinking around fisheries management plans is drawing on some of those examples. A workshop that was held a couple of years ago was before I was involved in this role that was bringing together best practice on fisheries management plans from other parts of the world to help the UK to see how we might do that. I think that there are examples from elsewhere, and I think that it is recognised that the UK and Scotland can learn from these and that we should do that. How can we improve our co-designing to ensure that we have a good approach to the future of fishing policy? I would largely agree with Elsbeth at the minute on where we are here in Scotland, but the situation is different across the four nations of the UK. Scotland is some way ahead of the other fisheries administrations by virtue of the fact that they have regular connections with key stakeholders, which is good. However, as Elsbeth said, whether that equates to co-management at this point in time is not quite the case. From my experience of working with colleagues around the world, there are examples of co-management from elsewhere, but depending on the scale of your ambition and your geography and your fishery, it can be quite a capacity-intense process. If you are talking about people from far-flung parts of a country coming together, obviously over recent years, we have improved our ability to connect remotely. That has been really helpful, but often that face-to-face connection is getting a few key people, as Elsbeth said, who understand the bigger political context of the fishery, as well as the nuts and bolts of what happens on the water. They are both important to bringing together and getting a few people in a room to have that understanding of who we are talking to. Different people will bring different things to the table, and they might have amazing experiences of situations from the US or parts of Asia where we have had amazing co-management on quite a small scale, but can it be scaled up? It really depends on the level that you want to look at for co-management and then trying to do a good job on getting those right people in the room and managing the process effectively. It is absolutely a good ambition, but it is one that needs adequately resourced and supported to make it happen properly. A good example of that is probably in the United States where they have regional by-catch response teams for each of the regions of the US. It means that you have the compliance people, the guys who are fishing, the people who are looking at the scientists who are underpinning the data and the policy makers. It is quite a group of people and it is quite a commitment. We are under a bit of time pressure, but I wanted to really pick up as well on how we monitor the effectiveness of that decision making. Professor Harrison had any views on that particular point? Lots of views on your previous question, but less on that one, I have to say. There is no perfect model of co-management. Every country has slightly different industry, slightly different stakeholders, so I do not think that we can just lift and paste a model from another country. It is time that we looked at co-management again in Scotland. We have got our regional fisheries groups. They have been operating in current form since about 2016. There is room to look at them. They provide a good voice for the fishing industry and less room for other stakeholders to come on board. I think that it is important that we do not operate in silo that fisheries policy is developed with all relevant voices around the table. I think it is definitely time for a review of our co-management arrangements in Scotland. Chetland is often held up as an interesting example, a regulating order, as one model for very much a co-management industry led initiative, but again, not without recent criticisms of that. I think we need to look at this carefully. Fisheries management plans are going to be a good test of how we go forward in terms of involving all relevant stakeholders, industry and others. Future catching policy flags that the FMAC group that the Scottish Government has is going to be key to implementing any future catching policy. This is quite a priority I think, moving forward, how we get this right. We are under a bit of time pressure, and just to be clear for members that we will take questions next from Karen, followed by Alastair, and then from Edward. Karen, your question, please. I have been hearing how, in comparison, there are some differences in regards to how the four nations are planned. I think that I heard the word a lack of continuity. Was that Professor Harrison? Perhaps please correct me if I'm wrong there. Is it being individually sensitive to our coast, an important aspect, particularly for inshore fishing, which is extremely bespoken to each area? What specific aspects of the other nation approaches would you want to see implemented in Scottish waters for that continuity, and why? Can I start with Professor Harrison, please? I think that I talked about consistency and coherence. This is a common framework. Fisheries are a shared reverse. Many of the stocks straddle boundaries of the four fisheries administrations. There is a need for coherent decision making. Equally, as I said in my opening statement, there is a need for some flexibility. There does need to be space for different fisheries administrations to pursue policies in particular areas. I think that inshore local stocks is one area where, of course, the statement should not constrain innovation, the sort that Elaine White was talking about earlier. There is a balance to be struck. Discards was an example that I gave earlier. I think that more consistency is probably needed when we approach discards. I think that there are challenges of having four completely separate regulatory frameworks for discards in the UK, but that is just a conversation that needs to be thought through. You did not catch what he said there. I was moving on to Elaine White to ask the question. Can I jump in there, please? I think that there is a short time for Elspeth, so if we could have Elspeth first. Thank you, convener. I do not believe it at 10 past 10, so thank you for giving me the floor meantime. There was an example of this that came up yesterday in another meeting where we were actually discussing the joint fisheries statement with officials. I had raised the issue of displacement of fishing by other marine activities. That gets a very short billing in the joint fisheries statement. I think that there are only a few lines about it, but it is a really big issue for the fishing industry. As we see the expansion of offshore wind, for example, the designation of highly protected marine areas, other initiatives, other policies, other industries at sea, and the displacement effect that could have on fishing. I queried why there was really so little in the joint fisheries statement addressing that, and the answer was that those are issues that the four Administrations will want to think about separately in their own waters. There might have different ways in how they deal with displacement. There might have different policies for how they achieve that. I agree to an extent with the comments made by other panellists here. There is a balance to be struck between where it is sensible for there to be some alignment, but where it is important and where there is merit in there being divergence because the situations are different. There is not a one-size-fits-all answer to that. It is about how you find that as a sweet spot between having sufficient flexibility to recognise and allow the Administrations to deal with situations that are different, but not necessarily having a difference just for the sake of it. I will suck to you on that, Elizabeth, before you have to go. In regard to the science aspect, is there any part of the science from the other nations that you would like to see included? How does our science compare with the other nations? When you look at Scotland in the context of fishing and fisheries, Scotland accounts for around about 60 per cent of the UK total in terms of landings, both in terms of tonnage and value. Scotland is, in numbers terms, the biggest part of the UK when it comes to fishing. I do not have numbers and statistics to hand, but I would expect that, in that context, Scotland probably punches a bit above its weight in comparison to, certainly in relation to Wales and Northern Ireland and in relation to fishery science. I know that there is good co-operation and collaboration between the science effort in the Administrations. There is good join-up and co-operation between Marine Scotland Science in Scotland and CFAS Science South of the Border. I think that, again, bearing in mind that we know that resources for science are going to be challenged across the public sector budgets are going to be challenged in the years ahead. Therefore, it is important that we have such frameworks that the Joint Fisheries Statement is part of that allow the Administrations to think about how we make the best use of the resources that we have available for science. Let us make sure that we are not duplicating effort. Let us make sure that we are actually using those resources wisely, getting the best banks for our back that we can and doing that in ways that it reflects the domestic priorities of each of the Administrations. I think that that is where the framework could be useful in helping us to achieve that sort of balance. That is great. Thank you. Helen McLaughlin wants to come in. It was just a quick one in terms of an example of where you would like to see some consistency of approach. For example, the mention of remote electronic monitoring with cameras. If the four Administrations were to move forward with that, you would want to see a similar system rolled out so that vessels that are operating for other offshore and crossing boundaries would not have multiple systems to deal with. That is just one small example. To James's point, the fact that we have common targets, goals and time-bound objectives, the different Administrations will take different timeframes probably in order to get there or there will be different mechanisms. However, as long as they have that shared objective, that is the key and the shared ambition. You talked about other examples. When we were in Norway about four or five years ago, I asked about how they managed to work with the local fishermen, because each of the local fishermen there were taking citizen science-type things. They were working as a reference with the Government, and they could tell the Government that there is a spawning happening in this fjord, and it would be closed down for a few weeks and reopened again. That varied from fjord to fjord. If we are talking about reflexiveness about how we can help with communication and how we can help management, I think that you are right. We need to have the divergence between the devolved nations and the regions in Scotland. I think that we need to make a far better link between the fleets that we have there, where we are basically floating science stations and we want to get involved and actually our Government. It is really important that we are asking the right questions. I think that we need baseline before we go into various different kind of narrow questions about what is out there, because the baseline will lead to that. I also think that we have to be tied up and joined up in relation to our Government resources, because, as I mentioned before, we have different organisations, we have marine sculpting fisheries, we have nature school. We are all doing different science projects and dedicating different types of resources to the same types of things or coming at them in slightly different angles. The joined up point of that is really essential. We need to start getting that figured out. I would mention capacity. What we need to acknowledge is that each of the different regions has a different capacity with its fishermen. You might have a very small fleet or a very large fleet, which is important. However, in terms of the other stakeholders in the area, you might have an area that has a lot of very active lobby community group-type things that are pulling down maybe potentially millions of funds a year, but that is maybe not happening in another area. What you might find is that one area could be under a lot of pressure in terms of how they engage and what the questions that they are reactive to are. For me, engagement is important, but the balance is right. I think that it is really important that we understand what each mechanism is for. We are talking about a strategic mechanism, a strategic over-acting thing, and we are talking about pinning a lot of detail to it. I see that happening in a lot of forums. I see that marine Scotland has public consultations so that everyone can reply whether you are working in ASDA or whether you are a fisherman. You can reply to that. They have FMAX, FMAX and IFGs. There is an opportunity for just about all the stakeholders to engage in one of those appropriate things. What I see quite a lot of the time is everyone coming with their own interests, so for instance, maybe potentially coming to a marine planning partnership and wanting to look at solely fisheries management. We need to start understanding and that is for all of the engaged parties to understand what the purpose of the framework that we are engaging is about. We all have our own aspirations, but we do not want to drive it too far away from what it is. Regional Insure Fisheries Groups has touched on, I think, the important part in developing fisheries management plans under the GFS. Do you see a role changing in the future and how might it change or how might it be supported in the future? That might be a question initially for Helen McLaughlin. I think that there is a lack of detail in terms of the fisheries management plans and quite how they are going to be developed. I think that that is one of our concerns because they were heralded certainly as a key tool with which we would start to look at restoring docks and looking at wider ecosystem-based management. There is not a great sense of how that is going to be taken forward. I think that that is something that we will have to come back to, to be honest. In our response, we have certainly set out some of the things that we would like to see those fisheries management plans addressing. The RIFGs have been charged already with producing fisheries management plans. There has been quite a range, we say, in the kind of content of those plans. That has caused us considerable concern, not least because the RIFGs are good at representing the fishing industry, but they are not multi-stakeholder forum. They do not provide an opportunity for different stakeholders to contribute to the whole management of the fishery under an ecosystem-based management approach, which takes into account all the different human interactions as well as multiple species, both target species and non-species. There are significant shortcomings in some of the RIFGs fisheries management plans. We welcome the JFS's clear importance that attaches to fisheries management plans. On the subject, we have concerns about what appeared to have been proposed within the Scottish area. There seems to be some significant gaps in why there is no scallop fisheries management plan. That surely hits the criteria of economic value, socioeconomic importance and ecosystem significance. There are some really significant questions there around why certain fisheries management plans in Scotland have been proposed. We would be interested in trying to drill down into that. There is another aspect of that. It relates to the ecosystem-based approach, which is obviously the third objective of the act and in the JFS. Managing species in isolation is counterintuitive to the ecosystem-based approach. Scotland's proposed fisheries management plans are single species exclusively, whereas, if you look to some of the fisheries management plans in the other regions, they cover the whole range of demersial species, which is a much more coherent approach. The RIFGs have done something. We think that there is a lot of scope for doing more around FNPs and getting them right, but the direction of travel, as indicated in the JFS, is a cause for concern. I have a follow-on to that question, if I may. In 2016, the Scottish Government announced that it wanted to produce an inshore fisheries bill. The rationale put behind it was that it did not feel that it understood or had control of the inshore fisheries like it should have. Part of that was to include management plans on a zonal basis, as far as I understand it. It never came about. Do you think that that was a missed opportunity? Because of the shortness of time, I am very happy to take a yes or no answer if you are prepared to do that from Charles Miller and Elaine White, if I may please. Yes, it was a missed opportunity. I hope that the opportunity will come around again. Yes, but I think that there are opportunities to potentially do it through the framework that we have as well. There is definitely a scope for improvements. I can just follow up on that. Do you think that we need greater regulation of the inshore fisheries on the basis that we do not fully understand who is taking what, where, when and how? I certainly, from the Sips Point view, that there is considerable scope for further regulation of that. Indeed, of the science, too. I mean, there is no stock assessments done on the RAS fishery or the Gallup fishery. There is a lot more that could be done on the inshore, and the inshore is 70 per cent of the fleet. Thank you, Camuna. Elaine White, sorry, sorry for that. Oh, sorry. Yes, yes or no? I think that if you actually look at some of the discussions of the IFGs, I think that you will see that fishermen are suggesting better regulation and, just in touch with Charles's point, he said that there are no scallop plans, there are regional scallop plans. These things are being discussed with the IFGs. In terms of how much resources to take them forward, I think that that might be an issue that we can talk about at another point. Edward, did you have your main question? Yes. My next question really is on spatial planning and, in some ways, it's a pity that Elspeth has left us, but one of the conflicts that we see is across the resource. Everyone wants to use a benefit, whether it's wind farms, whether it's aquaculture, whether it's treasures, whether it's scallop fishermen or diving. I mean, how do we do some sort of regulation so that we ensure that everyone gets to use the resource and our good neighbours to the other people who also want to use the resource? James, do you want to head off on that and then perhaps everyone, if they just give a quick response to that? James? I can certainly start. It's important that we understand the joint fisheries statement and the fisheries act has been part of a much bigger puzzle of marine governance that sits alongside the marine spatial planning system under the Marine Scotland Act 2010. We have a national marine plan, which in a sense is partly about dealing with this. It's due for review. We're waiting to see whether the Scottish Government is going to actually review it. I think that there's a strong argument, given the debates about displacements, given the new developments, given the post-Brexit scenario, that we need a new national marine plan. We also need more regional marine plans. It's been so slow rolling out regional marine plans. That's where you could potentially get into much more detailed spatial planning. At the moment, the approach that has been taken is really not very spatial. I think that I have a lot of sympathy for the fishing industry and the comments that were made earlier that they are being pushed aside. We're asking lots of questions about where we put wind farms and where we put MPAs. It's an important question, but we also need to be asking which areas of the sea do we prioritise for fisheries? At the moment, they are being left with the scraps that other policy areas and other sectors are not taking up. I think that regional marine planning is the forum for having those conversations about where we put different activities and making sure that each activity is given the value that it deserves. Helen, do you want to come in on that? I think that there's got to be a space for nature in there somewhere as well. Over the last 20-odd years, we have identified areas that are important for features, habitats and species in our marine environment. We have designated those as protected areas, but very few of them have actually had measures put in place to end what has been identified as destructive activities in those. Fishing is one of those activities that is often cited as a problem for particularly benthic species and habitats. One of the things in terms of looking at going forward is that we need to sort that out. Let's protect some of those key spaces for nature, but, as has been said by other panellists, the big national discussion about how we use our seas or the environment for the social benefits of this nation and how we use it to address the nature and climate targets that we need to meet. How do we do that with the greatest levels of ambition and urgency possible? There is definitely the need for those conversations, because offshore wind and other renewables are not going away and are coming down the track, but we also want to see a vibrant and thriving fishing industry. How do we make that balance off? As you say, face for nature is absolutely vital, because we are failing consistently to meet good environmental status across our marine indicators. 11 out of 15 of them are not green and that is a failure. That is why the policies that we are talking about here today are really vital to get right to make that step change. The spatial management is clearly important. As we heard a moment ago, regional marine planning is an obvious route to take it forward. I concur with that. What is important is that we remember that spatial management is not quite as simple as just designating an area to a certain activity and thinking that that activity is going to suffer by not being in it. What matters to the fishing industry is how many fish there are to catch, not the number of square kilometres that their boats can move over. If you have a smaller area where fishing can take place but there is a greater number of fish within it, that is a win for the fishing industry. That seems to be an issue that Marine Scotland seems to move very slowly. Other nations recognise that if you create areas that are under a spatial management regime where there is spawning and there is an opportunity for fish stocks to increase, albeit if you have a smaller area where the fishing industry can operate, you also have a richer fishing industry. Some of those complexities need to be looked at. Through multi-stakeholder engagement opportunities, that is the way of the thoughts on this regional marine planning being the key one. I think that Elaine is the last one, or is Elaine Given, did I miss her? No, I am happy to talk. Yes, I think that that is really important. I think that the point that James made is very important. We need to start being less reactive and more proactive about how we plan where fishing can happen because he is right. We are being left out. Fishing can not happen everywhere, it can only happen because you have access to 70 per cent of the area. Maybe only 30 per cent of that is helpful to some fishermen, depending on what species you are going for. On an average day, I do not know how everyone else is, but I get 60 to 100 e-mails a day minimum. That is usually from future aquaculture sites for seaweed, finfish aquaculture sites, new renewable sites. It is always a different industry. I would say that probably about 70 to 80 per cent of my work is reacting to different industry requirements, whether it is laying cables, et cetera. How much space does that actually use you in a day to look at how you develop your fishery is then negligible. I think that the future fisheries management strategy is important, but I think that what we actually need is a map, taking in local fisher knowledge of where fishing happens. There needs to be not a fair balance of decision, because I do feel that there is quite a lot of priority given that the honus is on us to object to everything. If it is affecting us and providing the socio-economic information and providing the data, we need to be looking at that process, because if we are doing that so many times a day, what we are not doing is affecting the planning. Thank you, Elaine. I think that we have run out of time, I am afraid. Thank you to the witnesses for their evidence. As always, we are time pressured and we could discuss this for a lot longer, but we will suspend the meeting now for a comfort break and for a change in witnesses and reconvene at 10.30. We now move to our second evidence session. I welcome to the meeting Mary Gougeon, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands and Scottish Government officials Alan Gibb, acting deputy director and Paul McCarthy, policy manager for funding and strategy sea fisheries division in Marine Scotland. Before I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement, I would like to remind members that the Parliament is observing the national day of reflection at 12 noon. I will therefore aim to conclude this session just before 12. Thank you, convener, and thanks to the committee for providing me the opportunity to discuss the joint fisheries statement and the UK fisheries framework, which I would like to briefly introduce today. Together, those documents help to explain how fisheries will be managed across the UK for future years in a way that allows the UK as a whole to share common goals on fisheries management and marine protection, while protecting the Scottish Government's devolved powers in those areas in deciding how those goals should be approached and how policies should be implemented. The future of fisheries management strategy and the future catching policy, along with the blue economy strategy to be launched this spring, set out how I intend to make Scotland a world-class fisheries manager focusing on the issues of importance and relevance to Scottish waters and Scottish communities. Those documents show how the commitment to achieving sustainable management of fisheries is locked into our overarching fisheries management strategy and will drive many new policies. In that context, the GFS and framework help to establish the high-level UK policy and how the UK Administrations will work together, ensuring that devolution is respected, while at the same time identifying where we need to work together to deliver sustainable management of our seas. With the high-level goals that are established at the UK level through the GFS and framework, how we implement them will be taken forward through the actions of the Scottish Government in order to achieve our goals on marine protection, recovering biodiversity, net zero and growing the blue economy. The documents are split as the joint fisheries statement predates the UK frameworks process, but broadly speaking the GFS sets out the policies, the joint policies, the four UK Administrations will pursue with the framework setting out how the Administrations will work together. In relation to the joint fisheries statement, as set out in the Fisheries Act 2020, the GFS sets out the policies of the Administrations to achieve the eight policy objectives. The GFS sets out how the objectives in the Fisheries Act have been interpreted and how the Administrations aim to deliver a vibrant, profitable and sustainable fishing industry supported by a healthy marine environment. The policies cover the sea fisheries policy and management within UK waters and in negotiations with other coastal states. They cover fisheries science, fisheries management, determination and the apportionment of fishing opportunities, access to UK waters, by-catch, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, marine protected areas, climate change and a number of other areas. In order to protect evolved competence, those policies are set at a high level with the detail to be delivered by the Scottish Government. That will enable the Scottish Government to ensure that policy is tailored to Scottish waters and Scottish circumstances while also achieving high-level goals. The GFS also sets out our approach on fisheries management plans. The Government will take the lead in drafting FNPs for many of the stocks of greatest interest to us, including the pelagic and demersal stocks. The UK Fisheries Management and Support framework is a more operationally focused document that broadly speaking addresses how the Administrations should engage with each other and establishes groups and processes by which we will regulate the day-to-day business. The structure of the memorandum of understanding consists of one high-level agreement covering common principles regarding working together, dispute avoidance on resolution and data collection and sharing. Underneath this MOU sit the more detailed operational agreements detailing how exactly the Administrations will work together on a number of other areas. That approach allows Administrations to approach each issue independently, allowing for example changes to quota management without needing to reopen the entire MOU. The ability to take issues singly should also allow for considerable flexibility in terms of deciding when and how we wish to amend any part of the MOU or any of its annexed agreements. Together, those documents help to explain how fisheries will be managed across the UK for future years in a way that allows the UK as a whole to share common goals on fisheries management and marine protection while protecting the Scottish Government's devolved powers in those areas in deciding how those goals should be approached and how policy should be implemented. I hope that that has been helpful to set that out. I am happy to take any questions from the committee. Thank you cabinet secretary. Can we have questions from members now starting with Alistair Allan? Thank you, convener. I wonder on the back of the statement that you just made there whether you could say anything about what the process of developing the joint fisheries statement has been like from a Scottish Government point of view and whether it says anything more generally about the relationship between the four administrations but also whether it is a process that you feel could be changed or improved in the future? I think that what the process has shown so far in developing this, I think that it shows how effectively the four administrations across the UK can work together and I think that it also shows importantly the alignment that we have in terms of the high-level goals and ambitions that have been set out in the GFS itself. It also shows that this is how devolution should work. Obviously, that has been a key consideration. We want to make sure that devolved powers are respected and adhered to and I think that the agreement that we have set out, the joint fisheries statement as well as the framework, identify that and it sets out those high-level ambitions while allowing us the flexibility to determine the individual policies that are right for our own industry and sector here. Again, I think that it has been a positive piece of work and, of course, we will continue to see how that develops. On those issues, it shows how we are ultimately aligned in the ultimate objectives that we would like to see. That is not to say that it has always been the case and that we will always agree on every element. One example of that is where we have seen disagreement in which we have also raised in discussions with the committee previously is in relation to the UK seafood fund, which cuts across devolved competence and spends in an area that is entirely devolved, which is something that has caused confusion for the industry at spending in areas that we are already looking to fund ourselves in Scotland. Again, while there are areas and specific issues that we have, it shows how we can work together positively and effectively. Cabinet Secretary, if you could respond to previous witnesses' comments about the level of ambition set out in the draft joint fisheries statement. I think that what is set out in the level of ambition that we have set out in the GFS is a really high level of ambition because it shows our ambitions for our fishing industry, for our marine environment. We want to see a profitable industry, and we want to have a healthy marine environment as part of that, too. It is really world-leading in terms of the ambition that it sets out. I know that there have been concerns from various stakeholders about the specific detail that they do not see as being included in the joint fisheries statement, but, as I hope, I have been able to respond to. What I talked about in my opening statement in response to the previous question is that it is very important that we have those overall high-level ambitions that we look to achieve and that we are aligned on those, but it is also vitally important that it is up to each Administration to determine how those policy objectives will be achieved and to set that out, and that it respects devolution in that sense. The committee, I know, will be aware of the statement that it made to Parliament last week, which is a good example of that, where we set out what we intend to do in relation to our future catching policy, as well as remote electronic monitoring to policies that are currently out to consultation at the moment. That shows how we are actively delivering on the ambitions that have been set out in the GFS and how we intend to deliver that through the strategies and the policies that we have set out, and we will continue to do so. Thank you. Can I move on to questions from Jim Fairlie now? Cabinet Secretary, could you maybe just outline the process for agreeing the interpretation of the Fisher's objectives in the GFS between the UK Government that devolved the Administrations and were stakeholders involved in that process? Yes, there was obviously discussions between the four Administrations in setting this out, and of course I'm glad that we've been able to align in terms of the objectives and the policies that are set out in the GFS. Stakeholder engagement has, of course, been critical to that process as well, so there was a community of interest in the process of developing the GFS, which sought to gather stakeholder views from across the UK, keeping stakeholders involved throughout that process. I don't know if either Paul or Alan would want to say a bit more about that process of stakeholder engagement. Just to say briefly, yes, there was a community of interest set up across the UK. The Scottish representatives on the community of interest was every stakeholder on our FMAC and IFMAC groups, so that covers most of the Fishermen, scientists, NGOs and other interested parties. They were informed and engaged about the development of the drafting of the GFS. They were able to provide feedback, and of course they'll also be fully engaged in the full public consultation exercise that we're doing as well, which provides another forum to feedback views on. I have a question as to how you managed to keep them all thinking in the same way, but that's maybe a question for another day, convener. Thank you, Mercedes, for supplementary from you. Thanks. I've got a couple of supplementaries about the fisheries objectives. The national benefit objective is that fishing activities of UK fishing boats bring social economic benefits to the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom. Could you outline what measures the Scottish Government will take to achieve that objective? I think that I've probably reflected on the examples that I've provided earlier in relation to the future catching policy and REM as an example of that, where through the future catching policy it sets out how we will meet not just the national benefit objective, but across the other objectives that are set out in the fisheries act too. Obviously, it's critical that those are what's set out in legislation and the delivery mechanisms that we use for our policies meet the objectives that are set out, so I'd say that the future catching policy is an example of that in meeting that objective. Okay, thank you very much. I understand that the economic link, which was announced in November last year, requires only 50 per cent of catches made by Scottish boats to be landed in the UK, but this is less than the requirement for English counterparts. So can you confirm if you intend to match the English rules or whether the Scottish rules are going to remain lower than the English ones? I think that it was in the debate that I had in Parliament that took place last year that we'll be looking to introduce new economic link measurements as of next year, and I'll be setting out as of the start of 2023, so I'll be setting out more detail in that in due course. And do you expect them to match the English requirements? It's not possible for me to say that at the moment, because as I say, that detail will be coming when I look to make that announcement. Okay, thank you. And then one other question. So the Fisheries Act states that administrations must meet the bycatch objective, which includes that the catching of fish that are below minimum conservation reference size and other bycatch is avoided or reduced. There don't seem to be any plans for how this will be done in the joint fisheries statement, but the future catching policy, which was published last week, states that in the case of undersized fish, we propose allowing discarding. So can you explain how these two positions are consistent with each other? Yeah, I'm happy to. Now, the GFS wouldn't be setting out the detail on that delivery, as I say, it sets out the high level policy ambitions. And then it's the policies that we'll be looking to introduce ourselves and the delivery mechanisms that will ultimately achieve the objectives that are set out in the act. So you correctly refer to the future catching policy, and I'd also mentioned in a previous response how that meets the other objectives. So in relation to the bycatch objective, the technical and spatial measures which we've set out as part of that consultation would be or what would help us to deliver on the bycatch objective, but I mean what I would say is that that's out to consultation at the moment. So we've developed the proposals in consultation with our stakeholders with industry, because what's crucial for us is that we introduce a policy that will work and will be effective in tackling some of these issues. So again, that's out to consultation at the moment, and we'll of course consider any correspondence that comes in as a result of that. But sorry, Paula, I don't know whether you're on. Sorry, Alan would like to come in on that point too. Yeah, thank you, cabinet secretary. Just to expand further, so the consultation document on the future catching policy is very explicit, but the objective is to reduce or remove to someone bycatch, so to mitigate that issue altogether by greater sensitivity in spatial increasing mesh sizes and so forth. The part about allowing some that you can't avoid to be discarded, the key here is to make sure that it's accounted for, so it's part of the overall catches it's accounted for. We're totally aligned with the current principles within the EU around here, so there are mechanisms to allow for that, whether the fish can survive being discarded, high survivability, whether there's de minimis, so that comes off the existing quota, or whether there's a disproportionate cost in forcing somebody to take in. So the example I use is a small trawler landing in Isla, or Jura, for example, and he has basically a handful of fish, a bucket of fish, catches that little. He would have to land that, store that, get transport on to a ferry, transport it to the mainland in Westlough, then get it transported somewhere else to be disposed of. That's a wholly disproportionate cost to impose on anybody, and it's for those examples that we would look to permit as long as the fish were accounted for, and I think we give examples of a costing example in the actual consultation as well. Thank you. So just to clarify, in terms of achieving how the Government will achieve the bycatch objective, we need to wait until the consultation on the future catching policy is concluded. Well, we would need to implement the policy that would deliver on that objective. Okay, thank you. I have a supplementary from Rachel. It's just a quick supplementary on the point about recording and accounting for discard. I wondered, will you wait for stakeholders to feed into how practical that actually is? Well, the proposals that we put forward for the consultation were developed through consultation with our stakeholders anyway, because, like I say, we want to make sure that, if we implement this policy, that we get it right, but, of course, that is going to involve discussion and through the consultation process, hearing the responses that come back as a result of that, so that we can help to shape a policy that is going to deliver on the objectives. To the potential to put a tolerance in there if it is impractical when you get that feedback. I mean, obviously, we have to wait for it. I mean, I do think what we've said means that it is, it will help tackle the issues that we've seen and these are practical measures which we believe can be adhered to and will help us tackle some of these challenges, but, of course, we're in the middle of the consultation process right now, so we'll wait for their feedback on that. Thank you, convener. Can I say, actually, we heard from Professor Harrison in the last session of witness evidence about his concerns around the powers of the Secretary of State in determining fishing opportunities for the whole of the UK. Can you give us some clarification on what those powers are of the Secretary of State and the fishing opportunities for stocks exclusive within Scottish waters and how that will be dealt with in the draft GFS? Yes. I mean, I believe that this was an area that was subject to a lot of discussion when it came to the Legislative Consent Memorandum for the Fisheries Act. The setting of the total allowable catch for the UK as a whole is something that is reserved to the Secretary of State, but that's the case for all stocks, I think, bar 1, which is delegated. The delegated tack, the key example of that, would be Clyde Herring. Essentially, what would happen in that sense is that the Scottish Government takes the lead on building the evidence for that and setting what the tack should be. We would also consult with our stakeholders in relation to that, who would advise on the tack for the stock. That tack would be given to the Secretary of State for Determination, but we wouldn't anticipate that. As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any issues in that regard. That was my next question. If the Scottish Parliament or Government are making the determination of what the tack should be, it is then put back to the Secretary of State in the UK Government, you would assume that that decision that is made by yourselves would always be adhered to. That would be adhered to, yes. It's more of an efficiency measure that's there at the moment. I think that that's what's important to remember about the framework that we have set out. I think that if there were any potential issues, ultimately it's the memorandum of understanding that's set out in the framework as well as to how we would look to address any potential conflict of issues at what stage that would be dealt with too, but we don't anticipate that being an issue. Like I said, I think that this was an area that had been subject to a lot of discussion around the time of the LCN being considered. Okay, thank you very much. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Continuing on the theme of fishing opportunities, the Community Inshore Fisheries Alliance called for a recognition that some coastal areas may wish to change and develop their current operations through diversification into new stocks or a changing of scale of fishing operations. I'd like to ask whether you believe that the JFS should be more explicit about providing opportunities to inshore fleets to encourage that diversification and a transition to lower impact modes of fishing? I can probably reflect on some of the comments that I made earlier about the overall, what the JFS is there to do and the overall framework and about the high-level ambitions that have been set out in relation to that. I don't think that it would be appropriate to have those explicit provisions within the JFS, because it should ultimately be up to the fisheries administrations and authorities to determine how quota should be allocated and how those fishing opportunities should be allocated. Obviously, we have to make sure that we adhere to what is in the fisheries act in relation to that too, which is set out in section 25. It is important that devolution is respected in that regard and that we have the flexibilities to consider that as individual administrations and authorities. I think that some of the issues that we could potentially arise if that was included within the JFS would mean that it could almost be subjected to UK veto or other administrations having an impact on how we allocate or distribute our own fishing opportunities. I think that it is important that we have that high-level vision but that we have the powers and that we are able to deliver what works best for our industry here and how we think that that should be allocated and distributed. Edward Mountain, please. Sorry, convener, you've wrong footed me there. I wasn't sure that I was going to come in at that stage. You're right, convener. I apologise. I should have been paying greater attention. Very nice to see you, Cabinet Secretary. My question really is the Scottish Government's role in the international fishery. I've been interested to hear how you said to Jim Fairlie that the Scottish Government would lead on some areas of fisheries management where the stocks were in their water. Would you see that when international negotiations were taking part that they would also lead on that because they had the expertise or would that be a question for the Secretary of State? What would you like to see come, Cabinet Secretary? What do you think will happen? We have a strong leading role at the moment in international negotiations and I think I'll probably hand over to Alan in a second to provide more detail on that, given that he takes the lead in some of these and can provide more information in relation to that. However, given the size of the marine area that we have, I think that it's only fair that we would have an important role when it comes to international negotiations. We are the joint heads of delegation when it comes to specific stocks as well, but I'll hand over to Alan on that point who can provide more detail as to how that works. We have very good working relations with our UK counterparts here, so I recognise that international discussions are reserved, but in all fairness to my DEFRA counterparts and officials when it's stocks of significant importance to Scotland or dominant in Scottish waters, for example, we have a 98 per cent share of the blue-whiteing and 93 per cent of herring and 75 per cent of mackerel. Our views are very dominant, our views are routinely taken account of in terms of what we think the position should be, whether that's management or the quota setting. We do that in a collective way and I wouldn't say that we agree 100 per cent all of the time, but that's part of a negotiation as well. We do manage to come to situations that we are content with in an overall package. Occasionally, we might have to revert to the cabinet secretary to escalate an issue and there'll be minister-to-minister discussions, but broadly speaking that's the exception and its good relations and Scotland's interests are well represented in those forums. It sounds like it will work very well and you will work very well together. Sounds perfect, convener. That's not as I would touch on the point that Alan says. I mean that occasionally issues we have to escalate, but in general it works well. I'm sure that cabinet secretary you don't always agree with what Alan says, but you know that's life. Thank you, convener. Why hasn't the Scottish Government proposed a development of fisheries management plans in the period after 2022? I hope that you can see from the fisheries management plans that we've set out as part of the JFS that there are a number of plans within that. We've tried to focus on the stocks that are of commercial interest to our industry in Scotland and we wanted to make sure that we put our initial focus on the development of FNPs where much of that detail is already known for those stocks, too. That's not to say that there wouldn't be any further iterations of fisheries management plans or there won't be any more beyond that point, but I think that we've put our initial focus in the right place. I know that the fisheries management plans that have been proposed by other administrations cover non-quota stocks, but of course we'll be monitoring and looking at how that work develops, but that is a far more complex piece of work. Again, I think that the initial focus that we've put on that is the right one. I don't know whether Paul or Alun perhaps wants to elaborate on some of the potential issues with the focus on other areas. I'll just speak briefly on that matter to say as the cabinet secretary has outlined. We initially focused on the stocks of key commercial importance for Scotland of which we have the most information. We note that other administrations are looking to take forward more complex, more challenging FNPs. We're looking to learn from their experience. We're also looking to consider how we wish to manage stocks going forward. We can revisit the list of FNPs at a future date if we decide that we wish to go and introduce FNPs for non-quota stocks. I think that I'll just stop there, actually. The list is not set in stone. We can revisit it, we can review it in light of experience. The other point that I want to say is that the absence of a fisheries management plan does not prevent us from taking action to manage a fishery should we decide that such a thing needs to be done. We can act in the absence of an FNP or while we're waiting to draft such a thing. Thank you. I just want to push you on this because the timescales proposed for the FNPs in Scotland are very short compared to the other fishing policies authorities, which are set over a six-year period. That timescale coincides with the joint fisheries statement itself. I just wondered why you hadn't got anything beyond 2022. I don't feel confident that you've answered the question sufficiently to understand why it isn't over that six-year period. I would also be discussing with other administrations and working jointly with them on the development of FNPs. Again, I would say that we haven't set out anything beyond that timescale. The timescales that are set out for us to develop the current FNPs that we've set out in the GFS will be very challenging to try and meet. Again, it's important that we focus on the stocks that we've set out as a priority. That's not to say that there won't be other FNPs, but they will also be subject to review. Our focus needs to be rather than setting out a definitive list of every single stock that we would like to consider and the timescales for that. It's important that we focus our work on the initial set that we've set out. Just to pick up on your point about the single species and the commercial element of that, I have stakeholders who have contacted me with concern that some other species aren't included, such as wras, scallops and others. It's important to note that that will tease itself out during the consultation process itself. It sounds as though you are aware that that needs to be considered too. We will be obviously closely monitoring the work that is happening with other Administrations and the work that they are leading on in the development of the FNPs for non-quota stocks. As Paul was highlighting, that will be very complex, so it is important that we continue to monitor that work before we set out what FNPs we might plan to take forward in that area. A short supplementary from Mercedes. On that point about the other Administrations, the English and Welsh Administrations have already agreed that a fisheries management plan should be developed for key fisheries such as scallop dredge fisheries and the largely unregulated rest fisheries. It sounds as though you are not able to commit to those within the JFS. Is it something that you are looking at? Do you have an idea of when you will be able to commit to establishing and delivering plans for those fisheries? I cannot set out a definitive timescale on that yet, purely for the reasons that I have outlined as well and because some of those stocks that you have mentioned and the non-quota stocks are a very complex area. We also have quite a long list of FNPs that we are looking to deliver and develop on the specific stocks that we have set out within the JFS. That is not to say that it will not ever happen, but I cannot give you a definitive timescale for that work yet. Just on that non-quota stock FNP point, I would just reiterate Paul's comment that that does not mean that you cannot manage and that we will be managing the scallop fisheries and other non-quota stock fisheries. Wales and England have taken an approach. We have taken a different view around the complexity, and we need to learn what they are doing. Obviously, we will get feedback on the consultation, but there are a number of things there. There are no MSY proxies for some of those stocks. Some of those stocks are explicitly referenced in the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, and that brings in a level of detail around allocation, shared access and so forth. I think that we in the Scottish Government think that we need to work that through and understand that better rather than committing to something now, but it is something that we very much look to be doing in a management sense going forward. Absolutely. What role will regional insure fisheries groups have in the development of FNPs under the GFS? Do they have the necessary capacity and resources? In the development of the FNPs, they will be subject to consultation. We, of course, will look to develop those through discussion with our stakeholders as well. We also have a number of fora that we use and that we engage with, whether that is the IFMAX or the regional insure fisheries groups. I imagine that they would be part of that process. We want to make sure that we work with our stakeholders in the production of those, and that is, of course, an integral part of that process. In terms of resources and capacity? That is something that I have to keep under review or to look at. We provide resources to our regional insure fisheries groups to enable them. The regional insure fisheries groups, by their nature, bring together fisheries interests or people who have not traditionally been represented by other organisations because they are smaller businesses. We have tried to develop those forums to enable them and to give them the capacity to engage. If there were any issues emerging there, we would, of course, look to monitor that. However, I would hope that they would be playing a part in that process, as would our other stakeholders. On engagement with the stakeholders and going back to the complexity, I would assume that the stakeholders will have a full understanding of the complexity, and they would be comfortable with the fact that they would rather take their time to get a fisheries management plan right rather than quickly. Is that fair? It is not as if we develop those things in isolation anyway and without any engagement. We would be looking to keep our various stakeholders informed throughout that process and also so that they can help to work with us. I do not think that there is any point in developing policies or plans that fundamentally will not work or cannot be implemented by the people who are responsible for that. Engagement is critical. We are ambitious and we want to make sure that we deliver on the objectives that have been set out in the act and in setting out the policies that will ultimately deliver on those. We also want to make sure that we get that right and that we take the right amount of time to make sure that we have that engagement and to make sure that we are ultimately delivering the right policy. The speed of the plan is less important than the ability of the plan to do its job. Of course, that is something that you have to manage. As I have said, it is a challenging timescale that has been set out for the FNPs that are in the JFS at the moment. I think that those timescales are important in trying to meet that and in setting that out, because that is what is being set out in the legislation, too. Of course, we want to make sure that when we are creating the FNPs that we are getting that right, that it is not rushed and that we are able to undertake that work in the way that we would wish to do. A couple of supplementaries from Edward Mountain and then Mercedes Villalba. I think that the whole of the previous panel, except for Elspeth, Donald, who had already left, lamented the loss of the inshore fisheries bill that the Government announced that it would bring forward in 2016. It all said that it would be helpful to use that bill as a vehicle to come up with inshore fisheries management plans. Do you agree and would you bring it forward? I do not particularly see the need at the moment to bring forward a specific piece of legislation. We have the objectives that have been set out in the Fisheries Act. We are obviously here today to discuss the framework and the GFS and the policy ambitions that are within that. I have also set out just the previous week how we intend to deliver on our own fisheries management strategy, which was published towards the end of 2020. I do not know what other specific mechanisms or legal mechanisms we would need to bring forward at the moment to enable us to deliver on the policy objectives that we have set out, because I believe that we have the means to do that at the moment. Given that regional inshore fisheries groups are not formally constituted or legally accountable and they do not provide opportunity for public or environmental representation, how will the Government ensure transparency and accountability of any fisheries management plans that those groups develop? I hope that I was able to explain even just partially my response previously about how the regional inshore fisheries groups have come together and it was a means of trying to engage with fishers who have been hard to reach. I think that it is vital that we were able to do that work and that we have established that network. In terms of engaging with all of our stakeholders, I think that we covered that a couple of weeks ago when I was at the committee in terms of the co-management processes that we want to see, the people that we want to engage in that as well. Rather than engaging in silos, it is how we can bring our stakeholders together and really collaborate in that sense as well. Of course, that is something that we are giving active consideration to. Of course, that is out to consultation at the moment, as are our other policies, which I hope all stakeholders will engage with. I am happy to take any feedback as to how the processes that we have are or any particular thoughts that various stakeholders have as to how those processes might be improved for the future. The principle of transparency and accountability, do you think that that is important with those plans? Yes, I think that transparency and accountability is important. One of the things that has obviously changed most Brexit is, potentially anyway, the opportunities that exist for Europe-wide co-operation on fisheries science and innovation. I wonder if you can tell me about the Scottish Government's approach to that issue and how it is working with the fishing industry to ensure that that science continues and enjoys support. Yes. I suppose that we just want to start by noting that, of course, Marine Scotland science is recognised for the expertise that we are able to provide. Obviously, through leaving the EU, that means that we do not have the same opportunities for co-operation with our EU partners as we would have had previously. I do not know whether Paul or Alan would like to elaborate on that, even in terms of, I do not know if there are any specific examples that we can provide at the moment in relation to some of those previous collaborations. Excuse me, yes. Thank you, Secretary. Of course, as part of the EU and the common fisheries policy previously, we played an active role in regional groups, so the North Sea regional group and the Northwestern waters regional group, in looking at scientific elements primarily around the landing obligation. There was good co-operation opportunities there for a consistent approach, sometimes too consistent in terms of one size fits all, but that is a forum that has been lost. That is balanced out by Marine Scotland science still being actively involved in ICs. That is the international council for the exploration of disease that provides catch advice. That is an international engagement with many international partners in there. An example there that Marine Scotland science is leading on is pushing that to look at, and I believe that I mentioned this with Donald in his session this morning, to look at how we manage the North Sea cod differently in understanding that there are probably a need to manage it geographically in different areas rather than as an entire area of the North Sea in that sense. We are still feeding into that international collaboration sense. However, an additional point that I would like to make on that is that we are always looking at how we can improve our science in collaboration and how we develop evidence. Again, that was a point that was raised by Alan at the previous committee session that we had in terms of some of the collaboration that we would like to see and take forward working with our stakeholders, working with academia and how we can better collaborate on specific areas that we might wish to look at in the future. Jenny Minto Thank you, convener, cabinet secretary. Following on from that and some of the evidence that we took from the last panel, we talked about joined up resources given that the science budget is limited. I wonder if you could comment on how you are working to use your scarce resources in the most appropriate manner to provide the right science. Jenny Minto I think that the previous point that I touched on about further collaboration and where we can look to collaborate with other partners is really important. In relation to the specific body light and the collaboration and the work that happens with NatureScot, Paul, I do not know whether you would have any further information on that or to put you on the spot. Paul Wight I am afraid that I do not have any further information on that to hand but we could always come back in writing on that point. Jenny Minto Great, thanks Paul. The Scottish Government has recently published the future catching policy in remote electronic monitoring. I am interested to know how those will both contribute towards the science and the innovation that are set out in the GFS. Paul Wight Yes, I think that there will be between the future catching policy and remote electronic monitoring. I think that they take us a huge step forward in terms of meeting the objectives. As I was saying earlier, we have eight objectives that are set out on the face of the act. I will not run through them all now, but I was referring in a previous response to Mercedes Villalba about the technical and spatial measures and how that means that we would be delivering on the bi-catch ecosystem and climate change objectives together with REM and the management measures that we are looking to develop that will also deliver on the sustainability, precautionary and scientific objectives as well. Again, I think that through what we are looking to deliver via those two policies, I think that we are able to meet quite a lot of those objectives. What I set out last week shows a step change in us leading the world in terms of some of the measures that we are looking to introduce. Jenny Minto We move on to questions now from Rachel Hamilton. Cabinet Secretary, in light of the recent calamitous Scottish Government process for the seasonal closures on the Clyde, what can you say to reassure the fishing industry that participatory decision making in the spirit of the joint fisheries statement will be followed and how does the Government intend to do that? Jenny Minto That is a really important question. I set out to committee last week in terms of the process that led us to that SSI coming forward. That wasn't an ideal process, it was far from it and it didn't reach the standards or meet the standards of co-management that ideally we would like to have and that we have had previously with stakeholders. I apologise for that at the time, but we want to ensure, as I said at the committee session, that we learn the lessons of that for the future. As you said, we are committed to setting out that in the joint fisheries statement as well about the importance of co-management and working with our stakeholders. That is very much what we want to achieve. Again, we have talked to today about the future catching policy. Again, that has been developed in consultation with our stakeholders, too. After the closure, I know that we have set out that we intend to engage with all our stakeholders, we will monitor it throughout the period of the closure and to see how we can improve things or look at things going forward, because that collaboration is really critical. As I said last week, in relation to the Clyde closure, that was far from ideal, but we want to learn the lessons from that because co-management is something that is vital and something that we recognise, and we want to ensure that we have going forward. Just to follow up on that, to ensure that this does not happen again. I thank you for your reassurance there, but the ministers have accountability. I wonder what is there in terms of, if this happens again, God forbid, what is in the joint fisheries statement that can prevent that or to ensure that it is not happening again? The GFS would not be the place to set that out or those parameters, because, as I say, it is about setting out the high level of ambitions of it, cabinet secretary. It goes through early participation of stakeholders. It says, identify issues and potential solutions. It has got it all in there from 3.6.2 to 3.6.4. Therefore, there is a framework to ensure that the Government takes forward exactly that, that ensure that there is transparency. I am just wondering, it is in the trust, we put our trust in ministers. I am just wondering what is there to ensure that that actually happens, other than your words? I think that it is also important to remember that, as part of the process as well, there are regular reviews and reports on the GFS and the fisheries management plans that we have to introduce. There would be reviews on that every three years, and then we have to report on that again every six. We will have to show how we have either achieved the policy ambitions that have been set out there in the GFS, but I would come back to the point that we have a strong track record of that co-management and of working with our stakeholders. Again, that is what we discussed in relation to the Clyde closure, is an example of where that did not work, which we have accepted. Again, we want to learn the lessons from that because it is important that we do that, and we work with our stakeholders as we move forward in implementing the objectives and the policies that are set out in the GFS. I was in isolation when you were here talking with the Clyde Cod box last time, when I missed quite a bit of the evidence that was given. We were talking earlier about the engagement with communities and how you have to have that localised. I think that you answered that. I do not see how the GFS actually comes into that point about the Clyde Cod box, but my understanding was that you fully accept that there were bits about what had happened or were completely wrong. You have taken the responsibility for that, and you are going to move on from there. I was under the understanding that you took evidence and changed your position during this whole process to have that engagement with the communities that you were working with. Does that not kind of answer Rachel's question that you were already in the process of engagement with people? You got it wrong and accept that, but you were actually engaging with them anyway. We listened to the initial SSIs that we laid. We listened to our stakeholders as a result of that and tried to bring them together to see if there were means that we could work together to try and find a solution, which is what resulted in the SSI that we discussed last week. We were still trying to meet the policy objective, which was to protect spawning cod, but we were also looking at ensuring that we were protecting the areas where that spawning takes place, which meant that we were able to reduce the overall closed area by 28 per cent and allowing more fishing activity to take place. Of course, the process leading up to that had not been ideal, but we did. We tried to listen. I reflected on the evidence that we had heard, which is why we were in the position where we had ultimately changed our position, but listening to our stakeholders and engaging so that we could try and find a solution to some of the issues that had been identified. Again, just as somebody who does not have a huge experience of the fishing industry, it just highlights to me the huge complexity of what it is that you are trying to do in terms of making sure that one sector is not overly affected by another and everything else that goes with it. We agree with that and say that it is a hugely complex area, and there are lots of balancing and competing interests that we have to try to balance throughout the process. That is where I think what is set out in the GFS of the framework and in the Fisheries Act as well as identifying that there can be those competing interests and different factors that you have to take account of when you are trying to reach those difficult and challenging decisions. Again, while the process in the Clyde Cod closure had not been the most straightforward and not the way that we would like to engage with our stakeholders, I feel like the decision that we reached in terms of the revised closure was the right one. I have been thinking about participation. I have been looking back at statements that were made by Michael Gove back in 2019. He came and he stood in Bucky Harbour, which is part of my constituency, and he pledged to reverse four decades of the fishing industry to decline, as he saw it. We know that the rhetoric that was spoken at that time. Having spoken to Fisheries in my area, they feel betrayed and let down by that rhetoric that was spouted. They feel that their voices were not heard and there is a feeling over the last few months in conversations with them that they feel that when it comes to participation and decision making that it is not always their voices that are being represented. How can the Scottish Government ensure that the participation in decision making has the voices whose lives and livelihoods are going to be directly impacted by the decisions? You are absolutely right. Ensuring that we hear those voices is critical. That is a reference throughout the GFS in terms of always looking to consider the impact that decisions will have not just on the immediate stakeholders but on our wider communities and things like that. We obviously want to make sure that the engagement that we have is as transparent, open and inclusive as it can be. Of course, there are lots of complex issues to try to balance in that. Ultimately, we have a healthy marine environment. We want to make sure that we have a profitable fishing industry that provides a sustainable source of protein, which is vital for us and for our diet. It is trying to make sure that we are getting the balance between all those different considerations. You are absolutely right. We want to make sure that the people that are most impacted by the decisions that we are taking are part of that process and that we are working with them. As I have highlighted in previous responses, we have a strong track record of the co-management of engagement with our stakeholders. There is a variety of different forums that we have to engage with different stakeholders. However, as I said in response, it is important that we do not just consider those in different silos. It is about bringing our stakeholders together to see how we can find a way forward through some of the complex issues that we face right now and that we are no doubt going into the future with some of the other challenging decisions that we will have to take. In the last group when they gave evidence to the committee, they said that there were some conflicts over where they could fish or where they could carry out activities. We all accept that there is a conflict over where certain activities can take place. We have to balance nature, renewables, agriculture, fishing and tourism. All of those have to be balanced. We have it right at the moment. Do you think that we will be able to get that right? Is that going to come under the GFS or is that something that you are going to come up with so that the GFS is based on a sustainable idea of how we are going to use the areas of our coastline? That is my ultimate aim. I want to make sure that we get that right and we deliver on that. However, as I have just alluded to in my previous response, it is really challenging. While it seems that we have a huge sea area surrounding us in a large part of the coastal area, it is an increasingly busy space with lots of different competing interests that we have to try and manage. Some of that we are working our way through just now to see how we can try and balance all the interests there. Obviously, with specific stocks, they will only be in a specific area or at a specific time. You mentioned renewable energy. We have our marine protected area network as well, and we will soon have highly protected marine areas that we will be looking to develop. Some of that work is what we are in the process of looking at at the moment. Of course, we have statutory processes to follow when it comes to whether that is establishing NPAs or looking at the planning and consenting process for offshore renewables as well, but those are issues that we are very much trying to get to grips with and to ensure that we are as fair and balanced as possible. There is some reference to that within the GFS, and it talks of some of the other measures in making sure that the ambitions that are set out in the GFS are aligned with other management measures that it talks about with NPAs, but there is no doubt that that is really difficult. It is a really complex area, but one that I hope we will be able to work our way through. Cabinet Secretary, do you think that you will be able to think, or when you are considering this, think far enough forward? For example, Aquaculture has said that it is no longer really sustainable for them to be as close and sure as they are at the moment due to water temperatures and the problems with disease and lice that that brings, and they want to drift further offshore, which may bring them into conflict with renewable, whether it be turbines or wave energy. How are you going to plan for the future and make it flexible enough to cope with the future demands of all the industries that Scotland wants to support? A lot of that work and some of what you mentioned there will be harnessed. I talked about it in my opening statement, the PFG commitment that we have for the blue economy action plan and that we will be setting out a blue economy vision, recognising the breadth of sectors that we have within our marine environment and those different interests and making sure all the strategies and policies that we have across all those different areas are aligned and take cognisance of each other as much as possible. Obviously, we have been undertaking work on Aquaculture, which I am sure that you will be aware of in the review that we have undertaken there. There are a number of other strands of work that are on-going there at the moment, so I think that it is vital that we capture all of that. We set out our clear vision for the future and how all of those will operate together for a sustainable blue economy. Cabinet said just the final question for me, convener, if it is all right. Each of those industries contribute a different amount to Scotland, whether it is financially or whether it is supporting the local economy by encouraging people to live there. How will you balance out the economic benefits of each of those industries and not disadvantage the less economic commitments that are made by some creel fishers who are really important to the local economy? I do not see how you get that balance, but will you be able to achieve it? I certainly hope so, because that is part of the challenge and the balancing of all those different interests. When you look at inshore fisheries, for example, and the huge importance that there is to the local economies and communities, I had a meeting with Dr Allan and some of his constituents not that long ago, where we were talking about the impacts of those industries and employment. What that means for population in some of our most remote and rural locations is really important. Of course, as the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands, we are making sure that we get that balance, so that enabling people to live and work in our most remote and rural and island communities is vital. However, I am not proposing to say that I have all the solutions to that today or can say exactly how that is, but it highlights that those are some of the complexities that we have to try to balance and that we certainly take into consideration when we are considering some of those other areas. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We will be watching closely. How will the fisheries framework outline agreement and the memorandum of understanding and the joint fisheries statement work together to manage cross-UK governance of fisheries? Hopefully, they should all work together very well in meeting the overall objectives. We have the overall framework, and I think that I outlined that in my opening statement, that, unlike other frameworks that I know the committee will be considering, that predates that, 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. We also have the memorandum of understanding that goes through some of the day-to-day elements of how the different Administrations would work together and how we would resolve any potential conflicts if they arose. Within the memorandum of understanding, there is also the operational agreements, which is looking at some of the more day-to-day and 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 was saying at the start of the session, the overall ambitions that we have set out in the fact that, as four different Administrations, we have all been able to agree and we have aligned on the overarching ambitions that are set out in the GFS is really positive. It shows that we can work together effectively in areas such as that, while respecting devolved competence. I am aware of the potential for the subsidy control bill to constrain Scottish Government's ability to diverge from the UK Government on subsidy levels and policies. Cabinet Secretary, could I ask for your views on how the subsidy control bill might affect the operation of the fisheries management and support common framework with regards to fisheries grants and subsidies? It would probably be fair to say that I do not think that the UK Government itself has really thought through how the fisheries act, the internal market act and the subsidy control bill will all work together or align in that sense. I think that it has certainly not been made clear to us how fisheries and aquaculture within the overall remit of the subsidy control bill and what the full ramifications of that will be. That is where we need to see that further guidance as to how that legislation is going to work in practice. However, from what we have seen so far, there has not been full consideration as to the interaction between the key pieces of legislation. I do not know whether that is the point that either Paul or Alan would like to elaborate on. No specific, not much more to add. I just note that, yes, there are a number of different bills that the cabinet secretary has already mentioned between UKIM, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, the subsidy control bill. There are grant and subsidy provisions contained within the fisheries act itself and within the framework. Exactly how all those provisions work together is still a work in progress. Is there any intention through that operational planning on the MOU? Is there any intentional discussion between the four Administrations on a sort of shared IT platform to deliver those specific objectives? The objectives within the subsidy grants that Paul mentioned. I am not aware of those discussions that have taken place yet. I do not know whether Paul or Alan could provide more information on that. I am afraid that I do not have much more information to provide. We do already within Scotland have a platform that goes and tracks our grants and subsidies that we hand out to the industry, or awards, should I say, to the industry. The other Administrations have their own platforms. I am not aware of any discussions that are under way to build a common joint platform, but we have systems that allow us to go and joint the report or compile who is getting awarded what, if that makes sense. I also just have to be clear on what the benefits are otherwise of something like that would be, given that it is something that we have not considered as a work that has been done. I just mentioned it just to put it on the record that it is as part of that MOU. It does say that success evaluation and delivery mechanisms such as the use of common IT platforms may be something to watch for the future. Thank you Cabinet Secretary and your officials. We seem to have drawn to a close early, and you may get half an hour back off your day. I would like to thank you and your officials for providing evidence this morning, and we will move on to agenda item 3 in a minute or two. We will now move on to agenda item 3, which is consideration of a consent notification for a UK statutory instrument, the import of animals and animal products and approved countries, EU exit, amendment regulation 2022. I refer members to papers 3 and 4 from page 23. Do any member have any comments on this instrument? Are members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notification being included in UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to respond to the Government and, in doing so, to include the information set out in paragraph 2 of annex A of paper 4? That concludes our business in public, and we will now move into private session.