���˿���

Jane will probably want to come in on that, as she deals more with the day-to-day of this than I do. An example that I would highlight is the interim measures that were introduced for the inshore fisheries this year, which were on the back of evidence that we received. We cannot forget the forums that exist to discuss matters with our stakeholders. We hear about issues through our regional inshore fisheries groups or the inshore sub-group of the FMAC. All the issues are discussed in those forums, and that is where some of the measures that we have taken have come from.

Do you have anything to add to that, Jane?

Yes, I would be happy to.

As I outlined in a previous response, we know that a range of different issues led to the delay. It is not necessarily just a resource problem.

As both Jane MacPherson and I have outlined already, this—all the steps that we have had to go through and that we still need to go through—is a completely new process. Again, even though the Scottish Government is leading on them, they are joint plans, so we still must have those discussions with other Administrations. Those discussions, by their very nature, take time and will continue to do so, which is why we are looking for the extension.

We have discussed budget and resources during my past few appearances at the committee. There is probably no part of Government that would say that it could not do with more budget and resource. As with all other areas, we are working within the best resources available.

Like the other Administrations, we have had to ask for an extended timeline to allow us to complete that process. However, we believe that it can be achieved within the additional time, if that is agreed.

I will touch on that first, and then Jane may have more to add.

How the fisheries management plans relate to the fisheries objectives is set out in the JFS. It states that:

“The design and structure of FMPs directly relate to the sustainability, precautionary, scientific evidence, ecosystem and equal access fisheries objectives by delivering sustainable fisheries”

and some of the other issues that are covered in there. It also states that FMPs can also address the wider objectives.

I would fully expect how we are looking to achieve the objectives in the 2020 act to be set out in the fisheries management plans.

We could do that.

A couple of weeks ago, I set out some of the timescales that we are working to, and I hope that that was helpful. I hear the comments that you have referred to on what people feel about the initial draft of the plan. Obviously, it was the initial draft that we consulted on, and we saw the feedback, so we will give that careful consideration as we develop the plan.

I know that we have not published the results of the consultation yet, but we had a really strong response to the consultation, and what came through the scrutiny process for the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 was the level of engagement that we were required to undertake. Of course, it is also in our best interests to undertake that engagement. That process included a lot of engagement with children and young people, and we generated a significant response.

I ask for a bit of patience, because it is taking time to work through the responses in order to look at what changes to the plan might be needed before it comes back to Parliament for scrutiny. I want to ensure that the plan is in as strong a position as it can be, in recognition that this will be the first iteration and that we do not have all the information and data that we need—although that situation will improve with further iterations of the plan. We are committed to bringing that work forward, but we need time to work through the considerable number of responses that we received before we bring the plan back.

Certainly, from the portfolio perspective, there are a number of priorities. The first of those is delivering on the commitments in the future fisheries management strategy, which was published a few years ago. That will help with our overall transformation.

We are starting to see some of the policy work come through. I appeared in front of the committee in relation to the rolling out of remote electronic monitoring. That is a significant policy development. We are also working on some other critical areas, such as working through the detail of the future catching policy.

At my committee appearance a couple of weeks ago, we also talked about the fisheries management plans. Of course, those are a key priority, too.

International negotiations always remain a key priority. We have talked about the different policy areas and how they all contribute to the outcomes of those negotiations. Ultimately, we want to ensure that we secure the best possible opportunities for our industry in Scotland. As I outlined, we have seen more than £600 million-worth of opportunities over the past couple of years.

The committee will be interested in the work in relation to inshore fisheries. We have introduced some interim measures on inshore fisheries, which is part of the work that we are doing to transform how we deal with those fisheries and the overall road map to inshore fisheries management improvement.

In a few weeks’ time, I will appear in front of the committee in relation to aquaculture, which the committee has been looking at in some detail. In our programme for government, we set out some of the commitments that we are looking at on that. Ultimately, the key focus for that part of work is delivering on the recommendations that came out of the Griggs review. The consenting pilot work is a key component of that work that we have been delivering over the past year.

I hope that that helps to give some of the key priority areas for my portfolio and what we are looking to continue to deliver over the coming year.

I would absolutely refute that. Again, there could be benefits as well as negative consequences of other models. I would have to do a full comparison to see whether that should be considered. The origins of the current situation are that, around 2009-10, various elements of marine policy were being brought together as well as compliance. However, I have not undertaken the work to see what the benefits are against other ways of operating and what the costs would be. I am not in a place to make a judgment on whether the set-up for marine science in another administration would be more or less beneficial to the way that we operate.

Absolutely. We are looking at that all the time, and we are assessing how we can ultimately be more efficient, using new technology to our advantage. There are a number of different areas that we can consider. One is to submit logbooks digitally. Over the past year, only about 3.5 per cent of the FISH1 logbooks were submitted electronically. That proportion is now over 12 per cent, so people in the fisheries offices are clearly encouraging that.

In relation to the technology that is used with our marine protection vessels, I visited one of those vessels a few months ago to look at a pilot that is being undertaken with drone technology.

Absolutely. I take that point on board.