³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

There are two separate issues in your question. One is about the presentation of the data, and I think that we absolutely need to do more work on how that information is presented and communicated. However, again, all the information is provided in an open and transparent manner.

The second issue is that of regulation, which comes back to what is proportionate. The industry representatives spoke about the various audits that are undertaken and how transparent that data has to be. Of course, records have to be kept, and there would be surveillance of that. We are confident in the information that is provided, but, if it transpired that there was a problem, we would look at that. However, again, any steps that we take with regard to regulation have to be proportionate.

Jane, having dealt with the process so far, do you want to go into more detail on that?

Again, we already have a suite of work under way. In the work that we have been doing with our fisheries management and conservation group, we generally try to take a bottom-up approach to managing our fisheries and ensuring that we work with our fishers and wider stakeholders as we implement changes.

In relation to the specific measure that you are talking about, there are specific things that we have to cover in a fisheries management plan. I am not aware that that area is being considered at the moment, and it is certainly not being put to me.

Yes, I would be happy to. I know that that was an area of concern that was raised by stakeholders in response to the committee’s call for evidence.

It made sense to do so, because Seafish has a wealth of expertise in that area. I believe that it has also assisted DEFRA in the preparation of some its fisheries management plans. For us, it makes sense to make best use of that expertise and knowledge to assist us in that work.

I would come back to the points that Jane MacPherson just made, which are really important in relation to all the different issues that you touched on.

FMPs will be a really useful tool for setting that out clearly and in a way that is open and transparent. As Jane said, and as we no doubt all glean from discussions and from the various appearances at committees before, managing our fisheries is complex. The more that we can do to show that, and to evidence how we are meeting our objectives, the better.

I do not particularly believe that to be the case. Of course, as with anything, when we commission somebody to do work, it is only right that we would expect to pay them for that work. Again, it has a wealth of expertise in that area. It is not as if there will be a way of developing a plan completely in isolation.

We have a process, which I hope that we have been able to illustrate and outline today. The stakeholder engagement element of that is critical. We will work with our wider stakeholders and with industry. We will also have to have discussions with other Administrations, and there will be a full public consultation. All of that will be set out transparently. However, Seafish has that expertise, which is what we are looking to utilise.

Yes.

Yes. First, I will touch on your first point: you are absolutely right about sustainable livelihoods. What comes through in the Fisheries Act 2020 is the issue of how we balance all the objectives. Our environment is critically important, and supporting a healthy marine environment is good for the livelihoods of our fishermen as well. However, we have to balance that against the economic situation, too. Our fishermen do their very best to fish sustainably and it is in all our interests to see that happen.

On the concerns about merging the two plans that you outlined, it has only been since last year that ICES has considered North Sea and west of Scotland cod to be part of the same biological stock, which is why we decided to merge the plans. That is designed to reflect the latest scientific understanding of the stock, in line with ICES’ advice structures. I hope that that helps to explain our approach. However, if any area-specific management measures need to be taken between the North Sea and the west of Scotland, we would consider those through the FMP process. I hope that that provides some reassurance on that front.

There will be a lot of detailed stakeholder engagement throughout the process, so I like to think that anything that is being developed will not suddenly hit our fishermen by surprise. That is why having an extension to the timeline is critically important to ensuring that we have that consultation and engagement.

To hark back to my opening comments to the committee, I see the fisheries management plans as being very much complementary to our approach, by setting out in a more transparent way what we are doing. Of course, some of the other issues that Jane talked about will also be covered. I hope that all that will be helpful and informative as we go through the process, not to mention the formal periods of consultation that we will have.

I am happy to set that out. However, first, you touched on the petition. I do not know whether the committee has been copied into the correspondence that I sent to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee to make it aware of the update and the work on that.

You are absolutely right: in 2021, we introduced mandatory measures in relation to wrasse. However, I have updated the petitions committee on the fact that, in recent weeks, we have received a piece of work by the University of Glasgow that provides us with new evidence on wrasse interactions in our special areas of conservation and marine protected areas. On the back of that, we have asked NatureScot to do further work for us so that we can get advice before we enter the new season next year. It is important that we get that work under way.

More widely in relation to FMPs, we set out in the JFS the criteria for selecting the species for which we are developing FMPs. Wrasse is not included among those at the moment. It is right that we focus on the FMPs that we have said that we will publish and that we have already published. However, that does not prevent us from developing a fisheries management plan for wrasse if we think that one is needed. Even in the absence of a fisheries management plan, we will continue with this work to ensure that it is a sustainable fishery.