���˿���

In relation to some of the points that you have raised, perhaps Jane MacPherson can talk a bit more about the process of the plan. The JFS has ultimately set out the criteria by which we determine what plans we are going to bring forward and within what timescale.

I do not agree with some of the evidence that says that there is no action on fisheries in the absence of an FMP. I would absolutely refute that, because we have a suite of management measures in place. We also have a range of work on-going in relation to how we manage our fisheries, whether that relates to inshore fisheries or the on-going work on the fisheries management measures for marine protected areas and priority marine features. I do not agree with those assertions, because the situation does not prevent us from undertaking any of the work that we are doing already.

As I said in my opening comments, we have specific obligations and there are some things that we have to set out in FMPs, but they are really about setting out in a more transparent way all the work that we are doing. The FMPs pull together a lot of that work and are an additional tool rather than something that is completely absent at the moment. I want to be clear on that.

Jane MacPherson will be able to talk through the estimated times for each of the stages. As I set out, there will be engagement with stakeholders, assessments need to take place and we will need to have discussions with the other Administrations. There will then be a consultation and then a redraft before we publish the final FMPs. We believe that the additional two-year timescale that we have set out allows us enough time to work through those processes. Jane MacPherson can talk through how that timescale and timetable are looking as a result.

You mentioned the FMPs that have been published by other Administrations. As Jane set out, some of those were the front-runner FMPs. It is important to point out that we have to work through our processes. Although some FMPs have been published, all Administrations are finding themselves in the same position and need additional time for the remaining FMPs that are in annex A.

As you will see from the evidence that the committee received, there has been some criticism of the early drafts that have been shared with stakeholders. As Jane MacPherson outlined, there were initial discussions with stakeholders to consider what FMPs might look like and what information they would contain. We fully intend to have that discussion with stakeholders again, as only very initial drafts were shared with them. There will, of course, be future drafts, and we will continue those discussions. The additional time is needed to enable that to happen in a meaningful way.

The plans are very much complementary to what we are doing. They will be helpful in setting out, in a more transparent way, how we manage our fisheries; they will make that a lot clearer for people.

I mentioned that we already have a number of strands of work under way, which will all add to the sustainable management of our fisheries. On some of the work that the committee has already dealt with, I note that I appeared in front of the committee to discuss our proposals for remote electronic monitoring. We also had the consultation on the wider roll-out of the vessel monitoring system. I know that concerns were raised in some of the stakeholder evidence about bycatch and about how we were looking to tackle the issues. We consulted on the future catching policy a couple of years ago and have been developing work on that to tackle some of the challenges that we know exist.

The FMP process does not stop any of that work happening. It will happen anyway, because we know that we can always improve, which is what we always strive to do. We were the first nation in the European Union to lead on REM work; it is really quite exciting in that regard.

As with anything, we know that there is more work to do, and that is why we are continuing those strands of work.

I also mentioned the work that is being done to deliver the fisheries management measures for the MPAs and the priority marine features, which has been on-going. That is another big and complex piece of work, given the number of sites that are involved.

All of that will continue and I think that it will very much complement what is happening with the FMP process. It will draw some of that together throughout that process.

I do not know whether Jane MacPherson wants to add anything further.

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.