³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Absolutely. Although I outlined that some specific responsibilities sit with the other cabinet secretary, I have a strong interest in marine issues. We have close collaboration across the different areas of policy, even though overall responsibility sits in different portfolios.

From a directorate perspective, given the way in which that portfolio work has been established, I am sure that Rebecca Hackett could comment more on how that is working overall—and, I hope, improving things.

There are a couple of different things in there. You referenced some of the different countries and their output. Obviously, other countries and other Administrations in the UK—where marine sits in their portfolio areas—all operate in a completely different way, so you are not necessarily comparing like with like when you make those comparisons. Obviously, CEFAS operates in a different way to the way that the science, evidence, data and digital department does in the marine directorate, where it does more work externally and receives more of its budget that way, rather than it all being funded by the UK Government. That department is funded in a different way.

The science department in the marine directorate is more focused on the evidence that we need to develop Scottish policy and the interests that we have there.

The committee has visited the marine lab, and I accept the points that are made about that. Of course, a number of short-term measures have been implemented there. I realise that the situation is not optimal, because we want it to be an attractive place to work and an environment where people want to come and work. It is also important to highlight that a longer-term piece of work is being developed in relation to that. The Scottish Government corporate team has put together a project board to look at potential longer-term options for the future of that site.

There is a strong level of interest in filling the vacancies that arise, so I still believe that it is an attractive place where people want to work. However, there is no doubt that more work needs to be done on the infrastructure in particular, and that is why the work that the project board will be taking forward is really important. Nuala, do you want to add anything else in relation to that?

I will start off on that, and Nuala Gormley may want to come in after. Mackerel is one example; of course, other states have a strong interest in that as well. It is not unusual for work to be undertaken or led on by other states. You can pick on that example, but there are other examples, such as those that Nuala just talked about—we lead on 19 other stock assessment groups that are important for Scotland. There is also important collaborative work on monkfish to highlight. The work that we did in Scotland led to an increase in the total allowable catch for that species, which is so valuable for our industry. Nuala, do you want to add anything further?

I believe that those figures were provided to the committee in our letter. Nuala, do you have them?

It is important to address that point. You are saying that fisheries are being left in a parlous state and you are judging that purely on the basis of the number of publications, but I do not think that it is fair to make that assessment or to equate those two things. Nuala Gormley outlined our involvement in ICES for the stocks that are important for us in Scotland, and both of us have touched on the importance of Scottish science feeding into that work. A tangible outcome to our work on monkfish was an increase in the TAC for that species.

It comes back to the point I made previously, which is that we are not comparing like-for-like when we look at external work or work that has been published—I am sure that Nuala will correct me if I am wrong. CEFAS operates in a different way to us, as do marine directorates in other countries. Those bodies may depend more on an external element or publishing work externally. It is important that we are making comparisons that are fair. I do not think that that is necessarily the situation with what you have just set out. Nuala, do you want to add anything more to that?

The work that will be taken forward for the implementation plan for the science and innovation strategy will be important. It is not about science as part of the marine directorate in isolation. I have previously mentioned the importance of collaboration and getting that right. The implementation of the strategy will assist us in that.

I think that the science budget has remained consistent over the past few years.

As I set out earlier, ultimately, we want to provide the best available working facilities for the people there. When the damage was done to the buildings, a number of short-term solutions were put in place. I realise that that was not an ideal approach, but that is where the work that is being taken forward by the project board to identify longer-term solutions will be really important.

However, I am not too clear about the timescales for that work. I do not know whether officials have any further information on that.

There is quite a lot to unpick in that.

I will try to respond to as much as possible. If I forget a point, please pick me up on it.

You mentioned remote electronic monitoring. I appeared in front of the committee not long ago to introduce the regulations on that. REM is being rolled out across particular sections of our fleet, not across the whole fleet. It will be used for pelagic vessels as well as scallop dredge vessels. The pelagic measures do not come into force until 2026, to give the industry time to adjust and prepare for them. However, when we introduce REM on Scottish vessels, it will also apply to vessels fishing in Scottish waters.