Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, we absolutely will not. We still want to meet those objectives, and we set out the policies that we did because a blanket, one-size approach does not fit all.

The landing obligation is very complex at the moment, which is why it is difficult for people to comply with it. There are 480 exemptions within it, so it is a very complex environment. We want to reduce unwanted catch, look at different measures for different sectors of the fleet and move away from the one-size-fits-all approach. We also want to be more accountable.

If we are able to capture all that information, we will have a better idea of discards and people will be better able to account for them, which will mean that we have a better picture of stocks and can fish more sustainably in the future. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve. That has been construed as rolling back, but I would challenge that, because we are trying to make the system more transparent, simpler and easier to comply with. Those factors are very important. The reason that we go out to consultation is that we want to know what people think about what we are proposing.

No problem. I will try to address all of those points.

I welcome the report that the SSF produced on spatial squeeze. I am due to meet the federation in a few weeks and, no doubt, the matter will be a large part of our discussions. Other fisheries stakeholders raise the issue with me, too.

I completely agree with what you said about fish being an important protein source for us going forward. That is why we identified it—and, indeed, specifically point to it—in our blue economy vision. However, there is no doubt that there are competing pressures on our marine environment.

When you see the area for which we are responsible, our marine resource looks quite large, but, of course, there are a lot of competing uses for that space. There are offshore renewables, and we are also developing our marine protected area network and considering the delivery of highly protected marine areas. I know that that work is of concern to the fishing industry, too. The processes that we go through are absolutely critical to ensuring that fisheries’ voices are heard through the consultations that we hold and that they are part of the engagement. An example of that is the ScotMER programme, which, although about energy research, also has as part of it a fishing group to examine and help us identify, for example, what gaps there are in the evidence that we might need.

We need to continue such engagement and work collaboratively across Marine Scotland to ensure that fisheries’ voices are heard. We are trying to manage our way through the matter as much as we can. If anything, all the global crises that we have seen mean that we need to have energy resilience, but our food security is critical, too, so we must enable that. Fishing is also an important part of many communities—indeed, that will be the case in your Shetland Islands constituency as in our coastal communities around Scotland.

We are trying to manage our way through the situation as much as possible. That is where our planning and consenting processes are really important to ensuring that fisheries’ voices are heard.

Was your other question about national marine plan 2?

The programme for government that was published yesterday says that we would look to commence the process of developing a new plan. We are at the early stages of that work, but I am more than happy to keep the committee updated on it as we go forward.

It was important that we had the consultation on the roll-out of REM, because, although we have committed to rolling out vessel monitoring systems to all vessels within the fishing fleet, we think that REM can be targeted. The initial focus of that will be on the pelagic sector. For example, more than 90 per cent of our scallop vessels have had REM installed during the past 10 years, which is hugely beneficial, because the data that we can collect from it helps fishers and the Government.

The consultation for that closed at the same time as the one for the future catching policy, and we are also analysing the results of that, because we want to hear feedback about the roll-out and its impact on the industry. We know that it will be easier for some sectors than for others, so we want to get the roll-out right if we do it.

I would be happy to, but a lot of pieces of work are under way and not all of them will be highlighted within the PFG document that was published yesterday, given the nature of the PFG. It is quite different to PFGs from previous years, with its important focus on the cost of living crisis.

A number of key pieces of work are under way. We launched our consultation on a future agriculture bill, which we are looking to introduce next year. We are, of course, continuing to roll out the national test programme, which is about trying to encourage our farmers to look at measures that they can take to reduce their emissions and to start that journey. It involves looking at carbon audits and at soil testing. We are developing the second phase of that work. That is all critically important in relation to farming and the direction of travel that we are looking towards for that.

On the marine environment and aquaculture, we had the Griggs review earlier in the year and we are moving forward on the recommendations from that. No doubt, the committee will have questions on that later in the session, when I can go into that in a bit more detail. There are commitments within the PFG to look at a new national marine plan.

In relation to agriculture and the rural economy, we have also talked about crofting and work in that area. A lot of pieces of work are under way, which we will, no doubt, cover in the session today.

I completely understand the comments that Martin Kennedy made. I think that, like the industry as a whole, NFU Scotland wants things to get moving. We had the farmer-led groups, which reported towards the end of last year. We then had to set up the ARIOB to see how we could take that work forward, which is exactly what we have been doing throughout that time.

It is also important to remember that, as well as looking to develop future policy and roll out the national test programme, which we developed within that time, we have to make sure that we can run the current payment system—we need to make sure that we can do all of that at the same time as doing all those other things. Of course, that adds pressure, but we want to go as far and as fast as we can, because we have incredibly stretching targets that we need to meet.

We need to reduce our emissions by 31 per cent of 2019 levels by 2032, which means that we need to take this action. Again, that is where the work that we have undertaken through the ARIOB to roll out the national test programme and to incentivise the industry to get on board with us has been really important. We have seen strong uptake in relation to carbon audits, for example, which is a really encouraging sign, but we know that we need everybody to undertake the measures. There is a huge amount of pressure: everybody wants us to go further and faster, which is, of course, exactly what we will try to do.

As we say in the PFG, it is important that we explore opportunities that could free up resource and help us to roll out further measures that we are considering in relation to supporting our farmers, crofters and land managers in lowering their emissions and enhancing biodiversity. We are at the start of that process now, and we have to consider that important issue.

That will depend on the analysis. Allan Gibb might be able to give you more of a timescale for when we expect that work to be complete, but we will want to take the next steps in short order afterwards.

Allan Gibb will probably have a better idea of where the analysis and consultation are at, because I have not had that advice and I have not seen the analysis of the response. That is probably the only answer I can give, rather than anything remotely like a definitive timescale for that or the next steps, but I am happy to come back to the committee with further information when we have it.

Yes, I would be happy to do that. First, I reiterate that we are still working to the timescales that we have set out in the agreement. I also clarify that HPMAs will cover 10 per cent of our waters.

I know that there is concern about what the measures will mean for people, so the engagement processes will be critical. As with other areas that we have talked about, it is important to ensure that we get feedback, that people know what is happening and that they know what the measures will mean for them. We will be looking at developing that process. We said that we would have HPMAs in place by the end of the parliamentary session in 2026. If I work back from that date, I can see that an awful lot of work will need to be undertaken. We will be starting to engage and consult on what site selection might look like.

I reiterate that we will not be fast-tracking or sidelining any processes—we will follow all due process in our engagement with people.

I come back to your point about what an HPMA is. As we have set out in some of the information, an HPMA is an area where no activities are permitted to take place other than those that are for recreational use or for marine tourism. It would be an exclusive zone; no other activities would be permitted to take place.