Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not aware that those discussions have taken place yet. I do not know whether Allan Gibb or Paul McCarthy can provide any more information on that.

The future catching policy and remote electronic monitoring take us a huge step forward in relation to meeting the objectives. As I said earlier, there are eight objectives in the legislation. I will not run through them all now but I referred to the technical and spatial measures in a previous response to Mercedes Villalba. Those relate to how we will deliver on the bycatch, ecosystem and climate change objectives, together with REM and the management measures that we are looking to develop, which will also deliver on the sustainability, precautionary and scientific objectives. We can meet quite a lot of the objectives through what we plan to deliver via the two policies. As I set out the other week, there is a step change in respect of our leading the world with some of the measures that we are looking to introduce.

Do you mean the objectives within the—

I cannot set out a definitive timescale on that yet, for the reasons that I have outlined. Dealing with the stocks that you mentioned and the non-quota stocks is very complex. We have a long list of FMPs that we seek to develop and deliver for the stocks that we have mentioned in the JFS. That is not to say that what you suggest will never happen, but I cannot give you a definitive timescale for that work yet.

I would reflect on some of the comments that I made earlier about what the JFS is there to do, about the overall framework and about the high-level ambitions that have been set out in relation to that. I do not think that it would be appropriate to have those explicit provisions within the JFS, as I think it should ultimately be up to the fisheries administrations and authorities to determine how quota and fishing opportunities should be allocated. Obviously, we must adhere to what is in the Fisheries Act 2020 in relation to that, as set out in section 25.

It is important that devolution is respected in that regard and that we have the flexibilities to consider what has been set out, as individual administrations and authorities. Given some of the issues that could potentially arise, if such considerations were included in the JFS, they could almost be subject to a UK veto, with other Administrations having an impact on how we allocate or distribute our own fishing opportunities. It is important that we have that high-level vision but also that we have the powers and are able to deliver what works best for our industry here, according to how we think the quota and opportunities should be allocated and distributed.

That is my ultimate aim, and I want to make sure that we get it right. However, as I said in my previous response, it is challenging because, although it seems that we have a huge area of sea surrounding us and a large coastal area, it is an increasingly busy space, with lots of different and competing interests that we must manage. We are working our way through some of that to see how we can balance all those interests. Specific stocks will only be in a specific area at a specific time and, as you mentioned, there is renewable energy and we have our marine protected area network and are looking to develop our highly protected marine areas. We are in the process of looking at some of that work at the moment.

We also have statutory processes to follow, whether we are establishing MPAs or looking at the planning and consenting process for offshore renewables, but we are very much trying to get to grips with those issues so that we are as fair and balanced as possible. There is some reference to that in the JFS, which talks about some of the other measures and the need to ensure that the ambitions that it sets out are aligned with other management measures around MPAs.

There is no doubt that this is a difficult and complex area, but I hope that it is one that we will be able to work our way through.

That issue was subject to a lot of discussion during consideration of the legislative consent memorandum for the Fisheries Bill. The setting of the total allowable catch for the UK is reserved to the secretary of state. That is the case for all stocks bar one, the responsibility for which is delegated. A key example relates to Clyde herring. The Scottish Government takes the lead on building the evidence in that regard and in setting the TAC. We also consult with our stakeholders, which advise on the TAC for the stock, and the information on the TAC is then given to the secretary of state for determination. As far as I am aware, there have been no issues in that regard, and we do not anticipate there being any.

We will have to examine that and keep it under review. We provide resources to our regional inshore fisheries groups to enable them to operate. By their nature, they bring together fisheries interests and people who have not traditionally been represented by other organisations, because they are smaller businesses. We have tried to develop those fora to enable them and give them the capacity to engage, but if any issues emerged with capacity and resources, we would monitor the situation. However, I hope that those groups will play a part in the process, along with our other stakeholders.

I hope that you will have seen the plans set out in the JFS. We have tried to focus on stocks that are of commercial interest to our industry in Scotland, and we also wanted to put our initial focus on developing FMPs for stocks on which we already knew much of the detail. That is not to say that there will be no further iterations of fisheries management plans or any more plans beyond 2022, but I think that we have put our initial focus on the right place.

I know that plans proposed by other administrations cover non-quota stocks. We will of course be monitoring the development of that work, but it is far more complex. I think that our initial focus is the right one, but Paul McCarthy and Allan Gibb might want to elaborate on some of the issues that might arise if we were to focus on other areas.

That is a really important question and, as I set out to the committee the other week, the process that led to the introduction of that Scottish statutory instrument was not ideal—far from it—and did not meet the standards of co-management that, ideally, we would like to have and have had previously with stakeholders.

I apologised for that at the time but, of course, we want to ensure that we learn lessons from what happened. The legislation and the joint fisheries statement set out the importance of co-management and working with our stakeholders. We are committed to that; we want very much to achieve that.

We have talked today about the future catching policy. Again, that is being developed in consultation with our stakeholders. We have also set out that we intend to engage with all our stakeholders after the closure. We will monitor things throughout the period of the closure to see how we can improve them; that collaboration is really critical.

As I told the committee previously, the situation on the Clyde cod closure was far from ideal. We want to learn lessons from that, because we recognise that co-management is vital and we want to have that going forward.