I say at the outset that I have some sympathy with Andy Williamson about driving from Skye to Parliament in one day, which I have done on numerous occasions because my region includes it. It is quite a slog, especially if you are behind a timber lorry.

I think that Sarah Childs’s point about Government control of time is valid, but let us be clear: the Government controls the time because it controls the Parliamentary Bureau and it can say exactly how long each debate will be or whether there will be a ministerial statement. Members have no say in that. That is something that we ought to consider a little bit more. On Tuesday this week, the bureau met. A debate had been scheduled for Thursday, but it was pinged by the Government and changed unilaterally. I think that that it is disrespectful to the Parliament after its having programmed the debate two weeks previously.

My question is twofold. I take the point that Sarah Childs and Andy Williamson made about witnesses giving evidence at committees; I think that the hybrid system is really good for that. I want to ask about the chamber system. Do you both think that the chamber comes across in hybrid meetings as being open and transparent? Perhaps Sarah Childs would like to lead on that, then Andy Williamson can come in.

I take your point on equity for members and ministers. The point that I was trying to make is that ministers and cabinet secretaries are adept at judging the number of questions that they will be asked, because the clerks will tell them when they have to start at the committee and usually when they will end, and they will take a long time to answer a specific question that they want to answer and try to talk the other questions out. I have seen it as a convener in the committee. At one stage, as convener, I had to cut off the microphone of one cabinet secretary who would not shut up, so that the other members of the committee could speak. That is the point that I was trying to make.

My second point is that I want to push back and understand slightly more about the party aspect of it. I will be clear that I am a deputy whip for my party, and it slightly concerns me that you think that it should not be the parties that control speaking slots, and I am interested to hear why. They do control speaking slots, because they are given a certain number of slots for every debate. How would we get round that to make sure that those people who are virtual all get equity? There is no doubt about it that, if you are virtual in the Scottish Parliament, you get to speak only when you have a speaking slot; you cannot intervene or do anything else. I know, convener, that you say that that will happen, but I will believe it when I see it. I would like Meg Russell’s views on that, please.

Each of those industries contributes different amounts to Scotland, either financially or through, for example, supporting the local economy by encouraging people to live there. How will you balance out the economic benefits of each of those industries and not disadvantage the perhaps less economic activities of people such as, for example, creel fishers, who are also important to their local economy? I do not see how you will strike that balance. Do you think that you will be able to do so?

On that, do we need greater regulation of inshore fisheries on the basis that we do not fully understand who is taking what, where, when, and how?

It sounds like it all works very well and that you all work very well together. It sounds perfect.

Helen, do you want to come in on that? I think that there has to be a space for nature in there somewhere, as well.

I am sure that you do not always agree with what Allan Gibb says, but that is life.

When the earlier panel of witnesses gave evidence to the committee, they said that there were some conflicts around where they could fish or carry out activities. I guess that we can all accept that there is a conflict around where certain activities can take place. We have to balance nature, renewables, aquaculture, fishing, and tourism, but I would not say that we have got it right at the moment. Will we be able to get that right? Will that come under the JFS, or is that something that you will come up with so that the JFS will be based on how we are going to use our coastline sustainably?

When you are considering the issues, do you think that you will be able to think far enough forward? People who are involved in the aquaculture sector have said that it is no longer sustainable for their facilities to be as close to shore as they are at the moment, due to water temperatures and the problems with disease and lice, and they want them to be placed further offshore, which might bring them into conflict with wind turbines or wave energy facilities. How are you going to plan for the future so that the policies are flexible enough to cope with the demands of all the industries that Scotland wants to support?

I want to push on that point a little bit with James Harrison, if I may. Surely the beauty of things being slightly vague is that that allows the devolved Administrations to discuss who the lead person should be when negotiating internationally on the uptake of quota when we are unable to fill the quota ourselves. I believe that we have an obligation to exploit the quota if we have not got to the sustainable yield limit. There could surely be some merit in Scotland taking the lead on some aspects and England taking the lead on others. Surely that is a merit of what is being suggested. Do you agree?