Chamber and committees

Emma Harper is absolutely right. In previous responses, we have touched on collaboration being critical in many policy areas, to many of the objectives that we are looking to implement and to our commitments. Working with our local authority partners, different operators and industry is really important.

I will start on that question, although I know that Francesco Sindico has been desperate to talk about the carbon neutral islands project, which he has been working on in some detail, and I would not want for a moment to steal his thunder.

The initiative is really exciting. Initially, we had committed to working with three islands to reach carbon neutrality by 2040, but we have increased the number to six islands. I emphasise that, even though the focus is on six islands, we want to ensure that all islands benefit.

The initiative is exciting because our islands are at the forefront of innovation. With all the work that is happening in renewables throughout our islands, we really want to capitalise on the opportunities that exist and to work closely with islands in reaching carbon neutrality.

An external working group looked to identify the different criteria for which islands we should work with. It is important that we get a mix. Some islands will be quite advanced in the journey in the work that they are undertaking, whereas some will potentially have a bit further to go.

I will hand over to Francesco Sindico to provide a bit more detail.

I will not be making any announcements today, and you will understand why the Government has not made any announcements in the past few weeks, during the run-up to the local elections. The announcement will be made soon.

Thank you, convener. I also thank the committee for providing me with an opportunity to introduce briefly and discuss the draft joint fisheries statement and the UK fisheries framework.

Together, the documents help to explain how, in future years, fisheries will be managed across the UK in a way that allows the UK as a whole to share common goals on fisheries management and marine protection while, at the same time, protecting the Scottish Government’s devolved powers in the area as it decides its approach to the goals and the implementation of policy.

The future of fisheries management strategy and the future catching policy, along with the blue economy strategy that will be launched this spring, set out how I intend to make Scotland a world-class fisheries manager by focusing on the issues that are of importance and relevance to Scottish waters and Scottish communities. As the documents show, the commitment to achieving sustainable management of fisheries is locked into our overarching fisheries management strategy and will drive many of the new policies.

In that context, the JFS and the framework help to establish the high-level UK policy and describe how the UK Administrations will work together to ensure that devolution is respected. They also identify where we need to work together to deliver sustainable management of our seas. With the high-level goals having been established at a UK level through the JFS and the framework, both will be implemented through the Scottish Government’s actions to achieve our goals on marine protection, recovery of biodiversity, net zero and growing the blue economy.

The documents are split, because the draft joint fisheries statement predates the UK frameworks process, but broadly speaking the JFS sets out the joint policies that the four UK Administrations will pursue and the framework sets out how the Administrations will work together. The JFS sets out the Administrations’ policies to achieve the eight policy objectives in the Fisheries Act 2020. It also sets out how the objectives in the 2020 act have been interpreted and how the Administrations aim to deliver a vibrant, profitable and sustainable fishing industry that is supported by a healthy marine environment.

The policies cover sea fisheries policy and management both within UK waters and in negotiation with other coastal states. They also cover fisheries science; fisheries management; determination and apportionment of fishing opportunities; access to UK waters; bycatch; illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; marine protected areas; climate change and a number of other areas. In order to protect devolved competence, the policies are set at a high level, with the detail to be delivered by the Scottish Government to ensure that policy is tailored to Scottish waters and Scottish circumstances while achieving the high-level goals.

The JFS also sets out our approach to fisheries management plans, which the Government will take the lead in drafting in relation to many of the stocks that are of greatest interest to us, including pelagic and demersal stocks.

The UK fisheries management and support framework is a more operationally focused document that, broadly speaking, addresses how the Administrations should engage with each other, and establishes groups and processes by which we will regulate day-to-day business.

The structure of the memorandum of understanding consists of one high-level agreement covering common principles on working together, dispute avoidance and resolution, and data collection and sharing. Underneath that MOU sit more detailed operational agreements that detail how exactly the Administrations will work together on a number of other areas. That approach allows Administrations to approach each issue independently by allowing, for example, changes to quota management to be made without the entire MOU needing to be reopened. The ability to take issues singly should allow for considerable flexibility in deciding when and how we wish to amend any part of the MOU or any of its annexed agreements.

Together, the documents help to explain how fisheries will be managed across the UK for future years in a way that allows the UK as a whole to share common goals on fisheries management and marine protection while protecting the Scottish Government’s devolved powers in decisions on how the goals should be approached and how policy should be implemented.

I hope that it has been helpful to set that out. I am happy to take questions from the committee.

The process of developing the statement has shown how effectively the four Administrations in the UK can work together. It also, importantly, shows the alignment that we have on the high-level goals and ambitions that have been set out in the JFS.

The process also shows how devolution should work. A key consideration has been that we want to ensure that devolved powers are respected and adhered to. The agreement that we have set out in the joint fisheries statement and the framework identifies that. It sets out the high-level ambitions while allowing us the flexibility to determine the individual policies that are right for our industry and sectors.

It has been a positive piece of work. We will continue to see how it develops, but it shows that we are aligned on our ultimate objectives for the issues that it covers. That is not to say that that has always been the case and that we will always agree on every element. One example on which there has been disagreement—which we have raised with the committee previously—is the UK seafood fund, which cuts across devolved competence and spends in an area that is entirely devolved. That has caused confusion for the industry. It spends in areas that we already plan to fund in Scotland. However, although there are specific issues, the process shows how we can work together positively and effectively.

After we laid the original Scottish statutory instrument, we listened to our stakeholders. As a result of that, we tried to bring them together to see whether there was a means by which we could work together to find a solution. That resulted in the SSI that we discussed at the committee. Through it, we are still trying to meet the policy objective of protecting spawning cod while ensuring that we protect the areas where spawning takes place. The engagement led to our reducing the size of the overall closed area by 28 per cent, which will allow more fishing activity to take place.

The process leading up to that decision was not ideal. However, we tried to listen. I reflected on the evidence that we heard, which ultimately led to our changing our position. We listened to and engaged with our stakeholders to find a solution to some of the issues that had been identified.

I agree. It is a hugely complex issue, and there are lots of competing interests that we must try to balance throughout the process. The JFS, the framework and the Fisheries Act 2020 set that out—they identify that there can be competing interests and that there are various factors to take account of when trying to reach difficult and challenging decisions.

Although the process for the Clyde cod closure was not the most straightforward and was not conducted in the way that we like to engage with our stakeholders, the decision that we reached about the revised closure was the right one.

I am sure that you will be.

I refer to the example that I provided earlier of the future catching policy and REM. The future catching policy sets out how we will meet not just the national benefit objective, but the other objectives that are set out in the Fisheries Act 2020. It is critical that the delivery mechanisms that we use for our policies meet the objectives that are set out. I would say that the future catching policy is an example of how we will meet that objective.

The proposals in the consultation were developed following consultation with our stakeholders, because, as I said, if we implement that policy, we want to ensure that we get it right. That will involve discussion and consideration of the responses to the consultation so that we can shape a policy that will deliver on the objective.