Chamber and committees

I do not particularly believe that to be the case. Of course, as with anything, when we commission somebody to do work, it is only right that we would expect to pay them for that work. Again, it has a wealth of expertise in that area. It is not as if there will be a way of developing a plan completely in isolation.

We have a process, which I hope that we have been able to illustrate and outline today. The stakeholder engagement element of that is critical. We will work with our wider stakeholders and with industry. We will also have to have discussions with other Administrations, and there will be a full public consultation. All of that will be set out transparently. However, Seafish has that expertise, which is what we are looking to utilise.

Yes.

Yes. First, I will touch on your first point: you are absolutely right about sustainable livelihoods. What comes through in the Fisheries Act 2020 is the issue of how we balance all the objectives. Our environment is critically important, and supporting a healthy marine environment is good for the livelihoods of our fishermen as well. However, we have to balance that against the economic situation, too. Our fishermen do their very best to fish sustainably and it is in all our interests to see that happen.

On the concerns about merging the two plans that you outlined, it has only been since last year that ICES has considered North Sea and west of Scotland cod to be part of the same biological stock, which is why we decided to merge the plans. That is designed to reflect the latest scientific understanding of the stock, in line with ICES’ advice structures. I hope that that helps to explain our approach. However, if any area-specific management measures need to be taken between the North Sea and the west of Scotland, we would consider those through the FMP process. I hope that that provides some reassurance on that front.

There will be a lot of detailed stakeholder engagement throughout the process, so I like to think that anything that is being developed will not suddenly hit our fishermen by surprise. That is why having an extension to the timeline is critically important to ensuring that we have that consultation and engagement.

To hark back to my opening comments to the committee, I see the fisheries management plans as being very much complementary to our approach, by setting out in a more transparent way what we are doing. Of course, some of the other issues that Jane talked about will also be covered. I hope that all that will be helpful and informative as we go through the process, not to mention the formal periods of consultation that we will have.

I am happy to set that out. However, first, you touched on the petition. I do not know whether the committee has been copied into the correspondence that I sent to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee to make it aware of the update and the work on that.

You are absolutely right: in 2021, we introduced mandatory measures in relation to wrasse. However, I have updated the petitions committee on the fact that, in recent weeks, we have received a piece of work by the University of Glasgow that provides us with new evidence on wrasse interactions in our special areas of conservation and marine protected areas. On the back of that, we have asked NatureScot to do further work for us so that we can get advice before we enter the new season next year. It is important that we get that work under way.

More widely in relation to FMPs, we set out in the JFS the criteria for selecting the species for which we are developing FMPs. Wrasse is not included among those at the moment. It is right that we focus on the FMPs that we have said that we will publish and that we have already published. However, that does not prevent us from developing a fisheries management plan for wrasse if we think that one is needed. Even in the absence of a fisheries management plan, we will continue with this work to ensure that it is a sustainable fishery.

Yes. That is what we are saying: if we can take any learning from FMPs that are already being developed, we will absolutely look to do that. DEFRA has been leading on fisheries management plans for some non-quota species that we do not have FMPs for at the moment. We always knew that those areas would be more complex, so it is really important that we learn from the processes that DEFRA has been through. There is nothing to prevent us from developing FMPs in the future, but our focus right now is to deliver the 21 FMPs that we have set out in annex A of the JFS. However, should anything change in that regard, we can always bring forward the development of a fisheries management plan.

I will respond to your question, but Jane MacPherson can talk more about the process and some of the work that has been done.

I want to make it clear that fisheries management plans are a completely new tool and a completely new process, so that is a point in and of itself.

We knew that the timescales that were set out in annex A of the JFS were ambitious, which is quite right. However, as we have gone through the process, we have recognised that more time is needed to get things right. That is the case for a number of reasons, not least the fact that there is still so much work to be done and that, as the committee has seen from the responses from stakeholders, they have concerns about what they have seen in the initial drafts that were shared with them. Those extra two years will enable us to have full engagement with our stakeholders and to go out to a full public consultation and reflect on the results of that before we redraft the plans and publish the final versions.

Although some of the other Administrations have published some fisheries management plans, we are not alone with regard to the challenging timescales that were set out in the JFS. Other Administrations have found themselves in the same position, and we now know that we need that bit of extra time, which is why we are all jointly going out to consultation.

Although the Scottish Government is leading on 21 FMPs, those are still joint plans, which means that it is not just a case of our having engagement with stakeholders. Engagement is also needed to reach agreed positions with the other Administrations. That has all taken extra time. In the middle of that, we had a UK general election and there is now a new Government in place. Therefore, enabling all those discussions to take place has taken more time than anybody could have anticipated, which is why all the Administrations find themselves in this position.

If it is helpful, I will ask Jane MacPherson to set out a bit more about the process and where we have got to.

We constantly look at that. The regional inshore fisheries groups and the FMAC have been through a bit of a refresh in recent years, and we are in a process of reviewing the FMAC structure, which was put on a more formal footing, with terms of reference and a more established structure than it had previously. However, as with anything, when we make such changes, we have to monitor them to see whether they are working. It is important that we consider whether stakeholders think that the FMAC is an effective forum and whether they are getting what they would like out of it. That work is on-going with regard to FMAC, and we are also doing that with the regional inshore fisheries groups.

As Jane MacPherson outlined in a previous response, once we have a firmer idea of the timetable, we would be happy to share it with the committee. I know that that would be helpful not just for our stakeholders and that it would probably help with your workload, of which there will be a lot over the coming years. As you have said, we could well be into a new Administration then. However, we will absolutely provide as much clarity as we can on that.

Seafish has also assisted with FMPs down south. It has that expertise and knowledge by the very nature of its work. It therefore makes sense for us to utilise that, where possible, rather than potentially replicating or duplicating.