Chamber and committees

Yes.

Obviously, it was really disappointing to hear that, and it is not something that we want to hear about the directorate. I know that the committee has undertaken visits and you have spoken to some of the team directly. We are fortunate to have some brilliant people across our marine directorate, who are passionate and really care about what they do. Of course, it is never nice to hear such comments but, on reflection, some of the criticism that was levelled at the directorate—in relation to the science and the international reputation—was unfair, because I genuinely believe that we are well respected and well regarded. When you look at our science, the fact that we have a lead in a number of the working groups in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea very much played a strong role in the organisation of events that have taken place there. We have strong relationships with different stakeholders and other academic institutions. I do not quite agree with some of the criticism that was levelled in that regard, because I think that our science and our team of scientists are well regarded.

That has the potential to be really exciting, actually, and quite transformative.

We have discussed REM, which I think will provide a number of benefits, particularly in relation to some issues, and capabilities in terms of overall compliance.

There are a few different areas, but we are always looking to see how we can use new technology to the best possible advantage. Even with the three vessels, the two RIBs and the aerial surveillance, we cannot be everywhere all at once, and we have a vast marine area around our coastline to monitor. That is where all the new technologies can assist us.

You are absolutely right. As part of the fisheries management strategy that we published a few years ago, we made a commitment to undertake a review of penalties. We have a survey that is live at the moment and will be open until the end of September, which asks questions about that. You are absolutely right that we must ensure that the fines are proportionate. I highlight that that work is under way and that we are gathering views.

I am more than happy to consider the different issues. When we touched on that a couple of weeks ago, I highlighted one example in particular—the overall level of inspections—in which we look to proactively publish information. We have been doing that for a few years. We are trying to be more transparent—we received a lot of queries about that area. I am more than happy to consider looking at that.

I know that we have a number of open datasets. We also have a huge volume of information pages and documents that are published and made publicly available, but I suppose that that is largely in relation to our marine licensing and planning and the outcomes of marine assessments. If you feel that there are particular areas in which information is not being published but should be, please let me know of any concerns. We certainly publish peer-reviewed scientific papers and our official statistics.

On your first point, I was highlighting that specific area because we had furnished the committee with all the published information about our overall budget.

As for the Bew review recommendations that have not been implemented, that is really about ensuring that we have further discussions with the UK Government about what future allocations will look like. Despite our raising that repeatedly over the past few years since the Bew review, those discussions have not taken place.

Yes, but, broadly, it has remained consistent.

I do not know whether Nuala Gormley can add further information on that or whether we are aware of any particular areas where the situation is inhibiting work.

I have talked about some of the income that has been generated, and I think that about £3.5 million of the income of £9 million has come from other scientific work. However, a full analysis of that would have to be undertaken. Rebecca Hackett has outlined the restructure that took place last year, and we need to consider how that is operating. However, with regard to how the department operates, that is largely operational and it is for the marine directorate to look at where the resources are and how they are aligned. There is no question about the independence of our scientists and the work that they undertake. What is important for me is that we see the outcomes and where that work is beneficial for Scotland.

We have talked at length today about the engagement and involvement with ICES across all the stock assessments and the areas that are most valuable for us in the work that is undertaken. What is important for me is that work and the fact that we see benefit from it.

Again, you can take a narrow view and look at the overall publications, but we need to look at the picture more widely. The number of publications is being used as a measure of how the directorate is performing, which is not a fair assessment. That is particularly the case given what Nuala Gormley said about our increased involvement in ICES and the expertise that is being utilised in that regard. We need to consider this in the round.