The allocation of the Fisheries and Coastal Growth Fund through the Barnett formula is inconsistent with model preferred by industry stakeholders in all parts of the United Kingdom. We are concerned that it does not reflect the relative scale, distribution or needs of the fishing industry across the UK. In 27 the absence of any proper explanation by the government of why the total sum that has been allocated to the fund was chosen, or for the duration of the scheme itself, it is impossible for anyone to have confidence that there is political or fiscal integrity in the thinking behind the scheme. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund provides a precedent for region-specific funding using bespoke metrics. Collaborative implementation and administration should have been possible and would have been in the best interests of fishing communities. Beyond the fact that the Scottish Government demanded that administration of the fund should be devolved, there is no obvious reason for the departure from previous practice. Engagement with the devolved administrations is important, but should not replace early, meaningful engagement with the industry. For the UK Government to engage respectfully and meaningfully with the devolved administrations is important, but that is no substitute for early, meaningful engagement with the industry. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)