Official Report 645KB pdf
Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2016 (SSI 2016/12)
Water Environment (Remedial Measures) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/19)
Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/33)
I welcome everyone to the fifth meeting in 2016 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones and other devices, as they may affect the broadcasting system. However, you may notice some committee members consulting tablets during the meeting; that is because we provide meeting papers in digital format.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of three negative instruments. I refer members to the paper and ask if they have any comments on any of the instruments.
I want to raise an issue in relation to the Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2016 with specific reference to the debate that we had on marine protected areas. The map that is provided with the order shows that two of the areas involved cover all of the south Arran MPA.
I had a conversation with the cabinet secretary, as he will recall, along with the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, about the desirability of new scientific work being done to assess what the situation is with spawning cod in that area. That suggestion was driven by a skipper from Campbeltown, who was very keen for that to happen. In the papers attached to the order, the argument is made for what has taken place since 2002 to continue, but there is no mention of current science anywhere in the papers.
Has the cabinet secretary had the opportunity to consider the possibility of some small-scale scientific activity taking place during the new closure, during the spawning period, in order to assess what is going on? That offer was made, and an offer was made for boats to be provided essentially free of charge to allow that to happen.
Those matters have been noted on the record, so the Government can respond to them in due course. Given that the committee has considered similar orders twice before since 2002, Mike Russell’s questions about the order are pertinent and probably need answers.
At the present time, members do not wish to make any other comments. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments?
I presume that the cabinet secretary will write to me about the matter that I raised.
I presume so, as he will receive the Official Report of our meeting and he cannot speak at the moment—[Interruption.]
All right, the cabinet secretary can respond.
That would be helpful.
I was not sure what the protocol was in the case of negative instruments, but as the cabinet secretary is here, he will respond.
Convener, that makes two of us—I am not 100 per cent sure of the protocol. However, given that I am here for the next item, I am happy to put on the record that, after the productive meeting with the Clyde Fishermen’s Association that was organised by Michael Russell in the past few days, I welcome the proactive offer to work with the Government on gathering better science on the Clyde. I would be happy to speak to colleagues in Marine Scotland science and write back to the committee about potential future scientific work in relation to that closure and the Clyde generally.
Thank you, cabinet secretary.
Are we agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Attendance