Chamber and committees

I am grateful that the cabinet secretary is here today to clarify points around the SSI, but can she tell us what it means when it refers to “a board”? The term is not used in the 2022 act, and my understanding is that the role of the chair and the set of commissioners will be more than the standard role that a board plays. I would appreciate clarification in that respect, because, as you will know, we discussed the point at length during the passage of the good food nation legislation.

The point of the Scottish food commission is to provide board expertise and understanding of all aspects of the food system to ensure that good food nation plans and other policies bring about the fundamental changes that we need. In what situation would the Scottish Government appoint a member of the food commission who is not

“representative of ... the food business sector or ... third sector bodies”

or does not possess

“expertise in or experience of”

the list of “food-related issues”?

I would appreciate knowing about that work.

I want to pick up on Allan Gibb’s anecdotal mention of a creel fisherman in the area. You said that 4,000 to 5,000 creels are being deployed—I do not know what the right word is—or dropped every day, or frequently. I would appreciate some evidence on that. I remember that, when you were here last year or the year before, you mentioned such staggering numbers. Other people have said to me that that would be impossible unless it is a cumulative figure. I would like you to give the committee some evidence on that.

I am also interested in what the Government is doing to look into the issue. As I understand it, there are creelers who work on the west coast—although not necessarily in the Clyde—who are calling for a cap or limit on what they can deploy, and I think that we need to take that on board. It is very reasonable to request that there be a cap so that there is enough to share between everybody; meanwhile, we would get proper recovery of stocks and so on.

What are we doing here? We are trying to ensure that there will be fisheries in Scotland 30 or 100 years from now and that we will be able to continue to say that fishing is part of our culture. I would like to get a bit more information from the Scottish Government marine directorate on the evidence on the number of creels that are being deployed in the Clyde cod box area and a bit more on what work is being done to look into the cap that creelers are calling for.

As I said, the science says that the SSI is necessary but not sufficient to protect and restore cod stocks. Rhoda Grant raised a serious point about the impact on creelers’ and divers’ livelihoods. A 2015 document from Marine Scotland showed that trawling affects the sea bed more than 18,000 times as much as creeling does. I reiterate my request for assurances from the Scottish Government that it will share with the committee the PhD work that the marine directorate and Professor Mike Heath at Strathclyde university are supervising, after the cabinet secretary has sought advice, so that we can see the recommendations for recovery.

I ask for a commitment to use the latest science, including the PhD work, when there is a replacement for the Clyde closures SSI in 2026 and beyond. I also request that the Scottish Government begin scoping additional measures, especially bycatch reduction, in order to protect the stock, because the latest science says that that is the main pressure.

I want to clarify a point about the Clyde cod stock being separate from the other west of Scotland cod stock. That is about not genetics but the potential to manage our Clyde cod stock separately. The Clyde cod stock sits completely within the Scottish Government’s purview, so we could absolutely bring in measures to minimise bycatch from trawling. I am glad to hear about the work that is being done on that, but I urge that that be accelerated, given the state of Clyde cod and our at-risk seabirds.

Thanks for that.

I go back to the reference in the regulations to “a board”. Could you go into a bit more detail about what that means and about what you imagine the chair and the commissioners will be doing?

That was really helpful—thank you. Indeed, it is, I would say, reassuring.

I am also interested in understanding in what situation the Scottish Government would appoint only one commissioner who is

“representative of ... the food business or ... third sector”

and only one commissioner who possesses the “expertise or experience” with regard to the list of “food-related issues”. Again, why would we not want all commissioners to fulfil at least one of those criteria? I understand that this is about flexibility, but I just want to understand what you are imagining here. I know that you are trying to create flexibility in order to bring all kinds of people in, but surely, as you thought through the SSI, you would have imagined certain scenarios where that might have been the case.

It is clear from the committee’s fisheries adviser’s advice, as well as the stakeholder evidence that has been sent to the committee over the past few days, that the SSI before us is necessary but is not sufficient to restore the Clyde cod stock. As the deputy convener has said, we are aware of the PhD work on the Clyde stock assessment, which is being supervised by the marine directorate and the University of Strathclyde. The committee’s fisheries adviser, Professor Paul Fernandes, said that such an assessment is necessary in order to properly manage the Clyde stock and that peer review is not essential for it to be used to inform policy.

As many of our comments and questions today have indicated, there is concern about the scientific evidence. I would appreciate a commitment from the Government that the PhD work in relation to the SSI will be shared with the committee, although I understand that it is a draft. That is the work of the marine directorate and Professor Mike Heath at the University of Strathclyde on the state of the stock and the recommendations for recovery.

I would appreciate a commitment to using the latest science, including that PhD, when such SSIs are developed—I am thinking, in particular, of the replacement SSI on the Clyde cod closures from 2026 onwards. I would also appreciate it if the Scottish Government marine directorate could begin scoping additional measures to protect the stock, especially bycatch reduction measures, because the latest science says that that is the main pressure.

Thanks for that. It is good to hear that that work is being done. I understand that the Strathclyde university assessment provides clear evidence confirming the results of peer-reviewed studies that show that high fishing mortality, not disturbance of the sea bed, is the key cause of low population size.

I go back to my earlier point that bycatch from nephrops trawling is part of the issue. It is interesting that we end up returning to bycatch in a discussion about creeling, but I think that we need to keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that it is trawling that is the issue.

Earlier, in response to a question about the benchmarking of the stocks in the west of Scotland, Allan Gibb made a point that I want to bring into the conversation. In a letter to the committee, Gillian Martin said:

“In the West of Scotland ICES benchmark report (ICES 2022), it is made clear that … , the best scientific evidence indicates that … Clyde cod are very likely to be a distinct stock from the rest of Division 6a”

but that they are lumped together with those cod—that is, the other west of Scotland cod—because of “data limitations.” I want to get the message out there that those stocks are considered to be separate.

That comes back to the issue around data that we have been getting into today. I know that we carry out our work on the basis of scientific evidence, but we are now asking what that scientific evidence is and who is using which evidence. Elena Whitham made a good point about gathering evidence in partnership with the sector and with the tremendous marine environmental non-governmental organisations that are doing work in the area. We need to get a much better understanding of the picture that we are looking at, and Gillian Martin’s point about data limitations shows that there is work to be done if we want to get the best picture of what we are trying to support in terms of stock recovery and so on. I go back to my point about the fact that we are trying to ensure that there is a flourishing fishery across all sectors.

We turn to questions from members. Please indicate to me if you would like to come in or to respond to something that somebody has said. The intention is that this should be a free-flowing conversation instead of a question-and-answer session, although sometimes that can be difficult to achieve. Let us see how we do.

I will start with a few general questions. To what extent do you think that the vision that is expressed in “Housing to 2040” is still fit for purpose and deliverable? Connected to that, do you think that the Scottish Government’s legislative programme, and its housing policy more generally, seek to deliver on the ambitions of “Housing to 2040” in a coherent way that considers the housing system holistically? Whoever feels prompted can come forward.

I would like to come back to you for more detail on that, but first I will bring some other people in.

Thank you very much for bringing in retrofit. That is certainly an aspect that I agree with you on.