Chamber and committees

I will press you a wee bit in relation to juvenile cod being discarded by the prawn fishery trawling industry. The evidence that we have received suggests that the closure approach is wrong and that most juvenile cod are caught by trawling. What evidence do you have that that is not the case and that the gear that is used allows cod to escape? It seems that the policy is not based on scientific evidence as such and that creelers and divers, which have very little impact, as we know, are being caught up in the closures. That probably is not having the impact that we are looking for.

Can you give the committee any assurance that you will look at the matter again and in a shorter timescale?

I am sorry—I did not mean that those cod spawn. Does the impact on cod stocks mean that they are not getting to adulthood?

People who usually urge us to take conservation measures are contacting us with concerns about the science behind the closure. Everyone wants to make sure that every stock of fish is healthy, but the trouble is that you are asking people to forgo a quarter of their annual income on the basis of science that they do not really trust, which makes the proposition difficult.

The committee also faces a motion to annul the order, which we will have to make a decision on. It seems to me that a vague indication that the Government might look at things in a couple of years’ time will not be satisfactory to the people who are coming to us about this issue. Is there a way to look at things again, to ensure that those less harmful methods of fishing can be allowed? Those who cannot move out of the area will have no alternative but to shut up shop for three months. Is there a way to come back with a new instrument or a guarantee that, next year, something quite different might come before the committee? We are making decisions about people’s livelihoods without convincing science.

I want to really push you on the issue. If evidence came to the fore, before you were due to renew or change the instrument, would you introduce a new order?

We should perhaps write to the Scottish Government to ask what discussions it has had with the Danish Government on fisheries. I understand that we do not fish for sand eel at all, but I think that the species is important to the Danish fishery. It would be good to understand what discussions were held with the Danish and whether there are any implications for international negotiations on fisheries.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to protect the future of the Screen Machine mobile cinema. (S6O-03122)

I thank the minister for that response, and I welcome her to her post.

The minister knows that the Screen Machine gives rural and island communities access to cinema that they would not otherwise have because there is no alternative. If funding is not found to replace the Screen Machine and to pay for its running costs, this much-loved facility will disappear. Such is the concern that young people in Barra enlisted the support of Dame Judi Dench to highlight the issue and its importance to them. Will the Scottish Government therefore undertake to investigate every possible avenue to ensure that funding is found to save this very valuable institution?

I, too, thank Stuart McMillan for bringing the debate to the chamber. I also pay tribute to the victims of McClure Solicitors campaign group for pushing for justice. Bob Doris hosted the group in the Parliament last November, and I know that other colleagues have been active on the matter too, because many of us have constituents who have been affected. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee used lessons from the McClure situation to amend the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill.

Sadly, however, action on the matter has been far too slow. Jones Whyte has not advised everyone who is involved, and I wonder whether the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or the Law Society of Scotland should step in and take the lead on warning people to reassess their trusts and wills that were set up by McClure, because those people need to be told now that they could be impacted.

I am grateful for that intervention, but I think that people still need to know, because the process is happening under the radar, and many more people will be impacted.

Although I understand that Jones Whyte has a lot of work to do, I have found the firm difficult to deal with, certainly when I am acting on behalf of my constituents. My constituents were not given access to documents until I intervened, and those documents were then provided in a way that was very difficult for elderly people to deal with. In addition, Police Scotland has stepped forward to act only now, but I am glad that it is stepping in, because previously it had told victims that the McClure situation was a civil matter.

People in this situation need help and advice.