Chamber and committees

I will reiterate some of what I have said throughout the meeting. The committee has heard from a cross-section of stakeholders and has heard a diverse range of views. I have already talked about the complexity of the issue; the evidence that you have heard outlines that.

It is a difficult situation to find a solution to; in this case, it is impossible to find one that would make everyone equally happy. As the cabinet secretary who is responsible for fisheries management and protection, it is my job—as I outlined in response to Jim Fairlie’s question—to take on board and try, no matter how well-intentioned they are, to balance all the competing interests.

Rachael Hamilton talked about some of the comments that I made in response to Jackson Carlaw’s parliamentary question last week. In that response, I said:

“Responsible fisheries management means ensuring that we get the right balance between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2020; c 60.]

In this case, we have done that by increasing protections for spawning cod while also ensuring that fishing can continue to take place in surrounding areas.

The committee has also heard a variety of scientific opinions about what constitutes protection. However, on the advice of Dr Needle, who is the chief fisheries adviser for Scotland, we are applying the precautionary approach and minimising disturbance of the sea bed during the spawning period in the known spawning area. That is the fundamental objective and it is important that we not lose sight of it.

As I said in my opening comments and have said throughout the meeting, the process that led up to the SSI being laid before the committee was by no means ideal, but I firmly stand by the closure decision and believe that we are doing the right thing to contribute to protection of spawning cod.

I have outlined the next steps that Marine Scotland will take. Allan Gibb also talked about monitoring and compliance. We will meet stakeholders after the closure ends this year to hear their thoughts on how it has worked. As we also said, we will look to learn lessons on how the processes can be improved. However, ensuring that the closure was in place from 14 February until the end of April was the right decision and was our number 1 priority.

I hope that Rachael Hamilton will consider not moving her motion and, failing that, that the committee will not support it.

I have covered a lot of these comments in my previous remarks. I understand where Mercedes Villalba is coming from in relation to some of her points. However, I re-emphasise the point that agreeing to the motion to annul the instrument that is before the committee today would remove all protections.

I recognise members’ points about the process. As I have said previously, we absolutely want to ensure that we learn lessons from this.

Of course, we would not want to do that, but that is essentially what the committee would allow to happen if the SSI were annulled. If more work was to be done, that would take time, during which the protection would not be in place. That would be during spawning time, which is a short window.

I have covered the other issues in my previous remarks, so I draw to a close in highlighting that aspect to the committee.

The decision is based on the best available scientific evidence. In the time that was available, it would not have been possible to conduct all the scientific research to fill the gaps that have been identified while ensuring that the SSI was in place to provide protections for the spawning period. We have based the decision on the best available scientific evidence and research.

I think that the ultimate consequences of not basing decisions on the best possible evidence would be that you could take the wrong decisions. If we do not take the precautionary approach, we could end up doing more harm than good to the stock.

I missed the first part of your question. Was it about the methodology?

Are you talking about the methodology on which we have based these decisions and the views of other bodies in relation to that?

We have published all the evidence and information on which we based our decision, and it is all publicly available on our website.

This has predominantly been a risk-based approach that has been based on the evidence and science that we have. That comes back to what Dr Needle and Allan Gibb said about the science around the impact of disturbance, on which we have, ultimately, based the policy decision. Dr Needle might want to say more about that.

As I said, we based the decision on the best scientific evidence that we had, which suggested that any disturbance within 10m of the sea bed would have an impact on spawning cod. It would be appropriate to bring in Dr Coby Needle to explain that point from the scientific perspective.

Again, it was our further reflection on what we had received through the consultation and on the different correspondence that we had received about the exemptions. As I have said, when the initial SSI was laid, it was intended that those exemptions would roll over to 2022 and 2023, and we reflected further on that. Of course, the Bute house agreement is part of that, but representations were made by other organisations about the ultimate impact on spawning cod of not removing the exemptions. That is why we decided to look again and to take that further advice. The position that we have ended up in on the back of that is the right one, given the revision of the closed area while, ultimately, achieving the policy objective, which is to protect spawning cod.

The closure is for 2022 and 2023. I do not want to prejudge the meeting that will take place. We will, of course, consider any views that come out of that meeting.