Chamber and committees

I come back to the working group that will be overseeing that activity, which I imagine will also feed into the process, because it is important to emphasise that it will have fishermen as well as scientists represented on it.

I think that I will probably hand over to my technical experts to respond on the specifics of that question, but I am happy to write to the committee when the consultation on the future catching policy is launched either next week or within the next couple of weeks, because that will have all the detailed information as part of it.

I do not know whether Coby Needle or Jim Watson wants to come in on the technical specifics.

I have been clear on that at committee and I have set it out in the letter; I have set it out verbatim and I have repeated it already today. We have said that there is no direct evidence from the Clyde that demonstrates that. We do not have direct evidence that shows that fishing activity is disturbing spawning cod. However, we also do not have evidence that shows that it does not disturb spawning activity. We recognise the issues and, as I have set out in the letter, through some of the observations, we have found actively spawning cod outwith that closed area, which suggests that it is something that we need to look at.

Spawning closures are not rare. We use them in other areas, such as through the North Sea cod avoidance plan. They can be an important measure, but all of what we have set out in relation to the closure and the scientific programme is about filling those evidence gaps.

The area is generally open to fishing, so, if we do not have the closure, we will lose even the minimum protection for cod at a time when, as we know, the stock is under pressure.

The advice that I have been given and the broader scientific consensus—Coby Needle can correct me if I am wrong—are that stock recovery is possible. That is the belief at the moment.

Ensuring that we are working collaboratively with industry does not necessarily mean that we will get 100 per cent of our stakeholders on board. That will not always be possible, particularly in this space, because of the diverse and polarised views that exist. You have seen and heard that directly, and you have received evidence on it.

I want to go back to the point that Ariane Burgess made about having a one-year instrument. My concern about that is that we would get into a cycle of preparing for another one-year instrument, which would then interrupt the scientific work that otherwise could take place of trying to build the wider picture and fill some of the evidence gaps that exist.

The Strathclyde model, which the committee has heard about, is excellent, as Coby Needle outlined. However, we know that there are data gaps in it and that it is not up to date, which is exactly why we want to work with our scientific advisers and our fishermen to fill those gaps. Ultimately, through the scientific programme and the closed period, there would be limited access. As Jim Watson highlighted, we have had engagement with the industry on that, and the fishermen are at least broadly content with it, as far as I understand.

We will not be sitting still for three years—that is not what the order is about. It is about adaptive management and learning as we go, not least through looking at some of the improvements that will develop in that time, such as those that will come through the future catching policy, which we have discussed at length.

I urge members not to vote for the motion. If the order were annulled, it would open the area and mean that we would not have any closure in place at a time when we know that the stock is particularly vulnerable. The best way forward is to maintain the proportionate precautionary measures, keep the closure in place, engage in the science programme and cap the access, so that, when we are sitting round this table in the future—I will not be here, but some committee members potentially will be—we are working from as strong an evidence base as possible to inform the management measures.

First, the order maintains the closure, which is the precautionary and proportionate approach to take, so that we are at least providing minimum protection for cod during the period of the closure—

I would say, though, that scientific work has been done on the background to the measures, as Dr Needle outlined. Unfortunately, some of it just did not work, or it did not work in the way that we might have expected, and we did not get the information that we required. Also, since the last order, the Strathclyde model of assessment has been published, which is a helpful move forward.

We are saying that there are uncertainties around the model and that we need to ensure that we are using the most up-to-date information. We are filling the gaps that we know exist as part of that model, which is why the work that we have set out is so important.

You touched on a few important factors and issues that I want to come on to. What has been and will be important about the work that is being taken forward in relation to the SSI is the targeted scientific programme. That programme is directly engaging with the industry so that, a few years down the line, we will all—I hope—be able to have a clearer position about the situation. I hope that we will have the most up-to-date science, that we will have filled the evidence gaps and that we will have a clearer picture of how we can best manage that area of the Clyde to ensure the recovery of cod, which scientific advisers believe is entirely possible.

We need to collaborate closely with the industry on that for the work to move forward. It goes back to the balance that we are trying to strike. We have legal obligations; if we know that a stock is in trouble, we are legally obligated to take action to try to prevent that. However, we are cognisant of the need to balance that obligation against all the other factors that are set out in the Fisheries Act 2020 and the socioeconomic impact.

I believe that the position that we have set out will help us to move forward in a positive and constructive way and to fill the evidence gaps that we know exist, so that everyone around this table has a clearer picture of exactly what the situation is and how we can best move forward and make progress.

10:30

A voluntary closure would not meet our legal obligations under the Fisheries Act 2020.

You made an important point when you touched on the consultation. The committee has heard a lot of evidence, and we have seen the views that were expressed in the consultation, which were mixed. I do not think that there is a shared view of what an alternative would look like. I appreciate that we are in a black or white situation. We have set out what will happen if the order proceeds. If it were annulled, that would open the area to fishing. That is the situation that we would be in. We would not have a closed area in an area where we know that the stock is in trouble.

That is why we must take the precautionary approach that we have set out, which I hope that the committee will be supportive of. If there are alternative suggestions, I am more than happy to hear them. However, from what I can see, the evidence is very mixed. Given how polarised the views are, it would be difficult to know what the next steps would be.