Chamber and committees

I do not agree with that assertion at all. If members look back to the results from the consultations that we held between September and October and between October and November, they will see that there were strong representations in them, and the overwhelming majority wanted the exemptions to be removed in their entirety. It is important that we take all those views into consideration, but I go back to what I said earlier. I believe that the position that we have reached meets the policy objective and strengthens the objective of protecting spawning cod by removing potential disturbance to the areas in which we believe the cod are spawning, while balancing that with the socioeconomic impacts.

I highlight what I said at the beginning of the meeting. The whole process has been far from ideal, and I have apologised for that, but it is important for me, in this role and position, to listen in order to ensure that we balance the objectives. I believe that we have, ultimately, ended up making the right decision with the revised closure area that we have proposed.

I am not saying that that is okay—that is why we undertake impact assessments of what the overall impact will be—but it is consistent with measures that we have introduced in other closures, which is why compensation has not been considered.

I can probably answer for the activities that we are undertaking now and that we are looking to undertake. The policy objective that we are pursuing is the protection of spawning cod and, ultimately, boosting the numbers of cod in the Clyde. That is the objective that we are pursuing.

I am sorry, but I do not really understand what point you are trying to get to.

If the instrument were to be annulled, we would not have the closure in place, and the protections for spawning cod that have been in place since 14 February would be removed.

We could see an increase in activity by creelers, and in relation to nephrops and scallops as a result of the reopening of the area.

As Allan Gibb alluded, the committee has probably been able, through this discussion, to see the sheer range of views and the competing and complex issues that we have to balance when we take such decisions. What Allan has just set out about moving forward and about where that step change is needed is critical. Today, we are looking at one difficult area, and there will be more to come in the various other measures that we are looking to introduce. Getting the foundations for such decisions right will be critical.

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.