Chamber and committees

The bycatch issue is part of the work that we are doing on the future catching policy. However, on the subject of existing models, I know that I have talked about our not having any data from 2019, but it would be fair to say there have been selectivity developments since then. Indeed, that is what the scientific programme is all about—it is about our discovering the actual extent of those and considering other work to improve things.

It might be helpful to talk about some of the engagement that has taken place so far with the industry and our higher education institutions in developing some of the work that we are taking forward.

You are absolutely right that some of the criticism has been about the period of the closure and the fact that it is a three-year SSI when previously there has been a two-year SSI. On the rationale that Coby Needle has set out for the period that he believes is needed and is recommended, it is important to build the scientific picture.

I have to emphasise that it is not a case of hitting pause for that time. We know about the gaps in evidence and the scientific programme has been developed to help us to fill those gaps. Should there be any need to change or adapt the closure, as I set out to Rhoda Grant, we would have to bring forward another order and we would absolutely do that within the time if that is how the picture develops.

We also continue to work closely with industry. I have touched on the working group that will oversee the programme of work, which is critical because we need to work closely with the fishing industry as well as with scientific advisers and policy advisers in the marine directorate. It will be a collaborative piece of work, should the order be approved by the Parliament, of course.

I will hand over to Jim Watson, who will be able to say a bit more about some of the engagement that has taken place.

On your first point, the fishing industry has to be an integral partner in this work, which is why I welcome the fact that we are working closely alongside it.

It is not possible for me to set out right now exactly what the annual report will look like. However, we have set out what we are looking to do through the scientific programme and I expect that we would be reporting on how that work is progressing, on what stage it is at in each of those phases and on the evidence that we have found to date as we provide those progress updates—as well as on whether that means that we will see any changes.

As we have talked about a few times today, we will also be consulting on the future catching policy. That will take a few months to go through, and there will also be a period of time to implement it afterwards. We will also be able to update you on progress in relation to that in the annual report.

I hope that we have been able to do that through the work that Jim Watson has outlined. Ultimately, we cannot do this without the fishing industry being involved in the collaborative work on the scientific programme.

I absolutely recognise the impact that the closure has had on some businesses and fishermen. It was really difficult to hear some of the evidence that the committee has taken in previous weeks about the impact on some fishermen, but that is why the work that we are developing in partnership with them is so important. I hope that, when everyone is part of the process, we will all see the value of that.

We recognise the evidence gaps that exist. The programme is about filling those gaps and ensuring that any management measures that we impose in coming years are based on the best available evidence.

Absolutely. Jim Watson will be able to say a bit more about that, because he has been engaging closely with Elaine and other individual fishermen.

We proposed the three-year scientific programme on the advice of my scientific advisers about the time that would be needed to build a fuller picture. However, the fact that the SSI provides for a three-year period does not mean that we are committed to a static closure—it is simply a question of keeping the protections in place and providing stability while we build an evidence base.

Would you like to add to that, Coby?

Technically, we do not need legislation to allow the TSP to go ahead. The TSP is not part of the order, but the two work in parallel.

You talk about the crisis and trying to address the pressures of fishing. However, one key point is that, if the order is annulled, there will be no protections in place and the area will be open to fishing.

In relation to what has been found, obviously the Strathclyde model is critical, but there are limitations in that work and uncertainties that mean that we must be cautious when applying it to our management decisions. As I touched on, no historical data is available from the period before 2002, because a lot of it has not been digitised. Part of the scientific programme work is about digitising that information. Further, there is no data beyond 2019, as the information has not been updated over the past seven years. There is a lack of data on the creel bycatch.

On top of all that, because we have not collected the data for the past seven years, the data does not take into account the impact of the closures and orders that we have had in place during that time. The programme of work that has been set out is about addressing those measures.

We have talked about the potential issues with disturbance and whether we have the measures in the right place. The work is designed to look at that in closer detail. I will hand over to Coby Needle, who will be able to provide more information on that.

We are doing other pieces of work to tackle the bycatch issues, so there have been improvements in that seven-year period. We will consult on the future catching policy, which is about those selectivity improvements. It is important to bear all of that in mind.

I disagree with your first statement, purely because this is not about a focus on the creelers. We are focusing on creelers and trawlers through the science programme to fill the evidence gaps. It is about trying to get a complete picture across the piece; it is not about focusing more on one over the other.

That sort of thing would be entirely voluntary, and I do not know whether we could get everyone to agree to it. As I outlined to Tim Eagle, some voluntary measures might not be enough to satisfy our legal obligations in that regard.