Chamber and committees

I am sorry. Do you mean in terms of the overall—

We are trying to keep the minimum protections in place, at least, to allow us to do the work while we fill the evidence gaps.

Do you mean other vessels fishing in the area?

I do not know whether that would be possible for me to do. I cannot make any commitments in relation to that today.

A lot has been discussed today, and the committee has taken an awful lot of evidence in relation to the order. I would like to cover a few points in closing. Ultimately, we are trying to strike the right balance. We are taking measured and proportionate steps that strike a balance between meeting our legal obligations, protecting the stocks that we know to be vulnerable and considering the wider socioeconomic impacts of any decisions that we take.

Tim Eagle and Ariane Burgess have touched on the importance of collaboration—the wider piece—and I believe that we are addressing that. I believe that the science programme that we have developed has that collaboration—that is exactly what it has been about. It is about working with our fishermen and scientists to fill the evidence gaps in the models.

You made the criticism that we are discussing the order late in the day. That is because of all the detailed work that has gone into producing it. It has involved extensive engagement, consultation and work.

I will start by setting out clearly why action is required, what the order is going to deliver and how we intend to work with stakeholders throughout its implementation. First, I acknowledge the strong views on the issue, and I make it clear from the outset that the purpose of the order is to support the recovery of cod stocks in the Firth of Clyde while meeting both our environmental and our socioeconomic responsibilities. That balance is not optional but essential.

Seasonal management measures have been in place in the Clyde since 2002, but, despite protections having been strengthened over the years, the scientific advice remains concerning. We know that spawning stock biomass is still very low and that, although there are some signs of stability, improvement remains limited. Cod fishing mortality is too high, but, although the precise drivers are not yet fully understood, it is clear that recovery is possible. I know from the evidence that the committee heard that stakeholders differ on how best to intervene, but there was broad acknowledgement of the need to protect the stock, and I believe that this order provides a proportionate and structured way to do that.

I will take a moment to set out what the order and the targeted scientific programme will actually deliver, because I think that there has been some confusion around that. The order will maintain the seasonal closure in the same area for 2026 to 2028, covering all gear types. It will allow limited access for certain creel and trawl vessels to carry out scientific research, complemented by wider research across the Clyde throughout the year, and it will restrict access to the wider Firth of Clyde to vessels with a valid historical track record from 2023 to 2025 and those undertaking authorised scientific work. That is essential, both to support the scientific programme and to prevent any new or displaced fishing effort from undermining recovery.

Alongside that, the three-year targeted scientific programme will strengthen the evidence base, which has historically been lacking. The programme will draw on all available data, monitor bycatch and discards across all sectors and carry out additional surveys to support future stock assessments. It has been designed together with local fishers and scientific experts, using marine directorate vessels where appropriate and commercial fishing vessels. It is about fairness, consistency and delivering practical, robust evidence. Crucially, the programme enables an adaptive management approach, which means that new measures can be introduced during the three-year science programme as new evidence emerges. To be clear, however, a three-year SSI does not mean that no further action will be taken within that time. Without that flexibility, existing data gaps are going to persist and our ability to implement proportionate, effective measures will be limited.

During the three-year work programme, the policy will be kept under review and we will provide the committee with an annual progress report, thereby ensuring that there is transparency and accountability throughout the three-year period.

Taken together, the order and the scientific programme represent precautionary, proportionate action, a stronger evidence base for the future and a clear alignment with the sustainability and environmental duties that are set out in the Fisheries Act 2020.

If the order does not proceed, that would leave a depleted stock without safeguards at a time when scientific advisers are increasingly concerned about the long-term outlook. I am committed to a sustainable, evidence-based approach that works with local fishers, that is balanced and adaptive and that meets our environmental and socioeconomic responsibilities.

With that, I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

We set that out quite clearly in the letter that I sent to the committee. As I said in the letter,

“It is correct that there is no direct evidence from the Clyde demonstrating that fishing activity disrupts cod spawning.”

However, if you read on, I say:

“It’s also true that the Strathclyde model suggests the stock maintained relatively high productivity, at least up until 2019, implying that spawning may not be the main problem limiting stock recovery.”

I also set out that the evidence that we have brought forward over previous years when discussing the orders

“was based on a hypothesis about spawning areas … and recent observations of actively spawning cod outwith the closure have cast some doubt on this hypothesis.”

There have been a number of developments in the intervening years since I was last before the committee to discuss the previous order, not least the Strathclyde model, which I know was discussed in the committee’s evidence session. There are specific issues and data gaps that we need to address in that regard, which is why we have set out the order in the way that we have and are bringing forward these proposals. It is also why we are proposing the targeted scientific programme.

I was coming to that, convener, with regard to the purpose of this work. We cannot look at the order in isolation, because the key to the order and the work that is proposed is the scientific programme, which is about filling some of the data gaps. The work that we are proposing to undertake will, first of all, enable us to look at where the cod are actually spawning. We will be able to do more of that work as well as looking at the bycatch across the different fleet segments.

Dr Coby Needle may want to come in on the science points in particular.

I fully recognise the impact of the closure. For us, it is about maintaining at least the protection for cod that will exist with the closure. As Dr Needle just outlined to Beatrice Wishart, the key aims of the targeted scientific programme are ultimately to improve the estimation of bycatch mortality through an examination of the fleet dynamics, as well as to improve the estimation of the spawning and juvenile distributions across that area, so that we can ensure that any closures or management measures that we put in place are in the right areas. Again, we are filling those evidence gaps so that the model is running with the most up-to-date information that we have available. However, it is important to note that we cannot just open up the area again. We need to be able to maintain that closure. That is the proportionate precautionary measure to take.