Chamber and committees

You have raised quite a few points, some of which I would be happy to follow up on. I would have to take advice on sharing the PhD work, given the stage that it is at. Having a peer review process is important—I could be criticised at committee for using an evidence base when a peer review process has not taken place. Rather than commit to that today, I am happy to follow up on that. I would need to take further advice on that.

Absolutely. Broadly, it is about working together and managing that competition for space. Where we have had those pilots, they have been operating well, but I am more than happy to follow up with more detail on those projects.

Yes, I am happy to provide more information. As I have mentioned, Gillian Martin, when she was in post as Minister for Energy and the Environment, set out some more information to the committee. We have an additional three strands of work that we are looking to take forward in relation to the evidence gathering and monitoring. We have committed to resourcing that and taking that work forward.

You are absolutely right. There are a couple of different forums. The FMAC is important in ensuring that we have that engagement with our fishers across the board. There are a number of sub-groups of that—I mentioned the inshore fisheries sub-group and some of the work that it is looking to take forward. That is a really important forum for engagement across the piece.

I also point to the three strands of work that I alluded to. It has been important to ensure that we engage in relation to that, particularly with the CFA. I appreciate the constructive way in which the CFA has come forward. It very much wants to work with us, because it is in all our best interests to ensure that we are working on the same basis and that we involve the CFA in that process. It is important that we take forward that work with the CFA. We are having discussions with the CFA about how it could potentially be involved in the strand of work on having a science presence on marine protection vessels. After the meeting that the minister had, there have been follow-up discussions with officials, because the issue that you raise is an important one.

Coby Needle wants to come in with more information on a specific point.

I am not sure what the process for that would be. I would have to take further advice. Again, we are basing the order on the best available scientific advice. I understand that there are different views and that people are not necessarily content with this position, but we have to base the order on the best information that is available at this point.

I appreciate your pushing me, exactly because of the important points that you have raised. We are dealing with people’s livelihoods and I recognise the impact. This is a short-term closure and, ultimately, we are doing it for the protection of the stock.

I fully appreciate the strength of feeling that the instrument has elicited, as I highlighted in my opening remarks. I would like to make a few points of clarification, because we have broadly set out the key arguments and why we have introduced the order.

Rhoda Grant made a point about bycatch, but that is not necessarily the issue. We want the maximum protection for spawning cod, and in that regard it is the disturbance of the sea bed that is predominantly the issue, given the number of creels and the disturbance that they can cause. I just wanted to clarify that.

On Rachael Hamilton’s comments, I do not know whether the member was referring to the partial BRIA that was published with the consultation, but a full BRIA was published with the instrument. I would have thought that that would be available to the committee. Also, enhanced monitoring has been put in place since the previous period of closure, as I touched on in my comments.

I have set out our position. I appreciate the impact on fishers, but, ultimately, this measure is about the protection of the stock and ensuring that we have maximum protection for spawning cod.

Thank you for inviting me to the committee to speak to the regulations.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 establishes a Scottish food commission, and, as we work towards that goal, one of the first tasks will be to appoint the commission’s members. The schedule to the act stipulates that the appointments of members to the commission

“are to be made in accordance with regulations made by Scottish ministers.”

This instrument provides the necessary framework for the appointment of those members.

The purpose of the instrument is twofold and relates directly to the appointment process for members. It aims to

“provide that the Scottish ministers must have regard to the desirability of ... a member who is representative of interests of the food business sector and food-related third sector bodies”

and to

“provide that the Scottish ministers must have regard to the desirability of ... a member who has experience or expertise of food-related issues in relation to”

a range of “relevant matters.”

Those requirements provide an important context and refer back to the aims of the 2022 act. They will provide a meaningful and relevant framework for Scottish ministers when making appointments, but they will do so without being overly restrictive or limiting with regard to the potential pool of candidates, and they will ensure that a degree of flexibility is maintained in the process.

The instrument also ensures that, due to their flexibility, the regulations are future proofed in respect of the changing needs of the body throughout its existence.

I am happy to take questions and to hear any comments that committee members might have. Thank you.

In my previous responses, I have set out the commission’s role, which is also set out in the legislation, and I have also set out the timescales and why various sections of the act will be commenced at relevant times. That is to ensure that the commission is in place to enable us to take forward the work in the plan and to help us to review and monitor its progress.

I am sorry, but I am not entirely aware of the reference to the “board” that you have mentioned. Lisa Nowak or James Hamilton might have more information on that.

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the motion that is before the committee. The order was laid on Thursday 11 January. I note that, since then, letters have been exchanged between the committee and the then Minister for Energy and the Environment, Gillian Martin, on some follow-up questions.

As with the previous order, this order seeks to maximise protection of spawning cod and the habitats in which they are likely to spawn by prohibiting all fishing activity in two specific areas of the Firth of Clyde during the spawning season. Disturbance is a key feature, and that is why previous exemptions were removed in the 2022 order, which has helped to deliver the maximum protection possible.

I acknowledge that the closures have a short-term impact on some local fishers. However, the action is necessary to allow the stock to replenish, which, ultimately, will be beneficial for fishing interests. It is a complex issue, and I appreciate that it has elicited strong feelings in the local area. That is why, following a consultation last year and in the lead-up to the closure, my officials have been working with local fishers.

In addition, on 31 January, the then Minister for Energy and the Environment met the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. At the meeting, the Government’s commitment to work in partnership with the CFA and to undertake additional research during the closure period was underlined.

Revising the closure areas is a pragmatic and evidence-based solution that reflects our commitment to protecting spawning cod while minimising socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities. Ultimately, we have a duty to balance environmental and economic issues.

I am happy to take any questions that committee members might have.

Yes, I am happy to give some initial comments, and perhaps Coby Needle will come in on the back of them.

The order is based on the same evidence, because it is the best scientific evidence that is available to us on which to base the decision.

It has been a couple of years since I last came to the committee in relation to the order. Monitoring work has taken place during that time, and the results of that were set out in information to the committee from the minister, Gillian Martin. Very few spawning cod were found during the monitoring work as a result of the closure, which could suggest a couple of different things, one of which is that the closure is in the right place.

However, to return to the initial point, I note that we are basing the order on the best scientific evidence that is available to us, which is why the work still stands.