 Hefyd ddweud i alw i ddechrau, ac yn fwy arlaug yn y rhwyngen adeg y hostiwn rhai iawn am yr Eilings Com rasio. Felly mae'n ddechrau, ac ond ac eich gweinig gyda'n ei wneud eich ddechrau, i ddweud ydych chi'n gwneud cydweithiaeth i chi yn gydechrau. Ac fodd trefwyd am dangos gyda Finlay Carson, yn meddwl i amser ac mae Jamie Halcro Johnston yn gweithio i ei rydyn ni, yw hwnnw. Yr eisteddon ymddiannol ysgolion gyda gael i unrhyw ysgolio ac yn ddweud ar hwnnw'n ffermwyd, the Scottish Food Commission at Appointment Regulations 2024. I welcome to the meeting, Mary Gougeon, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and her officials, Lisa Novak, policy officer, Good Food Nation team and James Hamilton, legal directorate. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you very much and thank you for inviting me to the committee to speak to those regulations. The Good Food Nation Scotland Act 2022 establishes that the Scottish Food Commission is to be set up, and as we are working towards this goal, one of the first tasks will be to appoint members to the Scottish Food Commission. The schedule of the act stipulates that the appointments of members of the Scottish Food Commission are to be made in accordance with regulations made by Scottish ministers, and this instrument therefore provides the necessary framework for the appointment of those members. The purpose of the instrument is to fold and relates directly to the appointment process of members to provide that Scottish ministers must have regard to the desirability of members who are representative of interests of the food business sector and food-related third sector bodies and to provide that Scottish ministers must have regard to the desirability of members having experience or expertise of food-related issues in relation to a range of relevant matters. Those set of requirements provide an important context and refer back to the aims of the Good Food Nation Act. They will provide a meaningful and relevant framework for the Scottish ministers when making appointments. However, they do so without being overly restrictive or limiting in terms of the potential pool of candidates and to ensure that there is a degree of flexibility maintained within that. That also ensures that the regulations are also future-proof to any changing needs of the body throughout its existence due to their flexibility. With that, I am just happy to take questions and hear any comments that committee members might have. In my work on health committee and in various cross-party groups that are health-related, I have been looking at high-fat sugar salt and different types of issues around ultra-process foods and following the work of Henry Dimbleby and Chris Van Tolkin. I am interested in the work around the food commission as far as will it contain a remit to look at food production as well as food security, because that is something that I think is part of how we look at the whole food system. Is that something that the food commission will have as a focus? You are absolutely right to highlight from what you have mentioned that there is just the breadth of policy areas that food touches. That is why I would point out at the moment that we have our good food nation plan, which is out to consultation until 22 April. Ultimately, the Scottish Food Commission's role is to monitor the effectiveness of that plan. Of course, we can ask the commission to pick up specific pieces of work in relation to that as well. What we are hoping to do with the regulations that we are bringing forward today is to ensure that we have the relevant expertise that covers the broad variety of areas that food policy touches. The matters that you raise in relation to the importance of food production and food security are very much strong themes that we have picked up through our good food nation plan. I know that that will come to the committee for consideration at some point soon, but I encourage all members to make their views known. I attended a cross-party group in food last night, the Rhoda Grant chairs, where we are just picking up the different perspectives on that and the different issues that people see as being important. It is our first plan, so of course we want to make sure that we get it in as strong a position as possible. Given that the commission is still to be set up and the plan is being consulted on, what is the commission's remit about the plan? Can they influence what is in the plan? It seems that the plan may already be in place before they are. Well, the intention always was to have the commission established at the same time as the final plan would be laid, so that is why the timescales for those sections of the act come into effect at the same period of time. It is important that we bring forward these regulations now to at least start the work of building that commission so that it can help to shape what the body will look like in time for that final plan being laid. As I said at the cross-party group on group last night, this is of course our first iteration of the plan. There will be further reviews and progress reports on that as we proceed once it is finally laid as well, and the commission will have a critical role in that as well. Also not to forget that once we have delivered our good food nation plan, that will set the direction for the other element authorities who have to produce one to our local authorities and health boards. Of course we hope that the commission would help us in that work as well. I have never been on a committee with so many Highlands and Islands members, so I just wondered if you could comment on how the regions are going to be represented that this is an approach that will ensure that islands and our more remote and rural areas are represented in that. Do you mean in relation to the plan itself? Yes. That is obviously separate to the regulations that we are considering today. I am more than happy to have a separate discussion with you in relation to that. We want to make sure that, first of all, in the consultation we undertake on the plan it is as broad and as far-reaching as possible. That is why we have produced a variety of different materials to make it, first of all, as accessible as possible, because I know the accessibility of the consultation and ensuring that it is as inclusive as possible was a key theme that came through the committee's scrutiny of that, too. We have commissioned nourish, who are holding workshops for us in order to enable that stronger engagement in ensuring that they have workshops across the country, so I am happy to provide that information to the committee if they have not seen that already, if that would be helpful. I am grateful that the cabinet secretary is here today to clarify points around this SSI. I would be interested to understand what it means by referring to a board, because that term is not used in the Good Food Nation Act, and it is my understanding that the chair and a set of commissioners will do more than the standard role of a board. I appreciate clarification on that. We discussed that at length during the Good Food Nation Bill process and the point of the food commission is to provide board expertise and understanding of all aspects of the food system to ensure that good food nation plans and other policies bring about the fundamental changes that we need. Given that, in addition to the situation with the Scottish Government, a member of the food commission who is not either representative of the food business sector or third sector bodies or possessing expertise or experience in the list of food-related issues? I would say that, in terms of setting this out and the approach that we have taken to it, it is very similar to the broad approach that has been established for other commissions and bodies that the Scottish Government has set up when you look at environmental standards Scotland, consumer Scotland and the Scottish Commission for Social Security as well in terms of the numbers and the overall approach that we are taking. I think that I would need to be clear on the last element of your question. Well, first of all, the matters that we have set out to be taken into consideration in relation to the appointments reflect the matters that are listed in the act itself in sections 1, 6 and 10, 6, so it essentially mirrors the provisions that we have there too. That is essentially to ensure that we are not limiting ourselves at this period in the time. I know that the committee will be aware through all the evidence that you took throughout the scrutiny of the bill just how many different representatives, organisations right across civil society in Scotland and across all different policy areas as well were interested in the work of the Good Food Nation plan and the act itself. So we want to make sure that we can encompass that broad range of expertise within the board members that we appoint, but I am not going to pre-empt that process or the types of expertise or the people that we would be looking to appoint at that stage. I think that it is far too early for that, but again, we wanted to just ensure that the regulations we are bringing forward that we are able to have that flexibility and reflect the broad range of expertise of people who might put themselves forward. Can I just come back on the board piece, though? Could you go into a little bit more detail about what does the reference to a board mean and what do you imagine the chair and the commissioners will be doing? Again, I set out in relation to some of the previous responses there, what the role of the commission would be, and that is set out in the legislation. And again, I set out the timescale set as to why various sections of the act are going to be commenced at the relevant times, and that is to ensure that the commission is there to enable us to take forward the work and the plan to help us to review and monitor the progress in relation to that as well. I am sorry, but I am not entirely aware of the board's reference that you are talking about there or, Lisa, I do not know if you have more information or James. The reference to the board is just a way to describe the members of the commission, so the schedule to the acts requires the commission to consist of a member to chair in between two and four other members for it, so the reference to the board simply means the reference to the person of the commission. It is just a quick catch-all way of shortening the term, rather than having to say all of that. Okay, that is really helpful. I am reassuring that that is. I would also be interested to understand in what situation would the Scottish Government appoint only one commissioner who is representative of the food business or third sector, and only one commissioner who possesses the experience or expertise on the list? Again, why would we not want all commissioners to fulfil at least one of those criteria? I understand that it is about flexibility, but I just want to understand what you are imagining. I understand that you are trying to create a situation that allows that flexibility to bring all kinds of people in, but I could imagine that, in thinking through this SSI, you would have imagined some of the scenarios where that might be the case. I do not think that we are talking at cross purposes in terms of what we are trying to achieve. What we have set out here is exactly because we want to achieve what you have talked about there and recognise in the broad level of experience that can exist. It is not about those things being mutually exclusive, but for us providing and ensuring that we are taking those matters into consideration and, as I say, the mirror what is in the act as well, which is why we framed it in that way. Okay, thanks for that. If there are no other questions, we move on to the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S6M12052 that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Scottish Food Commission Appointment Regulations 2024 be approved formally moved, convener. Thank you. Does any member wish to debate the motion? Ariane Burgess. A few things on record, convener. I was a strong advocate for the inclusion of the Good Food Commission and the Good Food Nation Act. We have seen examples of strong commissions achieving transformational change such as the Scottish Land Commission and pulling together different strands into a whole systems approach just like the Just Transition Commission. That is the kind of thing that we absolutely need now in Scotland. In order to do that, the commission needs the right expertise and experience. The appointment of the chair and commissioners is central to how the culture of the Scottish Food Commission will develop and thus how it carves out its place and reputation for stewarding the Good Food Nation Act and holding national government and relevant authorities to account. The appointment group will set the tone for how they drive forward the areas of work in particular with respect to the policy hearings and holding ministers to account in terms of how the Good Food Nation Act and the plans impact or is impacted by the plethora of existing and future policies and legislation. As such, it is essential that a group of highly engaged individuals who are comfortable with systems thinking, given the focus of the transforming of our food system are appointed, and they have to have both the breadth and depth of experience skills and lived experience of our food system. It is not desirable that places are reserved for any specific sector or stakeholder group, as all commissioners will need to be able to consider the impact on multi-stakeholder and public groups and be skilled in understanding the tensions, power, dynamics and interests at play. On the text in the Good Food Nation Act schedule, the part about appointed commissioners, option 3, is the weaker of the three and is quite oddly word. I have concerns about what it means and how skills and expertise will be established and prioritised within recruitment. I can understand the desire to keep it broad, but it is important to ensure appropriate skills and experience. There will be core skills and competencies that appointed commissioners will need, and it will be worth checking how that will be managed through the person specification appointments process. The key is that those skills and competencies should not be dependent on sectorial expertise or connections of a candidate or an appointed commissioner, and should not be appointed to represent particular interest groups. I will go ahead with the secretary of legislation, but I strongly encourage the Scottish Government to go further. Not only should the Scottish Government consider the desirability of the board, including one member who fills the criteria set out, they should consider how much more effective the commission will be if all members fulfil that criteria. The Food Commission will not have an easy job. Our country is not well served by the way our food system currently operates. It is letting down producers and consumers alike and putting pressure on our healthcare system and our environment. However, if the Food Commission has the right expertise and the know-how to put that into practice, then instead of contributing to problems, our food system can contribute to solutions. Helping us to reach net zero, improve health and wellbeing, strengthen national food security and local economies, provide good jobs and ensure that everyone in Scotland can afford and enjoy the world-class food produced in our good food nation. As I am thinking of my original questions to the cabinet secretary, the Scottish Food Commission regulations 2024 stem from the Good Food Nation Act. That is really important that we are trying to ensure a healthy nation underpinned by good diets as set out in the act. I am interested in that we pursue that the core values of the Food Commission will be to support Scottish agriculture and food production and ensure that Scottish food security and that the Food Commission will work closely with our valued Scottish farmers. I would like to make sure that we see that as we progress. No, I invite the cabinet secretary to make any final comment. I acknowledge the interests of the committee and the points that have been raised by the members of the committee today. I think that it is within all our best interests and I think that we all share the same aim of what we want the good food nation act and the plans that we produce to achieve as well as what we hope the Scottish Food Commission can help us to achieve as part of that as well. I very much welcome the interventions that have been made today. Thank you. Is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument? Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on the instrument? That completes our consideration of the instrument. Thank you cabinet secretary and to your officials for attending. I will now suspend the meeting briefly to allow a change of officials. Our third item of business this morning is consideration of a negative SSI, the sea fish prohibition on fishing, 1st of Clyde Order 2024. I welcome back to the meeting Mary Gougeon and her officials, Alan Gibb, chief negotiator for international fisheries and Dr Kobe Needle, chief fisheries adviser for Scotland. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the motion before us today. This order was laid on Thursday 11 January and I note that there have been some letters exchanged between the then minister for energy environment Julian Martin with some follow-up questions. Like the previous order, what we are setting out today seeks to maximise protection of spawning cod and the habitats in which they are likely to spawn by prohibiting all fishing activity within two specific areas of the 4th of Clyde during the spawning season. Disturbance is a key feature here and that is why the previous exemptions were removed in the 2022 order, helping to deliver the maximum protection possible. I do acknowledge that those closures have a short-term impact on some local fishers, however this action is necessary to allow the stock to replenish, which will ultimately be beneficial for fishing interests. This is a complex issue and I appreciate that it has elisted some strong feelings in the local area. That is why, following a consultation last year and in the lead-up to this closure, my officials have been working with local fishers. In addition to this, on 31 January, the then minister for energy environment met the Clyde Fishermen's Association. At this meeting, the Government's commitment to work in partnership with the CFA and to undertake additional research during this closure period was underlined. The revised closure areas are a pragmatic and evidence-based solution, which reflect our commitment to protect spawning cod whilst minimising socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities. Ultimately, we have a duty to balance environmental and economic issues and, with that, I am happy to take any questions that committee members may have. I kick off with the evidence base around the Cod stocks. When the ministers reiterated that the evidence that was reviewed to inform the closure is the same evidence that was used in the previous 2022 order, the minister's response to the committee's letter does not indicate that it has reviewed any wider evidence on the Clyde inshore stock. I wonder if you could give a bit more information about the evidence that has been used on this occasion. I would be happy to set out some initial comments and then I do not know if Codd would like to comment on that as well. We are basing it on the same evidence because that is essentially the best scientific evidence that is available to us and which to base that decision as well. Of course, it has been a couple of years since I last came to the committee in relation to this order. We have had the monitoring work that has taken place in that time, which I think the results of that have been set out in the information to the committee by the previous minister, Gillian Martin, in relation to that and what that found and that there was very few spawning Cod found in relation to that as a result of the closure, which could suggest a couple of different things and could indicate that the closure that we have is ultimately in the right place. Coming back to the initial point, we are still basing it on the best scientific evidence available to us, which is why that work still stands. You will appreciate that some of the representations that we have received are about the impact being disproportionate on a smaller number of fishers as you have pointed out, but in terms of evidence, could you indicate if the marine directorate has taken account of phd research that has been undertaken at Strathclyde University, which was supervised by Professor Mike Heath, there was an abstract of that research that was sent to the marine directorate, and I wonder how much account that has been taken of that information. I will ask Colby to comment on that question. The Strathclyde assessment model is one that we are involved with. We co-supervised the student who is working on that assessment model. It has not yet been published. I believe that she has only just recently submitted her thesis, so there has not been any peer review, external peer review or internal peer review of that particular model. I would argue that we remain in a position of not having a Clyde specific stock assessment for cod. The wider north and shelf cod assessment, and specifically the north-western sub-stock, is positive and has led to the change in management. The international council for the exploration of the seas who developed that assessment has been very clear that the Clyde and other inshore areas around Scotland cannot be assessed as a separate stock due to lack of data. It is possible that the Clyde area is recovering in a similar way to what we see in the north-western sub-stock of the north and shelf cod stock. It is also possible that the on-go enclosure has a positive effect on that. It is not the only spawn enclosure that we have. We have 10 others in the North Sea. You could argue that the management measures along with good work by the fishing industry and positive environmental signals have a positive effect on the cod stock. It would not be appropriate to remove the spawning protections on cod at this early stage of cod recovery. I appreciate that this is supplementary, but I wonder if I could split this into two bits. My first question was about the science in the Irish Sea. I appreciate the connections and similarities between the first of Clyde stock and the cod, rather, and those in the Irish Sea. What data has been drawn from the Irish Sea, if any, and has that been applied in the Clyde area about stocks and viability? The Irish Sea cod is currently viewed by ISIS again as a separate stock from the west coast of Scotland cod and also from the Clyde cod, which is currently assessed as part of the west of Scotland stock structure. The Irish Sea is treated as quite separate. The extent to which the Clyde cod is linked with the west of Scotland cod is currently unclear. In any case, the specific stock structure that we have in that area does not particularly make much of a difference, because we do not have the data to enable us to treat Clyde cod separately from the cod to the south or to the north. We do not have the information that would enable us to do that. On this basis, the most pragmatic and defensible position is to treat Clyde cod as ISIS do, which is part of the wider north-western sub-stock of Northern Shelf and proceed on that basis. My other question was looking at the cod box. I wonder if I could say something about the preferred spawning grounds in terms of the kind of seabed that we are talking about, whether we are talking about sandy mud or muddy sand or sand, and whether, in identifying areas with those types of seabed, the precautionary principle has been applied or what the thinking goes around that. The peer-reviewed published literature on cod spawning is quite clear that they prefer gravelly sandy areas. The original Clyde cod closure that we had prior to the last time that I appeared before this committee was much wider and included areas of muddy substrate that we know cod will not spawn on. The reason for that is that male cod develop what is known as lex, which are small areas of the seabed that they guard against other males, and then they use vocalisations to attract females to those areas. They need a specific type of substrate in order to do this. What we did when developing this new closure was to look at the substrate information that we have and choose those areas that are rougher substrates, so gravelly, sand, all the way up to gravel and cobbles. We have left the muddy area free of these restrictions. Where the precautionary principle comes in, I guess, is that we did allow for a small buffer zone around what we would consider to be prime cod spawning habitat, just to ensure that there is no transgressions into that, because they may be spawning why we think they might be spawning or they may be spawning in a slightly different area. It is just to ensure that they have that protection. I am interested in other issues that might impact the spawning of cod, climate change, other predation, other activities other than disturbance of the seabed. One of my local fishermen says that he is witnessing more sea bass in the northern water, so I am wondering about the impact of climate change or those other activities that might affect spawning. If I could just come in briefly on that before I turn to Alan, who could provide a bit more of the detail in relation to that. I think that some of the changes that we see precisely because of the issues that you have raised as well, I think that I would just want to briefly make the point too that there are other measures in place and other changes that have been developed to try and will protect spawning cod as much as possible, which Alan may be able to talk to in terms of changing the size of mesh panels and engine sizes of vessels, because we want to make sure that we are minimising disturbance as much as possible and ensuring that we are not catching what we shouldn't be catching. I will hand over to Alan, who can provide some more of the detail. I think that it is important to separate the two issues, the issue of impact on the cod, which is a species in the cod stock, and the impact on that species when it is carrying out an activity that is spawning or trying to spawn. We are trying to give it maximum protection when it is spawning, and the evidence suggests that disturbance is what it needs protected from up to 10 metres from the seabed. Broadly speaking, for the broader question about impacts on cod such as climate environment and so forth, it is hard to be definitive, but it looks like there are environmental factors at play that cod stocks have moved a lot a bit farther north that would appear. We are sitting here today, two years on, and we have pretty much had a transformational set of advice for cod in terms of recovery. The biomass has almost doubled. It has been amazing. We have no zero-tack advice any more. It is a fantastic turnaround. We have 10 identical measures in the North Sea. We have real-time closures when there is lots of juvenile cod identified. We have real-time reporting. We have move-on provisions. We have increased mesh size. Depending on the size of your vessel, you have to have a 200 millimetre square mesh panel or a 300 millimetre square mesh panel, all designed to increase protection for cod and other gadoids of the juvenile. It would be highly improbable not to suspect that those measures, including the seasonal closure, have not contributed to what has been a transformational change in the states of the cod stocks. Can I just ask what the impact would be then? How does something like hand-diving for scallops, how does that impact on the slow impact on the spawning areas? Ultimately, as Alan Hudd set out there, we touched on the scientific evidence that is available that any disturbance to the seabed can disrupt a spawning cod. We want to make sure that we are protecting a spawning cod as much as possible, which is why there are no exemptions in place for this closure, in line with the previous couple of years. Can I just push a wee bit on the previous answer about juvenile cod being discarded by the prone fishery trolling industry? The evidence that we have received suggests that the closure approach actually is the wrong approach and that most cod are being caught up. Juvenile cod are being caught up in trolling. What evidence do you have that that's not the case and that the gear used is allowing them to escape? It just seems to me that this is not really based on scientific evidence as such, and things like creelers and divers who we know have very little impact are being caught up in a closure that probably isn't going to have the impact we're looking for. I'll hand over to Alan Hill on that question. I think that the issue here is we're talking about two completely different issues. Juvenile cod don't spawn. They're too young. You have to be a certain age. Sorry, I wasn't meaning they were, but is that not the impact on the cod stocks that they're not getting to adulthood? That's why we've increased selectivity. In the Clyde, for example, the Neffrot fleet, there used to be a 70 millimetre cod end is now 80 with increased square mesh panels, very much trying to do that. That's why we have Juvenile real-time closure schemes in place. Yes, there can be by-catches. We try our hardest to minimise that in that sense. In terms of allowing, you've got two focus as an official manager. You've got protection of Juvenile to try and allow them to grow up to be adults to spawn, but you've also then got the duty to protect the adults who can spawn to create the juveniles. It's the mix of those two elements. The thing on the spawning is that all the evidence is that you have to stop disturbance to allow the spawning to take place. I'm not sitting here saying that a diver or a creel on the seabed has the same impact as a trawler. Of course it doesn't. What we're saying is that it's about disturbance. We have a local fisher and his area says that there's over between 4,000 and 5,000 creels in the, would be deployed, and there's several local fishers in the area. Every time you pull a creel up from the seabed, it drags across the seabed before it lifts, so although it's not the same level of disturbance, many, many, many thousands of creels are pulled up and shot down every day. Cumulatively, that creates a significant amount of disturbance and that's what we're trying to avoid and give the protection for the cod. From the committee papers, the advice from the committee's fisheries adviser and stakeholder evidence sent to the committee over the last few days is very clear that the SSI before us is necessary but not sufficient to restore the Clyde cod stock. As the convener said, we are all aware of the PhD work on the Clyde stock assessment being supervised by the marine director and Strathclyde University. Professor Paul Fernandez, this is the committee's fisheries scientific adviser, he says that an assessment like this is necessary in order to properly manage the Clyde stock and that peer review is not essential for using it to inform policy. As you hear all the comments, many of the comments that are questions today is a bit of a concern around the scientific evidence and I would appreciate a commitment from the Government in relationship to this SSI that the PhD work is shared, it is a draft, I understand that, but that is shared. That is the marine director and Professor Mike Heath at Strathclyde University's work on the state of the stock and the recommendations of recovery and that that is shared with the committee. I would also appreciate it if there is a commitment to using the latest science, including that PhD, when SSIs like this are being developed, in particular the replacement one to the Clyde Cod closures SSI from 2026 onward. I would also appreciate if the Scottish Government, the marine director, begins scoping additional measures to protect the stock, especially by-catch reduction as the latest science has said that this is the main pressure. There were quite a few points in that, I would be happy to follow up in relation to some of those. I think that in relation to sharing the PhD work, I mean that is something I would have to take advice on given any potential stage that it is at. I do think that having a peer review process is important, though. I think that I could quite easily appear at committee and be criticised for using an evidence base where that process is not being taken place either, but I think that rather than commit to that today, that is something I am happy to follow up on and I would need to take further advice on that. Sorry, I think that Alan would like to come in on that point, too. I will offer some reassurance on the last point that you made around the need for continuing and improving protection, selectivity and so forth. Just to highlight two pieces of work, in the UK EU nor we trilateral, we collectively managed the northern shelf stock. There has been an agreement there to review and consider the appropriateness of all current measures in place, including the Clyde season, the closure of the 10 and the North Sea, again, all identical. I have got them in the right place, how they are doing the right thing, as well as mesh sizing and so forth, so that review will be going at an international level. Domestically, you will be aware, as committee members, of the future fishers management strategy and, in particular, the future catching policy, where work is on going with a whole range of stakeholders on exactly that issue around the need to have increased or changed technical measures, which is likely to be increased selectivity, increased mesh sizing, without prejudging the outcome of those discussions. There is a significant amount of work in that direction under way. I really appreciate knowing about that work. I also wanted to pick up on a point that Alan Gibb pointed out about the anecdotal mention of somebody who works at Creels in that area, Fisher in that area, and the point that you made is that there are 4,000 to 5,000 Creels being deployed—I do not know what the right word is—but dropped every day or frequently. I really appreciate some evidence on that, because I do remember that we were here maybe last year or the year before, and you talked about those staggering numbers. I have had other conversations with other people that that would be impossible unless it is cumulative. I would like some evidence on that for the committee. I would also be interested in understanding what the Government is doing in looking into and what I understand at Creelers. There are Creelers there who are working on the west coast, not necessarily in the Clyde, who are calling to have some kind of capping limit on what they can deploy. That is something that we need to be taking on board. There is a very reasonable request that there is a cap so that there is enough to share between everybody. Meanwhile, we get proper recovery of stocks and all that. What we are doing here today is ensuring that there are fisheries for 30 or 100 years from now, so that Scotland has fishing as part of our culture. I would like to get a bit more information from the Scottish Government and the Marine Director around the evidence around the number of Creels being deployed in the Clyde, in the Codbox area, but also what works being done in looking into what Creelers are calling for in terms of a cap. I think that, just to take your last point first before Alan might want to come in, there is specific work going on in relation to identifying what we have been hearing from fishers about the different pressures that are there. That is something that I would be happy to follow up with the committee and provide more information on. I think that that is work that is being taken through the FMAC inshore group in relation to that, so I can provide more information there. On the two points, as an individual, an official would not sit here and just suggest that there is 4,000 or 5,000. That is a direct quote from a fisherman. I think that he had an article in the newspaper as well as wrote it to me. My understanding, to be fair, is that he talks about, in his area, I think that it is him and two other boats, so cumulatively there would be two or three boats together doing that. That is about right. Every single fleet of Creels can number 50 to 75 in the haul of new menace fleets each day, and there will be more fishermen, so the many, many thousands are factually accurate. What we do not know is how many Creels there are in the water. That is true. In my personal opinion, it is bound to be a staggering number. We did have a consultation on cap and creel limits, and the fishermen themselves decided that they did not want that. A couple of areas said that they might like to do something locally, but that consultation was overwhelming. No, we do not want a cap. Attitudes may have changed. Again, that will form part of the discussion of the future catching policy and ensure that when we come out on all those things, whether that is an appropriate thing. I do not have a view on whether a cap is appropriate. I do think that an understanding of how many Creels are in the water would be invaluable for fisheries management. Do you have a sense of how the marine directorate could take forward work on understanding how many? I know that there is remote technology available now. I think that I may have forwarded information about that to the marine directorate, and that was more about losing gear. However, if we have tracking equipment that can keep us from losing gear and causing the marine litter problem, that would also help us in understanding the number of Creels in the water. What could we do? What do we need some policy? What could we do in order to get that understanding? Again, we are having to make decisions based on not really having the full picture. I think that we just want to point to a couple of initiatives that are underway at the moment that we would be looking to take learning from in relation to projects in the Outer Hebrides and Mall, which are quite target and looking at issues around that, which I think that we can take some more learning from. I think that part of this work, as we go forward, is critical to that. For me, it is ensuring that we are working with our fishers as we progress that work and through our regional insurer fisheries groups too, but I will give more information. I think that Colby will also want to come back in on a previous point that he addressed as well. Just on that very technical point, it is about proportionality in my mind. Of course, there is modern technology. A lot of those boats are very small boats under 10 metres, but you could have, for example, a barcode reader and the barcode on the krill. As the krill comes up, it goes over the barcode reader and it is counted, and every krill you would make a rule that every krill had to have a marking on a barcode reader. That is a huge undertaking for several thousand krill boats to be doing, and I am not sure about the cost of all that. We have over four and a half thousand boats in our fleet. The vast majority are small under 10 ensure boats, krill boats. That would be a huge undertaking, but it is not impossible, so it would be about proportionality. People often think that the challenge is straightforward. Okay, let us just do that. How do you know if a krill has the barcode on it because it is under the water? Unless you can check every single krill as a monitoring, which you cannot. If you start hauling people's krills, you have to be able to show that you have not disturbed cost damage and put them back exactly as you found them, which is nearly impossible. The technology does exist. We would need to just balance that with the proportionality, I would suggest. Again, it is something that I know the directorate officials are looking at. Just on another point. Cabinet Secretary, you pointed to a couple of learning projects in Mull and Western Isles. I know that the marine director is very busy with lots of things, and it is challenging for the committee to understand all the work and all the bits of the puzzle. We come at little bits when there is an SSI or a piece of work that comes to committee, but for us to be able to contribute well in the scrutiny of the work, it would be good to understand some of the elements that you are working on that contribute to a fuller picture. I would appreciate some more information on those initiatives and what you are seeking to get from them. In terms broadly, what they are trying to look at is about working together and managing that competition for space. Where we have had those pilots, they have been operating well, but again, I am more than happy to follow up with more detail on those projects. On a point that Ariane raised, the Brier states that additional scientific data gathering in the Clyde region would be beneficial, but under current resource constraints, that is not possible. Cabinet Secretary, you will recall that I have raised the issue about marine directorate resource in the past, so I wonder if you could say something about that. Yes, I am happy to provide more information. I have referred to Gillian Martin when she was in her post as Minister for Energy and Environment had set out some more information to the committee in relation to that. We have set out an additional three strands of work that we are looking to take forward in relation to the evidence gathering and the monitoring. We have committed to resourcing that work and to taking that work forward. Just following on from the question that the convener has just posed, many others, I am interested in understanding how the Scottish Government of the Marine Directorate is going to resolve the dated deficiencies. In that letter, back to the committee on 8 February, there were those three strands outlined in terms of enhanced observer coverage, passive acoustic monitoring and science presence on compliance vessels. I am really interested in understanding how we move firmly into a co-management principle sphere, where we are working collectively with our fishers who have a huge amount of vast knowledge of the area that they work in. They also have an interest in ensuring that the bedrock of the marine environment is protected as all of us. That is a key plank in our planet's ecosystem, but it is obviously their livelihood. Given the financial pressures that the Marine Directorate is under, I am wondering whether you have already alluded to the fact that you have had meetings with the CFA and hopefully with the Creelers Federation as well. I am really interested in wondering how we ensure that we involve the industry in developing shared scientific data. Obviously, there is always going to be vested interests in different aspects of this, but given the fact that we do not have a shared understanding in scientific data at the moment, how can we involve them going forward meaningfully? You are absolutely right in relation to that. There are a couple of different forums that I want to point to. One really important forum that we have to take forward and ensure that we have that engagement with our fishers across the board is the ethnic group as well. There are a number of subgroups in that. I mentioned the inshore fisheries subgroup and some of the work that they are looking to take forward. That is a really important forum for us for engagement right across the piece. I would also point to, as I have alluded to, the three strands of work that you highlighted. What has been important for us is ensuring that we are engaging particularly with the CFA in relation to that. I really appreciate the constructive way in which they come forward. I very much want to work with us, because I think that it is within all our best interests to ensure that we are working from the same basis and that we can involve them in that process. I am sure that Alan or Chloe will want to come in with more information on a specific point. Taking that work forward with them is going to be important. One of the strands of work that we are talking about is the science presence and having that on the MPVs. We are having discussions with the CFA about how they could potentially be involved in some of that work too. I know that, after the meeting that the minister had had, there have been follow-up discussions with officials as well in relation to that, because you raise a really important point. I think that Coby will want to come in. Thanks, cabinet secretary. On the two strands that you mentioned, we are allowing for enhanced observer coverage in the Clyde in this quarter. We have normally been part of our randomly selected vessels on the west coast anyway. We have a history of observer coverage in the Clyde, but we have been able to move resources around a bit and enhance that for quarter one. The other one is that you mentioned the passive acoustic monitors, which are potentially very useful devices for determining where Codd is spawning because they have this vocalisation, and you can hear them for quite a long way away. One of those monitors is being placed just south of Arran, and that was going in anyway as part of another piece of work that we are doing. The second one, we had a position determined. In consultation with the CFA, we actually decided to move it to a different place within that southern closure. One of the skipper said, you never see a spawning Codd where you think that monitor is going to go, so he has a better place to put it. That is an example of where we are working with local fishermen to try to understand specifically where Codd is spawning and whether we are protecting the correct areas. Currently, we think that we do on the basis of published literature and the substrate information that we have, but we can always refine that understanding. Local fishermen know the area extremely well, so that is where we can utilise that information to try to improve the management measures. It was just a general point about a lot of discussion about Clyde stocks, Clyde Codd, Clyde fish stocks. The Clyde is not unique. It is not different. Fish do not know about lines on maps, so the Clyde and the Irish Sea are quite close. There may be probable that some of the Codd that are in the Clyde, as opposed to Clyde Codd, are genetically linked to the Irish Sea stock. That is what happened in the west coast of the North Sea, and the Benchmarking turned out that there is quite a lot of intermixing, the same stock with a lot of intermixing between the two areas. We have the Firth of Firth, we have the Cromotty Firth, Firth of Clyde. The fisheries are broadly the same in there, so there is not a stand-alone Clyde set of stocks and species in there at all. It is part of the broader west of Scotland stock. It will come and go, Plagetfish will migrate in and out of the Clyde, Small Seath will stay there when they are small and then go offshore when they are growing up bigger. It is just this kind of thing about, well, let us manage the Clyde stocks in the Clyde. That is not right. There are fish stocks, and some of those stocks are to be found in the Clyde, and I think it is important that we recognise the difference there. You have made a really important point there, because I think that that alludes to what Emma Harper said earlier. If we think about the climatic change as well, where we have fish that are moving for climate reasons too, it is going to be very difficult to try and manage fish to stay in one area without all of the other pressures actually influencing fish behaviour and where they are going to go. Going forward for us to actually understand what the science tells us is happening under the surface of the sea is going to be really important, and I think that shared scientific data that our fishers and our marine director are actually going to come to together, I think, is going to be really, really important for us. Before I touch, I was going to talk about some of the financial impacts, but before I do it, can I just ask about the evidence? The evidence that was used in the previous 2022 order, when was that from? When was that conducted? The evidence is mostly based on published literature, which explains, is very clear, on how cod spawn and where they would like to spawn or where they can spawn, and we combine that with substrate data from the British Geographical Survey belief, so that's just an ongoing data set that exists. None of that evidence there is based directly on fish numbers or anything like that, that's simply just on evidence that you wouldn't expect to change, so that data itself is like, the data that you used for the previous 2022 order and you've used for this order, isn't likely to change any time soon because it's not actually based on fish numbers. I'm sure that Colby can talk more in relation to that and how it's actually based, but the whole reason that we're bringing forward this order is to protect spawning cod in the areas where they are most likely, where that activity is going to take place. It's difficult to develop new information on spawning cod because in order to find spawning cod within the spawning area, you would have to kill them essentially, and that's something we're trying to avoid. It's a disturbance of spawning cod that we're specifically trying to avoid, so the measures that we're looking at, these three strands of measures, the observer programme and the scientific presence on the protection vessels, they will be covering cod outwith the closure, to be fair, but then the passive acoustic monitors that we have, this is a non-invasive, non-lethal essentially way of trying to determine where cod is spawning, so we're quite optimistic that that will give us a lot of information that we don't currently have. OK. I think that that would certainly be interested. I mean, in a previous role that I did a meeting with fishermen, there always used to be a great frustration with the scientific evidence, mainly because they didn't agree with it, because what they were saying were decent stock numbers and ISIS at the time were saying, you know, no, these areas are under threat, but that's not what we can do with this data. This data is about the most likely places for cod to be spawning, what we know, and as I say, so unless these new monitoring ways come in, that data isn't going to change necessarily. OK. If I can look at the financial impact of the closures, the minister or the previous minister's response said that the Scottish government isn't considering any additional financial support schemes related to this closure, certainly for vessels that can't fish in other areas, but there obviously is financial implications. Can you give the reasons behind that? Again, I think that we've set that out previously, that I understand that there is that impact for that short period of time, but again, we don't implement such measures when we have other closures or when it comes to our marine protected area as well, which is why we haven't offered and we haven't offered previously, and we haven't changed that position this time round when it comes to compensation for that. But you recognise that there are implications and there may not be alternatives that are available for other areas where there are closures? Yes, we do appreciate that and we do recognise that as well as we have stated before previously. I know that for some they can move elsewhere during the period of the closure, it is a short term closure, but of course that's not the same for everyone across the board and there is that impact there. But again, for the reasons I've already set out, we're not intending to change that position. The Clyde Fishermen's Association, Secretary Elaine White, said that the ban will have a devastating impact on fishermen. She said, I'm quoting, that financially the closure has had a massive impact. We will have mobile boats that have lost areas, but more specifically, more significantly, we have had creel boats that have completely lost their areas and which have no other option to go anywhere. I mean, then they don't have other options. You're essentially asking them to stop their business for this period. Could there not be more consideration given to the impact on them? Again, I appreciate your point as well and this was something we discussed at length when we had had the previous order for closure over the course of the past couple of years. Again, and as I've highlighted, while some people can move elsewhere, I know that that's not possible for everyone, but again, we haven't changed our position this time round. Can you recognise how frustrating it will be for fishers who are seeing their businesses essentially put on pause but without the evidence necessary to do that or the relevant evidence? I know that you've made a commitment to looking at more ways of collecting data, but at the moment that isn't in place. Can you understand how frustrating that will be? I absolutely do and I think that's why I intimated that in my opening comments to the committee and I know that this has elicited a really strong feeling as it did the last time round too, but I think that that's why it's important that the work that we've agreed to take forward. As I've also said in my opening remarks, all of this is about that balance that we have to try and strike between protecting spawning cod, taking those environmental measures and then balancing that, of course, with the economic impact that that has to. None of these are easy decisions to make at all, but ultimately we are doing this in taking these decisions to try and ensure that we are encouraging the restoration of the stock and protecting that spawning cod as much as possible. I hope that with the other work that we've set out and of course it's continuing to engage with the likes of the the CFA as well as we take that forward, that we can continually look to improve that evidence base that we do have, but as it stands at the moment we do base the decisions that we take on the best available scientific evidence that we have. Okay, the Scottish Grail Fishmen's Federation has obviously expressed its disappointment. Will you be aware of the lack of exemptions? Is that something if you're not going to look at any financial support going forward? Are exemptions more likely to be something you would consider where you can, particularly if the scientific data improves? That's the thing. I'm not going to prejudge a position that could be taken in a couple of years time as well, but I think that as with anything we've got to continue monitoring and looking at that. The position this time round might not be the same in a couple of years time, but I think that we really need to see what emerges over the course of the closure for the next couple of years. Just last year, because I mean we've all talked in that, and I think everybody agree and your officials have said, you know, this is about working with the sector. I mean do you feel that the sector has confidence in the discussions that are having with you, that they're not just being talked to and they're actually being worked with for the future? I know when it comes to decisions like this that is always going to be really challenging, there is no getting around that because I know that some would like to see exemptions in place as there had been in previous years before the last time we brought the order before committee. So of course, given the impact that the closure does have on people's businesses, I mean none of these decisions are taken lightly in relation to that at all. You know, I talked about the balance we have to try and get between, you know, the environment and the economy and getting all of that right. But of course, when you are telling people to stop fishing in a particular area and that impacts their business, there's no getting around that. That's a really difficult decision as well as being difficult for them financially as well. But again, I think that's where just continuing that engagement with the likes of CFA, ensuring we very much want them to be part of that process and the work that we're taking forward as well, that we can continue to work together in that vein and then hopefully provide more of an evidence base going forward. Okay, thanks. I've got a couple of supplementaries. One, the first is from Ariane Burgess and then Rhoda Grant. Thanks, convener. The Sustainable Insure Fisheries Trust, otherwise known as SIFT, they wrote in their response to the 2024 to 2025 spawning closure consultation that there is a measurable economic cost of prohibiting crealing within the closed area without a concomitantly measurable benefit to the resident cod stocks. That's evidence they have. If including crealing in the closure makes very little difference to cod stocks, why not allow crealing to support the economic benefit while focusing management measures where they will make a big difference, for example by minimising bycatch from nephrops trolling? I think that there are specific issues in relation to that piece of work that I think Alan will want to come in on in a moment as well. But I think that we've just come back to the point that Alan had made previously in relation to, when you look at these different methods of fishing in isolation, they wouldn't have much impact and their impact is very different between the different fishing methods. Of course, it's the collective nature of what that means in crealing. We've talked about what very indifferent numbers of creals could look like in the hauling and the disturbance that that could cause on the seabed. That's why it comes back to the decision that we've taken as well. Alan, are there specific points that you want to come in on that? Not much, to be honest. I'm not sure what evidence Cif claim they have, but creals do catch cod. That's well documented. I accept, as the cabinet secretary said, that closures where you're restricting economic activity are difficult. We have included in the Clyde one that there's 11 identical. The Clyde one is the one that he's talked about all the time, but they're identical. Economically, a recovering cod stock, apart from the environment and flourishing fish stocks, isn't going to economically benefit a creal fisherman. I understand that. However, I go back to my original point, the best available evidence on where cod spawn and how to protect cod is to stop disturbance. I think that creals are part of that disturbance factor. I'm not suggesting they are the biggest, but they are on the cumulative level, and that's why we do it. It's difficult decisions or discussions to have. I totally accept that. Sorry, I think that we would like to come in on that as well. Just to concur with that point about disturbance, but there is also the by-catch issue. Cod by-catch and creals is not insignificant in our experience. We've run projects recently where we require live cod for aquarium experiments for various different things, and we go to crealers in order to get the live cod, because we know they're going to be catching cod. They're not fishing for cod, they're fishing for crabs and lobsters and things like that, but they do catch cod, and we have fairly good information from certain skippers that we go to for these cod on how much they're catching. To the extent that we have just started up a two-year project—we intend it to be a two-year project—where we're looking at ways to design creals that mitigate cod by-catch, we wouldn't do that if we didn't think it was an issue. This does not only cod paddock and whiting and other similar species as well. These do appear in creals, and we're working on ways to help crealers to devise methods by which they can continue fishing for what they're actually fishing for and avoiding catching fish that they shouldn't be catching. Thanks very much for that. It's good to hear that that work's being done. From what I understand, the Strathclyde assessment provides very clear evidence confirming the results of peer-reviewed studies, i.e., that high-fishing mortality, not seabed disturbance, is the key cause of low population size. I come back to my earlier question, which is that by-catch trolling is part of the issue. It's interesting that we end up getting back to by-catch from crealing, but I think we need to keep the forefront of our minds that it's the trolling part that's the issue. I just want to come back to a point that Alan Gibb made earlier about the, I think, a colleague asked a question about the stocks and the kind of benchmarking of the west of Scotland. I just want to bring forward this piece into the conversation. I'm quoting from a letter from Gillian Martin. In the west of Scotland, the ISIS benchmark report 2022, it is made clear that the best scientific evidence indicates that Clyde Codd are very likely to be distinct stock from the rest of division 6A—that's the west of Scotland Codd—but they're lumped together with west of Scotland Codd only because of data limitations. That's a letter that came from Gillian Martin. I just want to get that out there and understand that a bit more that these stocks are considered to be separate. I think it comes also back to the issue that we've been kind of getting into a bit here today also around data. I know that we strongly carry out our work based on scientific evidence. What we are, I think, we're getting at now is, well, what is that scientific evidence? Who's using which ones? I think my colleague Eleanor Whitham had a very good point about gathering evidence with the sector, but also with tremendous marine ENGOs that are doing work as well. I think that we really need to understand much better the picture of what we're actually talking about. It's interesting that Gillian Martin in that letter did say that they are distinct, but they're lumped together because we've got data limitations. So there's something there that we need to be doing if we're not really able to get the best picture of what we're trying to support in terms of stock recovery and other things again to come back to the point what we're trying to do, ensure that there's a flourishing fishery across all sectors. I think that everyone wants to come in on that point. I can. I think that you can break that down into two points. I think that most people believe that it's likely that some of the cod in the Clyde are actually part of the Irish Sea genetic stock, but we don't have the definitive data to do that so that international scientific community assess it as the broad western. But I think that that's irrelevant, actually. It doesn't matter if it's genetically linked to the Irish Sea or is genetically linked to the west of Scotland, it's equally important to give them an element of protection because the Irish Sea stock is actually in a perilous condition compared to the northern stocks to give them protection. Whether it's an Irish Sea cod or a west of Scotland cod, affording that fish protection during spawning to allow the babies to be born and grow up is the objective. Irish Sea or west of Scotland, I don't think, is relevant in terms of the objective. What's the biggest part of mortality? Yes, of course, fishing with nets, catching fish to sell for food is a big part. There are some by-catch issues there as well, but it's the combination. I said at the start, we sit here today having seen transformational change in the state of cod. There's a myth that cod is in a perilous condition in the Scottish wars in the northern shelf. It's not, the biomass is almost doubled. It's been shown that there's no distinct west coast and north sea cod stock in the mixing. I suspect that that's similar with the Clyde and the Irish Sea. It's extremely healthy and it's hard to imagine that that level of recovery just happened on its own, that the measures we have in place, the mesh size, the juvenile real-time closures, the 11 seasonal closures, including the one in the Clyde, haven't in some way, it's improbable to think that they haven't contributed to a fantastic recovery situation for northern shelf cod. Just a supplementary on what's being discussed. I mean, we're being contacted by people who are usually urging us to take conservation measures who are really concerned about the science that is behind this closure and you can understand, I mean, I think everyone wants to make sure that every stock of fish is healthy, but the trouble is that you're asking people to forego a quarter of their annual income on science that they don't really trust, and that becomes very difficult. We're obviously facing a motion to annul this morning as well, which we have to make a decision on. It seems to me that a vague, maybe in a couple of years' time, we will look at this. It's not going to be satisfactory to the people that are coming to us. I guess what I'm asking is, is there a way of looking at this again to make sure that those less harmful methods of fishing can be allowed, those that can't move out of the area and have no alternative other than to shut up shop for three months? I just wonder if there is a way of looking at this again, taking it back, coming back with a new instrument or a guarantee that next year we may get something quite different in front of us, because we're making the decisions about people's livelihoods without convincing science. I absolutely appreciate the points that you make as well and that others have made around the table today. Again, those aren't decisions that we take lightly. We do use the best scientific evidence available, as I've already outlined today. Again, I would just like to highlight that if this instrument is annul today, that means there is no protection in place at all. While I appreciate the points, I think that that's where I would point to what I've said about the strands of work that we'll have under way to bring forward and to consider in relation to the future and continuing to build that evidence base in that monitoring. Again, if it's annul today, it means that we wouldn't have any of those protections in place for spawning cod. They would come to an end. Can you give any assurance about looking at this again? A faster timescale? Again, that's why the work that we've set, I think, is a key step in relation to that. As I said in a previous response to Jamie Halcro Johnson, the position that we have in the order that we're bringing forward today may not be the same when the next time we bring it forward, because there may be more evidence or monitoring that changes within that time, so I can't prejudge what that's going to look like. Again, that's what I would just point to the work that we've set out is going to be the key step in helping us to develop that wider picture. I'm just really pushing you here, but I just wonder if evidence comes to the fore before you're due to renew this or change this that you would bring forward in new order. Again, I'm not too sure what the process would be in relation to that. I'd have to take further advice, but again, we are based on this on the best available scientific advice, and I understand that there are views that aren't necessarily content with that, but I think that we have to base it on the best information that we have available at this point. I appreciate you pushing me because exactly of the points that you've raised that are really important, and of course this is people's livelihoods that we're dealing with here. I recognise that impact. This is a short-term closure, and we are trying to do it ultimately for the protection of that stock. No, it's similar. It's just to pick up on what has been said about what I suppose everything so far by-catch, the complete need for absence of disturbance on the seabed, and what Dr Colby Needle said about changing the design of creals to avoid by-catch. It sounds like to me that we do need to be making sure that we're working with our fishermen. We've got the Galloway Static Gear Fishermen's Association, they've got 20 vessels, over 40 members, and I just want to be keen to make sure that these people are experts in their knowledge of the territory and where they're fishing and everything, so just to make sure that we continue to work with the fishermen to make sure that the science and the data and the evidence is accurate so that they can fish for the future. I do think that you've raised a really important point, and I'd come back to the point that Colby Needle had made earlier about how that engagement with fishers has already altered some of the plans that we've had, because you're absolutely right, they are the experts in the areas where they fish and know that really well, which is why we want to continue to work with them in the work that we're taking forward. I would also heart back to a point that Alan had made earlier as well, it's about all these measures in totality when we see the recovery and how well it's doing at the moment. I think it's all these measures that we've implemented right across the piece to reduce by-catch, protect in the spawning areas, that I think have all really been critical to enabling that recovery. Prometric to Rhoda Grant's question, because what I believe that Rhoda Grant is trying to do is to meet the Scottish Government halfway, Cabinet Secretary, and it is within your gift that the Scottish Government already demonstrated that they can make changes and they did that previously. If we take ourselves back to the previous cobb box closures, the consultation result in which the vast majority of responses were supportive of the previous situation, but a concluded consultation was reopened and altered with two campaign groups who complained on that. Therefore, we have had been in this situation before and changes were made. We've heard evidence today, which we can debate shortly and I won't go into that, but I think it's really important to acknowledge that if it is possible that there should be changes made and there can be changes made because the evidence that you've given today is not compelling whatsoever. In relation to that, and as I say, we're working, we've been using some of the same evidence base that we supplied previously and I know that there were similar questions at that time about the the science that we're using and as I've said many times today, we use the best scientific evidence that is available to us on which to base those decisions, but I think that if we come back to it, I absolutely appreciate what you're saying and the efforts that Rhoda Grant was trying to make. I think that in relation to the instrument that's in front of us today, as I've pointed out, if we and all that, there is no protection in place, we wouldn't be able to bring forward another order in time to enable any changes, let alone allow the time for the measures that I've talked about for us to gather more information and evidence in monitoring through that. So again, I can't pre-empt what that work is going to look like or what evidence it may produce or bring forward, but again, in terms of what's in front of us today, if we and all that, there won't be any protections in place for spawning cod and I think I really just want to emphasise that point and I appreciate this, it's about working together to try and find a solution in a way through it, ultimately that's where we want to be, which is why that work that I've set out today is so important, because I think it enables us to do that. We'll now move on to agenda item four, which is formal consideration of the motion to annul. I'd like to ask Rachel Hamilton to speak to and move the motion S6M-12276. I'll move that motion in my name. Thank you. Do any members wish to debate the motion? Thank you for giving me the opportunity, convener, and I think this evidence session has been very useful for all committee members today. I just feel like we are back in a mini-HPMA nightmare here with confusion and resentment and the possible devastation of the livelihoods of local fishermen in the Clyde. We are repeating many of the arguments that we made last year. I was reassured last year that the Government would come forward and learn lessons, but it seems as though today's position is unyielding. I don't believe that there has been any reflection on what happened last year. I want to try to set out and summarise what some of my colleagues' arguments have been today in terms of their concerns. I think that each and every one of us have concerns, whatever party we represent, and whatever action we want to see, whether it's one way or another, to protect spawning cod. I would ask, firstly, the Scottish Government why, as others have said, despite no additional monitoring of science in the area that they have chosen to reinstate the Clyde cod books. That is the first question, and I don't believe that there has been a sufficient answer around that. The CFF also has said that there is no additional science or monitoring that has been conducted in this area, and there has only been a partial brewer. There has not been a full business and regulatory impact assessment, and that has not been conducted. I would ask why, again, and to learn lessons from last time. In January, as has been said, the Scottish Government announced that measures to protect spawning cod in the Firth of Clyde will continue. This is much to the disappointment of half of the respondents who support an exemption that my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston was exploring in terms of where the Government sits on those specific exemptions. We have heard today as well that the Scottish Government has acknowledged, and Alan Gibb has acknowledged, that the stocks of cod have recovered in Scotland. I am not going to repeat the areas that have been discussed, but why, after last year's debacle, had this not been the work that has been promised now in 24 not being carried out earlier? It just seems extraordinary. One of the main areas that we have heard today is the lack of reliable data. The cabinet secretary said that he is using the best scientific evidence available, but that is not good enough, is it, cabinet secretary, because the best scientific evidence is not available? There is insufficient data on cod stocks in the Clyde to acknowledge the effectiveness of the closures themselves. As you will be aware, there is now a change in the west coast total allowable catch with an increase in cod allocation, and a change in the formal classification of Clyde cod to the north-west stocks, as opposed to the sub-stock of the Irish Sea, which only makes the closure of the cod stocks less justifiable in the eyes of the fishermen. I also noted that Dr Kobe Needle had said that it was unclear, and there is no evidence to treat Clyde cod separately, so I would like some clarification on that, if I may. Mary Gusion herself admitted that Atlantic cod stocks were covering in just January, and further evidence gathering cannot be carried out due to the cuts in the marine budget that we have heard. The latest budget, marine funding and marine budgets were worth a combined £99.9 million in 2324. That was cut to £93 million, so a lot of my colleagues have been asking how the resource and capacity of Marine Scotland will play out in that. Our own adviser, Professor Paul Fernandes, said that more scientific evaluation needs to be carried out. As again was mentioned by my colleagues, Professor Fernandes also said that seasonal closures were not effective. That might be cherry-picking that particular statement, but he said that if they want to give cod the best chance to recover the evidence suggests that they are targeting the wrong thing in terms of the closure. The 2005 ICS study is damming, and it found that the Clyde cod box had no effect on cod stocks. Elaine White, secretary of the CFA, said that it was not convinced that there was enough scientific data on the cod stocks to justify the closures. She said that survey data was inadequate, data on cod catches were being gathered from compliance officers boarding boats to check catches rather than scientifically. It was also collected from boats that were nowhere near the cod closure area. Moving on to the financial impact, Jamie Halcro Johnston covered that quite sufficiently, but over half of respondents to the partial briot supported some exemptions to the ban. We know that it is important that the livelihoods of fishermen are supported. I am really concerned that the cabinet secretary had made a comment that the 11 weeks is a long time, but we were concerned, as committee, that the cumulative pressures resulting in the financial pressures would mean that fishermen are leaving the market. That, for me, is anecdotal, but I am going to operate a tip for tactic here because all three of you mentioned anecdotal evidence. It was not clear evidence. We are in a situation where we cannot rely on what the Government is saying. The partial briot that I was discussing earlier does not even reflect the financial impact that was felt by local fishermen. A lot of the fishermen do not feel that it was a viable option to suggest that they could simply fish somewhere else. As I said, even the increased time and resource of civil servants and the organisations that represent fishermen spent on the issue have been disproportionate. We find ourselves in a repeat of this position where there is a lack of peer-reviewed data to support the closure. Fishermen cannot fish anywhere and it is almost a nirvana of displacement. A ban has been in place for 20 years and the Government and Marine Scotland still cannot give us proper information about why we should bring forward that order. To conclude, convener, as described by the Cabinet Secretary, a pragmatic and evidence-based approach to protecting spawning cod, it is absolutely not. She talked about the challenges of the socio-economic impact. It is devastating. It is devastating even if it is 11 weeks. On that basis, I urge members to vote for the annulment in the absence of unclear advice from the Government and a lack of understanding that it has been provided to the committee as to why the Scottish Government is taking the measure to close off livelihoods for fishermen in the Clyde. Does any member wish to do it? As I said earlier, the science says that this SSI is necessary but not sufficient to protect and restore cod stocks. Rhoda Grant raised a serious point about the impact on creelers and divers' livelihood. A 2015 document from Marine Scotland showed that trolling affects more than 18,000 times as much the seabed as creeling. I would reiterate my request for assurances from the Scottish Government to share the PhD work that the Marine Directorate and Professor Mike Heath at Strathclyde University of Supervising after you seek advice on that with the committee so that we can see those recommendations for recovery. I would also ask that there is a commitment to use the latest science, including that PhD, when there is a replacement for the Clyde closure SSI in 2026 and onwards. I would also request that the Scottish Government begins scoping additional measures to protect the stock, especially by catch reduction. As the latest science says, that is the main pressure. I would also like to clarify a point about the Clyde cod stock being separate from the other West of Scotland cod stock. It is not about genetics but about the potential to manage our Clyde cod stock separately. The Clyde cod stock sits completely within the Scottish Government's purview, so we could absolutely bring in measures to minimise by catch from trawling. I am glad to hear about the work being done on that, but I would urge for that to be accelerated, given the state of Clyde cod, as well as our at-risk seabirds. I accept that the Scottish Government wants to take a precautionary principle, but I feel that it is not taking enough cognisance of the lack of damage that creelers and divers make. I will support the motion to annul on the understanding that I look to the Government to bring back another instrument as soon as possible to protect the spawning areas. There is by-catch and creels, but it is not killed. It is simply let away. By-catch and creels is not an issue here at all. I would ask the Government just to look at this again and come back with something sensible. I think that the points that have been made by Rachael Hamilton have really covered most of what I was intending to say. I think that there is a lack of data and a lack of data that we can have a huge amount of confidence in, a lack of exemptions and generally a lack of trust in those organisations, those individuals who are going to be most impacted by that. I think that there is too much reliance on some of the anecdotal evidence that has been highlighted as well. I think that in terms of putting people's lives on hold for even a short period and without the support and without the confidence in that information, I think that that is not the right approach. I will be voting for the annulment and I would hope that others might too. Thank you if there are no other comments. I invite the cabinet secretary to make her comments. I fully appreciate the strength of feeling that the instrument has elisted as I highlighted in my opening remarks. I think that just a few points of clarification I would like to make because I think that we have broadly set out the key arguments and set out why we are bringing forward the order today. In relation to Rhoda Grant's point about by-catch, by-catch is not necessarily the issue here. We are talking about the maximum protection available for spawning cod and it is that disturbance of the seabed which is predominantly the issue given the number of creals and the disturbance that can cause. I just wanted to clarify that point there. Also in relation to somebody, Rachel Hamilton's comments, in relation to the bria, a full bria was published. I do not know if you are just referring to the partial bria that was published in the consultation but a full bria was published with this instrument as well. I would have thought that the committee would have had that available to them. There also had been enhanced monitoring put in place since the period of the last closure as well which I touched on in my comments earlier. Again, I have set out our position today. I appreciate the impact that this has on fishers but ultimately this is about the protection of the stock and ensuring that we have that maximum protection for spawning cod. Thank you Rachel Hamilton to wind up and indicate if you wish to press or withdraw the motion. I will press the motion. In terms of the bria, 61.7% supported the reintroduction of some or all exemptions to the seasonal closure. I do not think that that has been recognised or even spoken about by the Scottish Government. I do understand that the cabinet secretary is sympathetic and wants to clearly support the spawning cod but we are in a situation, as I described, where this is 20 years on. We have had plenty of opportunity to make changes. We have had plenty of opportunity to learn lessons. The cod numbers have not recovered. We have to be absolutely clear about that. Many of my colleagues have made comments around the need to examine alternative solutions to this issue rather than continuing with this failed policy. The question is that motion S6M-12276, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We move to a vote. We are not agreed. There will be a vote on the motion. Members should vote by raising their hand. Please keep your hand raised while the clerks record your vote. Those members supporting the motion, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members who wish to abstain, please raise your hand now. All members have now voted. The result of the vote is 4, 4 and 5 against no abstentions. The motion has not been agreed. I just clarify for the official report that Kate Forbes voted online and voted against. The committee must now produce a report on this draft instrument. Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off the report on the instrument? That completes our consideration of the instrument. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and your officials for attending. We will now suspend the meeting briefly to allow the cabinet secretary and officials to leave. Our fifth item of business this morning is consideration of a further negative SSI, the sand deal prohibition of fishing Scotland order 2024. Do members wish to make any recommendations relating to the instrument? Can I ask—maybe we should write to the Scottish Government—just about what discussions they had with the Danish Government and fisheries there. I understand that we don't fish for sand deal at all, but I think that it's quite important to the Danish fishery and it would be quite good to understand what discussions have been held with them and if indeed they'll send the implications of that going forward in negotiations with fisheries internationally. Agreed. Our sixth item of business is consideration of two UK SSI consent notifications, retained EU law, revocation and reform act 2023, revocation regulations 2024 and plant health fees England and official controls frequency of checks, amendments regulations 2024. Do members have any comments on either of the notifications? Are members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notifications being included in the UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? That concludes our business in public this morning and we'll might now move into private session.