 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the eighth meeting of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee in 2022. Before I begin, can I remind all members using electronic devices to please switch them to silent? I'd also like to welcome Jackie Baillie, MSP, and joined us to the meeting this morning. Our first item of business this morning is an evident session on the sea fish prohibition on fishing for the Clide order 2022, SSI 2022-35. I welcome to the meeting, Mary Gougeon, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands and her Scottish Government officials, Alan Gibb, Deputy Director for Sea Fisheries, Marine Scotland, Dr Colby, Needle Chief Fishery Advisor for Scotland, Marine Scotland Science, who will be giving evidence remotely, and Lucy McMichael, Senior Lawyer. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement. Thank you, convener, and just say good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak about the seasonal closure in the first of Clyde. I appreciate that this has elicited really strong feelings and I welcome the call for evidence that you've put out as well as the opportunity to pick up these legitimate concerns with you today. This long-standing seasonal closure aims to provide an area of protection for cod during their spawning season from the 14th of February to the 30th of April. Since its introduction in 2001, the SSI has also included exemptions to allow nephropstrawlers, creelers and scallop dredgers to continue to use the area due to the low numbers of cod that they catch. We had initially intended to continue those exemptions for 2022 and 2023 and laid an SSI to that effect. Upon further reflection, we consider that this approach should be adapted and the exemptions removed. The stock has shown little sign of recovery under the present measures and there is evidence that any activity within 10m of the seabed has the potential to disturb spawning cod. Moreover, removing exemptions brings the Clyde cod closure into line with other management measures in Scottish waters, including the national cod avoidance plan and measures in the inner sound. We therefore decided to remove those exemptions to increase the chances of boosting the west of Scotland cod stock. However, we recognise that removing the exemptions has a short-term effect on fishers. We have listened to the concerns of stakeholders and, based on scientific evidence, we have also made the closure more targeted, reducing its overall size by 28 per cent compared to previous years, while providing comprehensive protection to the cod in areas where they are most likely to be spawning. The revised closure areas are a pragmatic and evidence-based solution that reflect our commitment to protect the spawning cod, whilst at the same time mitigating potential socio-economic impacts on our vulnerable coastal communities. I accept that the process around this closure has been far from ideal and I do sincerely apologise for that. Our approach on this occasion has fallen short of our co-management principles and practice. It has been a really complex issue to balance and we will ensure that we learn the lessons from the way that this closure has been managed. However, I believe that we have made the right call in adapting the closure this year and that the measures that we have put in place offer better protection for spawning cod. We will keep the measure under review. Marine Scotland compliance will closely monitor activity in the Firth of Clyde over the coming weeks and we will arrange a meeting with stakeholders after the closure ends to reflect on its effectiveness and practicality. The seafish prohibition of fishing for the Firth of Clyde No. 2 Order 2022 SSI was laid on 1 February and I hope that the committee can support that. I am happy to take any questions that members may have and I would also like to draw the committee's attention to the letter and submission to my letter and the submission from Dr Colby Needle, chief fisheries adviser for Scotland, who is here today and also happy to take any questions too. This is a bit of a mess and it naturally reflected probably the unprecedented number of responses that we had for the call for evidence. There were concerns about the scientific evidence, data collection, monitoring, concerns over the impact of the closure, both socio-economic, environmental and about the poor proportionality. The first thing that we are going to ask on is the scientific evidence. The written submissions and oral submissions from all sides of the argument suggested that there is a lack of evidence to support the removal of exemptions and the inclusion of kyl and dive in the removal of those exemptions. Assertions that spawning does not occur in muddy areas of the seabed and goes on and on. What scientific evidence was used to inform your decision? As I said, we based the decision based on the best available scientific evidence that we had, which had suggested that any disturbance within 10m of the seabed would have an impact on spawning cod, but I think that it would perhaps be more appropriate to bring in Dr Cobie Needle on that point as well and to explain from the scientific perspective. Okay, thank you. Good morning everyone. Apologies that I can't be there in person. So on this question, we were asked, as Marine Scotland science, to consider whether the existing Clyde cod spawning closure was sufficient to achieve the policy objective of protecting spawning cod. That was our remit. Now it has to be said that good consistent detailed time series of data regarding the distribution of spawning cod in the Clyde are hard to find and don't really exist. Given that, we have taken a risk-based approach. Existing scientific literature highlights the preference for Atlantic cod to spawn in areas of gravel or coarse sand. With sandy mud or muddy sand, it's an interesting definition, but being less optional and fine mud being the least suitable for spawning cod. No, I'm afraid. We appear to have lost our witness. I'll come in with more information on that one. Thank you. Just carrying on from where Cobie Needle was, posters, a lack of defined data on spawning cod in the Clyde, there is clear scientific evidence from numerous papers that suggest that any disturbance, so not necessarily just the ability to catch, but any disturbance of the spawning cod or the habitat that they spawn on, is likely to reduce or completely remove their ability to successfully spawn on the grounds that Cobie had said. The issue of disturbance in the scientific literature is any disturbance on the ground or even up to between 5 and 10 metres from the seabed. Therefore, when we look at the disturbance point, it's one of the things that we think there's been a bit of a confusion. It's not about catching. It's not about the amount of impact that a type of method has on the seabed. It's about whether it can cause disturbance, so a prawn trawl on the seabed clearly causes disturbance. A scallop dredge clearly causes disturbance. A diver going down and swimming through them on there causes disturbance and creals cause disturbance. It's not about catching. One of the correspondence that I saw said that he claimed that, in his estimate, there was somewhere between 4 and 5,000 creals in that area. 4 and 5,000 creals being hauled up and shot down every day is clearly going to generate disturbance. It's the disturbance point that was the key feature of the scientific rationale for taking the closure for all methods. We've got Coby back. Thank you. Dr Coby, Nidol, would you like to come back in? You were cut off in your prime. Apologies, yes. I think I've got as far as the closed areas and the sediment-type argument that we're using. I was then going to move on to the fishing gears, which should be included in the closures. As you know, originally, nephrops, trawls, crealers and dredges were exempt from the closures. Further science literature highlighted the spawning behaviour of cod in which the male cod mark out territories on the seabed, known as lecs, and they defend the lecs against other males and use grunting noises. Essentially, they contract their swim bladders very quickly to attract females to the lecs. They're very, very territorial. What will also happen is that once they've found a female, they get into a mating routine and that involves moving up off the seabed to spawn. They spawn generally five to 10 metres off the seabed. In my judgment and in our opinion, it was important to limit any fishing activity that operated within 10 metres of the seabed and to try and give the maximum protection to that spawning activity should it be occurring. That is why we concluded that fishing types that were initially exempted from the closure should be included. It must be said that those conclusions aren't definitive and there does remain a lack of data and observations specific to the Clyde area. We have, as I've said, taken this risk-based approach. On the balance of probability, it is my judgment that the measure that has been taken is appropriate and probably sufficient for protecting spawning cod, which was what we were asked to do. It still doesn't get away from the fact that, nearly without a single exception, nobody agreed with the position that they had taken. It was a very quick decision. Is this more about politics and the Bute House agreement that you had with the Greens? It was a knee-jerk reaction and it really hasn't resulted in a reasonable set of regulations. It puts a lot of fishermen's economy, the sustainability of rural communities at risk and coastal communities at risk. As I highlighted in my opening statement, I absolutely accept that the process has been far from ideal in this case and not the normal means by which we would either like to engage or to make decisions. Ultimately, we have ended up in the right place in terms of the decision that has been taken and the SSI that has been laid. I mean, as you have seen from the evidence that you have received, both written and orally, this is a very complex issue. There are lots of different perspectives within that, but we have done our best to base this decision based on the best scientific evidence available to us and taking the precautionary principle into consideration, too. That is not a political decision. I think that it is only right that, when you are in a position such as mine, you take the opportunity to reflect, which is why the initial decision was changed and why another SSI had been laid, as well as to listen to the many different perspectives that are involved in this, and the many different stakeholders. Again, that is why we have laid the SSI that we have to take account of the different perspectives to see and to really try to ensure that the area that we have tried to protect the correct areas. As a result of the work that was undertaken, we were able to reduce the overall closure by 28 per cent, which I think is really important that we took the time to reflect on that and to undertake the work into that to make sure that we were still ultimately achieving the policy objective, which is to protect spawning cod in that sense. I think that it is only right that we did that. I am a bit confused, because we have had two revisions, so we had an instrument laid that was then changed. What scientific evidence did you get between changing and then going out and consulting again, which was not political, was not a result of the Buteus agreement? I failed to see what scientific evidence changed in that short time. Again, it was further reflection on what we had received in terms of the consultation and further reflection of the different correspondence that we had received in relation to the exemptions. When the first initial SSI was laid, it was intended that those exemptions would continue to roll over for 2022 and 2023, and it was the further reflection within that time. Of course, the Buteus agreement is part of that, but there were other representations that had been made by other organisations about the impact of not removing the exemptions and the impact that that would ultimately have on spawning cod. Again, that is why we decided to look at that and take that further advice. I think that that is where the position that we have ultimately ended up on the back of that is the right one, with the revised closed area, while ultimately achieving the policy objective, which is to protect spawning cod. The question for Coby Needle, I think. It has been said so far today that the monitoring of these areas and the monitoring of cod stocks will continue certainly in the coming weeks. Can you say a bit more, though, about, in the longer term, going forward, how are we going to measure the effectiveness of these measures and of these interventions on the impact of cod stocks more generally? In the meantime, while we await further development of methods, etc., obviously, catch data from vessels operating in the Clyde this year will be critical for determining where the cod is starting to recover. We conduct annual surveys in the area as part of our overall west coast demersal survey that we run every year in quarter one and quarter four. It is not a comprehensive survey of the Clyde area as such, but it includes between two and three halls within the Clyde each year, so that can give us an indication as to whether cod is starting to recover. I should also note that, in collaboration with University of Strath Clyde, I believe that you had a session with Professor Mike Heath last week. In collaboration with that team there, we are co-supervising a PhD project to develop a stock assessment model and method that is applicable for Clyde cod, so that has not previously existed. We are hopeful that it will be available during this year towards the end of the year and that will enable a quantitative evaluation of the progress of any Clyde cod recovery, which previously has not existed. The Clyde cod is rather peculiar. It is thought to be a distinct sub-stock of the west coast population, but in the opinion of ISIS, which is the international council for the exploration of the seas, we run the west coast assessment. The data availability in the Clyde is not yet sufficient to enable it to be assessed as a separate stock yet, so that is why we are developing data and developing methods in order to achieve that. On that point, what would the implications of identifying that as a separate or distinct sub-stock bee for conservation in the future, in your view? I think that it would give us a much better handle on the stock dynamics in the Clyde. It would not be subsumed within the overall assessment for the west coast. We are undergoing, in the wider area, the process for many cod stocks around the British Isles. There is evidence, for example, that cod in the northern North Sea may be a different sub-stock to cod in the southern North Sea and should therefore be assessed separately. That is a scientific initiative. We are attempting to get a better idea of stock dynamics of cod stocks in different areas, and the Clyde is one of those. That then feeds into the management process, and that is where we can advise managers on how to manage those stocks. However, it is not really for a scientific determination exactly how to do that. Finally, convener, I appreciate that you have to maintain your independence in this, but given the amount of data that you would think would be gathered, at least anecdotally, through the fishing industry itself, how will you be cooperating with fishers to gather information in the future? That is a good point. I think that one of the best ways to move forward in an area like the Clyde, which is discreet and an intro area on which we historically have not had as much data as we might have for the general North Sea or the general west coast. Moving forward, there is a strong argument for more of the sort of collaboration that we have seen in the recent past. For example, this PhD for working on to develop a stock assessment. Also, we were involved at the beginning of the surveys that were run by the Clyde Fisherman's Association along with St Andrew's University. I think that sort of collaboration between Government science, academia and industry and other stakeholders is a fruitful route for trying to develop a wider database and stronger information for areas such as the Clyde. Dr Needle said that it is important that we take that collaborative approach with the industry and academia in terms of moving forward. I was going to come back to the point that you were making earlier on about the science and the disturbance group, but my understanding is that it is not aggregations that are causing the problem now because that has been done away with a long time ago. I raised the question with Dr Heath last week about the sensitivity of cod and their disturbance. Will that lead to less young cod being hatched? I am told that only two eggs were needed to hatch out of the million or so that a phenyl lays. I am reiterating the point that you made. I would have imagined that any disturbance of a sensitive animal, whether it is a bird, a fish or whatever, at the spawning or the breeding period is going to reduce the numbers of available youngsters to go on and thrive. Would that be a fair assessment? I agree with that. I would say that the purpose of this particular measure is to try and maximise the potential for cod to spawn. As Mike Heath was saying, an adult female cod produces maybe a million eggs, probably more in a spawning season. In order for the population to be sustainable only two of those have to survive. There is an enormous amount of mortality on eggs and juvenile cod. That measure does not directly address that. However, if you do not have any eggs to begin with, you will definitely not have a recovery in the stock. It is a first step in order to try and encourage as much spawning as we can, as much eggs as we can and then, hopefully, that will feed through into the adult population in subsequent years. If you do not have the protection of the spawners, you do not have eggs because they are disturbed and they will not spawn. Therefore, you certainly will not get a recovery in the stock. I will continue on that line. We are looking at what one cod could produce between a million and two million eggs. You only need two of those to survive to adulthood to sustain the population. Is the impact of noise or the impact of a handdiver or creals significant in any way towards sustainability when we are looking at those fish that we have heard generally spawn? It is the mortality after the eggs have been hatched. Is disturbance when it comes to spawning of any significance at all? I would say that it is in my judgment strongly significant because they have a complicated spawning behaviour, as I was outlining, with males and females getting together, as happens in general in the animal kingdom. However, if that does not happen, if there is disturbance of the preferred spawning area, the males may not be there in the first place. They may be scared off and go elsewhere. If the males are not left in situ in the spawning areas for long enough, they will not be able to attract females. The males and females need to be there at the same time, and then they have to go through this complicated courtship ritual, which involves circling round each other and rising off the seabed in order to spawn. All that takes time. It is that behaviour and that activity that is potentially being disturbed by the fishing gears that we are talking about here. The crux of the matter is that, do you have any evidence that the sustainability, the cod stock and the Clyde is affected by the lack of spawning? Is there more lack of spawning now than there was previously? I suppose that that is the crux of the matter. Do you have any evidence to suggest that there is less eggs and less spawning by cod? We do not have evidence in terms of egg counts in the water, no. It seems logical to me that if spawning is being disturbed, then those eggs will not be produced in the first place. Ah, but there is no evidence that that is the case. In terms of egg counts, no. We do not have that. Okay, so no evidence. Beatrice Wishot Thanks, convener. We have heard about the lack of historical data and observation on Clyde cod, so the Clyde box has been in place for 20 years. To me, it seems like this is how we have got to the position that we are in today, because there has been a lack of evidence and a lack of support. What has been happening for the last 20 years? For the activities that we are taking now and what we are looking to undertake in terms of trying to reach our policy objective, which is to protect spawning cod and ultimately try to boost the numbers of cod that we see in the Clyde, and that is the objective that we are pursuing. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Apologies that I cannot be there in person. I have a couple of questions related to scientific evidence. I would be grateful for succinct answers and I will try to keep my questions short as well. On the Scottish Government's consultation into the spawning closure, it cites a study undertaken by the Scottish Oceans Institute and the Clyde Fisherman's Association. Are you aware of the study that I am referring to? Yes, I am. I just wanted to ask whether the cabinet secretary has seen a final version of that study of that report. If you have, as well, Dr Needle. No, I haven't. If I can come in, so the reports were from service conducted by St Andrews and Clyde Fisherman's Association, I believe, in between 2016 and 2018. There were four surveys done during those years. They are currently undergoing review by ourselves, so we are reviewing what was done in those surveys for their consideration and will subsequently be published by, I believe, the University of St Andrews. That is where that process is. When you say, being reviewed by ourselves, is that marine Scotland or? Marine Scotland science, yes. On the consultation website, it says that a final version of the report can be requested from the Clyde Fisherman's Association. Is that correct, as far as you are aware? Not as far as I am aware, I believe. Sorry, I think that Alan is wanting to come in on this point. That was an error on our part, but an error made in good faith. We had seen a draft version of that report and believed that it was to be published imminently. We referenced a factual element about the existence of Spawning Cod. Not that this science work is about Spawning Cod, it is about surveys in general, there is nothing to do with Spawning Cod per se, but we referenced that. I admit and acknowledge an error in the belief that it was about to be published imminently and clearly it has not been. There were various delays for numerous reasons. The CFA and St Andrews have asked Marine Scotland science to have a look at it. It is not a Marine Scotland science report. We have done that and we understand that it is due to be published by the St Andrews University in the coming days, as I understand it. When do you expect a correction on the website to be made? When do you expect a correction on the website to be made for that? Our understanding was that it was to be published imminently. If that is still on the web, if that is still saying that, then I will get that corrected today. We heard from Elaine White from the Clyde Fisherman's Association last week, and I asked her about the report. She said that those four reports were nothing to do with the Clyde Fisherman's Association and said that we have nothing to do with the science. We just let the others use our vessels. If it is not the CFA and if it is not the Government of Marine Scotland, whose responsibility is it to publish those findings and make them publicly available? Is it St Andrews University? Is that what you are saying? St Andrews University, as I understand it, is going to take on the publishing remit of that. I think that the comments by the Clyde Fisherman's Association are in direct response to I think that this has come to be a bit of an urban myth about a report that informed the policy decision when it didn't. There is no material relevance of that report to the policy decision. To say that this wasn't a Clyde-inspired survey, they collaborated, as the current secretary said, with academia, in this case St Andrews. They provided the platforms to get scientists out to see. It is interesting that you say that there is no material basis or connection, because the way that it is written on the consultation implies that it was used as a basis for the decision. It says that early results from the study show that the presence of spawning cod in the closed area during the closure period indicate that the closure is in the right place at the right time. Are you saying that the study hasn't had any basis on the decision that's been made? Yes, that's correct. What I'm saying is that that's a factual reference. They were out there doing general survey work and during that period, they came across a spawning cod in that area. All we are referencing is that it implies that the closed area is the right area, because that's where the spawning cod was, but it wasn't the basis of the policy decision. Thank you very much. Are you able to share with the committee where exactly the spawning cod was found? It says in the closed area. Are you able to give us a specific location on what you've seen in the study? I'm sure that the data is there, whether it's in the published or not, it will be there from the scientists that recorded it. Do you know how the study was funded? I personally don't. I think that it was a collaboration. I think that it was a St Andrews University promoted thing, but I might pass to Dr Needle on that if he knows how it was funded. It wasn't funded by Mary Scotland. I think that Dr Needle likes to come in. Yes, thank you. Not so much on the funding aspect. I'm not sure about that, but I think that it is worth pointing out that I'm familiar with the reports having been to them. First, they mentioned that spawning cod was caught in some of the quarter one halls, not very many spawning cod and the area in which the spawning cod was caught are not specified spatially. The data must exist, but they are not specified within those reports in terms of where the spawning cod was caught. It's also worth noting that those surveys were very much developmental. They were trying to see how they would survey cod in the Clyde, and they had it in Whiting and Hague as well. The authors are at pains throughout to emphasise that. They didn't ever intend the reports to be used as the basis for policy and advice. It was very much developmental. Here's how you might consider developing a specific survey in the Clyde. Thank you very much. Just a final question for the cabinet secretary. Do you agree in principle that where research is conducted using public funds, that that research be made publicly available? Yes. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. I've got a supplementary from Rachel Hamilton before moving on to Jenny Mentow. Cabinet secretary, I really cannot understand why, with a lack of evidence to suggest that the distribution of spawning cod in the Clyde area was not evident, that more resource had been put into it. I understand that the CFA study was developmental and exploratory, but why did you make those decisions based on this complete and utter lack of evidence? It's based on the best available science and evidence that we have and in terms of trying to conduct all the science and research to fill some of the gaps that have been identified, I mean that just wouldn't have been possible in the time between that we've had in relation to this SSI and still trying to ensure that we had the SSI in place and the protections in place for the spawning period. That's where we've based the decision on the best available scientific evidence and research that we do have and taken that decision on that basis. That means that the best scientific advice and availability that you have is deficient and so therefore you've made a decision based on the fact that the Scottish Government has not been either resourcing evidence-based studies to make your decisions, so this is a failure of the Scottish Government to not provide evidence. I wouldn't agree with that point, but sorry, Alan, you want to come in. Thank you. It's important to focus on the issue that there is strong scientific evidence that we have used about the effect, the impact of disturbance on spawning cod in its habitat. That was the policy objective. There is a lack of evidence and data around numbers of cod, mortality and various other things, but it was about the protection of the spawning cod and its habitat at the time. The evidence for that, which is what the policy is, exists, and Dr Copeland-Eadle has explained through that, so that evidence exists. We are short of evidence in other areas, so we accept and acknowledge that, but the evidence that is required for that decision exists. I'm confused because there are no egg counts. How did the evidence suggest that that sort of intervention was going to help? I'll just put that in, Rick. I'll move on. I'm interested to hear how the Scottish Government could improve current scientific evidence data collection and monitoring to support future closures and ensure fisheries management more widely. Moving on a wee bit, we've heard a bit about evidence collection, so scientific research costs money. I'm interested to know what additional resources would the Scottish Government benefit from being allocated in terms of their ability to support opportunities for future research? Firstly, what we want to do at the end of this closure is meet with our stakeholders and to discuss the effectiveness of the closure or otherwise and determine how we move forward from there. We touched on this point earlier in relation to whether that is data collection research, what other collaboration we can undertake with industry as well as academia and work together on that basis. We are undertaking increased monitoring during this period to assess the effectiveness of the closure. I don't know if you want to come on with further information on that process throughout the period. We will have increased presence in the Clyde by Marine Scotland patrol vessels, large and small. The weather, as everybody is aware, has been really bad, so there's not been that much activity in the early period. However, the inspections that we've had to date of catchers being hauled up, there's been no code, zero code identified in any of the catches, which implies that so far it's implying, at least initially, that we've got it right in terms of the right places and opening up fishing where the spawning code aren't. The collaboration is going to be key. The resources are finite. We can do anything, but we can't do everything in that sense. However, the Stirling University of Scotland-sponsored PhD is looking at cod stock analysis in trying to find a model. That will be a really positive step forward, and it's important that the cabinet secretary makes sure that we explore all avenues for collaborative work, because that's how you get over the source hurdles sometimes in that area. I would like to add a bit more to the Stirling PhD work and to the collaboration with the fishers. Yes, I will. It's Strathclyde, Alan. Strathclyde University. That's been an on-going project. It's in its PhD studentship, which is now in its third year. Two of my colleagues are co-supervising, along with two of the academic staff at Strathclyde. We're very hopeful that that will result in a functional working stock assessment model within the Clyde. It's like any science that's not guaranteed, because, as we've discussed already today, Clyde is currently on the data-deficient side, so it is proving difficult to develop a stock assessment for that area. That is what we're attempting to do, and we'll continue to do that. Throughout the process, and for many years, we've been very supportive of academic work, particularly in the Clyde, but also elsewhere, in those areas in which academic colleagues can really contribute in terms of underlying research that we can then take on and implement in terms of our management advice. I think that it's incumbent upon us to make the best use of that resource that we have in Scotland. We have a fantastic set of universities and research scientists within them who are very willing to collaborate and are very helpful in those processes. In talking about the science, one of the things that's been discussed throughout this has been the use of Government science as a precautionary principle. Is Dr Nidol able to articulate what that means in that context and what its aims are? Yes, I was muted there. The precautionary principle in general states that, if you are uncertain about something, if data are lacking, that's not necessarily a reason to do nothing. That's what we've applied here. As Alan Gibb was saying, we are lacking firm data on stock dynamics, for example, for cod in the Clyde. However, we have good examples in the scientific literature of evidence that cod prefer a certain type of sediment to be born on, and they are very prone to disturbance and very sensitive to that. It is the wider literature that we have used in order to develop this precautionary approach to managing cod in the Clyde for the time being. Does the cabinet secretary want to add anything about that, or Alan Gibb, perhaps, since it's about the science? I can, in terms of the precautionary principle. Coby is right in terms of the lack of data that shouldn't be a reason not to do something. We need to take due regard of the precautionary principle, but we also need to take due regard of other elements such as regulatory obligations, socio-economic and environmental. That package is where we ended up with the proposal that we have today, where 28 per cent of the area remains open for fishing. That's not going to we believe in a risk-based approach. The precautionary approach is not going to risk disturbance of the spawning cod or the habitats. I think that we've taken a pretty balanced approach on that basis. We've heard about the decisions being based on the best available science, but there's also a lack of historical data, including no egg count. We've heard about, from the written and oral evidence, about the lack of scientific evidence to form the basis for the removal of the exemptions, as well as other aspects, including the assertion of where spawning occurs and that there's a lack of dedicated monitoring programmes to assess effectiveness, which leads me to the question, Cabinet Secretary. Is Marine Scotland sufficiently resourced to provide the robust scientific evidence that we need for inshore fisheries management? I think that it's important to be in mind, first of all. I mean obviously that all resources are finite and that's the decisions that Governments have to make is how best to allocate that resource. Also, to be in mind, just this year expands that Marine Scotland has to look after in Scotland and to monitor and evaluate data collection analysis and advice for the wide range of ecosystems and fisheries that we have across Scotland, which covers 470,000 square kilometres of sea. Of course, there are lots of different areas and areas of research that we would like to undertake and we have to make sure that we get the balance of those resources right. Of course, there could be a whole host of work that could be undertaken in the Clyde, but it's a case of what it would be considering if that's the work that's to be undertaken. What do we deprioritise and how do we ensure that that would be resourced if that was the decision that we decided to take? If we want to ensure that decisions are taken that are led by science, then we need to put in the resource to ensure that that happens. Again, that's part of the decision making that we have to consider. Again, if that's an area that we need to prioritise, then what is deprioritised? That's where I would come back to some of the points that Alan had made previously. We know that there are gaps in some of the evidence and the science there, but in terms of the policy objective and what we were looking to do here, that's where the science in relation to that aspect is strong in relation to the disturbance. We've been hearing how a challenge lies in the fact that we have to maintain data collection on what is a clear emphasis on understanding how marine systems function at various levels and locations and how various human activities are affecting our seas and what action is required in different contexts. In terms of Marine Scotland's resources, how the mythology of capture and evidence here is challenged by various competing bodies, sectors and interests in a world that is dominated by the concern of climate change. What are the potential consequences of not using the best possible evidence available and the consequences of not taking a precautionary approach? The ultimate consequences of not basing decisions on that basis would be that you ultimately can take the wrong decisions. If you're not taking the precautionary approach, we could potentially end up in a situation where we could end up doing more harm to the stock than good, which obviously isn't where we want to end up. I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question there. Was that about the methodology? How was that affected by the various competing bodies? I'm not too sure. Is there any effect on the methodology that we've based those decisions on and the views of other bodies in relation to that? The current methodologies of data collection for fish stock analysis survey and so forth, they continue. There's a twofold element here. Can that process also equally contribute to other requirements such as environmental considerations, climate change considerations and vice versa? As the cabinet secretary said, the methodologies don't change. They will evolve and get better over time as we learn. It's that competing resource element. If we have to do more work on environmental impact elements, that doesn't mean that the methodologies for stock surveys change. It might mean that there's more pressure on the facilities that we use. That drives us back towards maximising our collaborative approach with academia, with local stakeholders and so forth. On the lack of evidence and the precautionary approach, whilst we contend that the evidence is robust and fixed for the disturbance point of this policy, you're right. For other elements, if there's a lack of evidence, you're going into the risk-based approach and into the precautionary world. That's where, when you have a lack of evidence, working in collaboration with stakeholders, people who understand what's happening on the ground, whether it's environmental or fishing, can help to inform that management decision if you have to take a management decision, and they are invariably the hardest ones to do at that time. I'm going to bring in Jackie Baill at this point. Thank you very much, convener, and I'm grateful to you and the committee for the opportunity to participate in this morning's session. I should confess at the start that I'm not an expert in fish or fisheries, but I do happen to have constituents who are indeed academic experts in the field. I wonder whether I could ask the cabinet secretary and indeed Dr Needle to suggest that there is no robust evidence based on what's going on in the Clyde. You may have evidence elsewhere, but there's also an acknowledgement that cod stocks in the Clyde could well be different to cod stocks elsewhere. Yet, cabinet secretary, you say that the decision is evidence-based. I'm not quite clear who's right. Has it been a risk-based assessment, which is one thing, or is it actually evidence-based? If it is evidence-based, will you publish the evidence? We have published all the evidence and information on which we base this decision, and that is publicly available on our website. Again, what I would say is that it has predominantly been a risk-based approach based on the evidence and science that we do have, but in relation to that it comes back to what Dr Needle had said previously and what Alan had talked about in relation to the science and the impact on disturbance, which is what we've ultimately based the policy decision on, but I don't have Dr Needle wants to come in with further information on that. On the point about cod being different in the Clyde, I think that we generally mean that they are a distinct sub-stock in terms of the young that are coming from the reproductive activity of that population don't necessarily go off and join other cod stocks or mingle with them, but that does not get away from the fact that they are still the Atlantic Cod species. The spawning behaviour and the preferences of Atlantic Cod are similar, we believe. The evidence suggests that the spawning behaviour and the preferences of cod are similar all the way around the United Kingdom and specifically Scotland. The fact that we believe that cod may form a distinct sub-stock in the Clyde does not mean that their spawning behaviour is different from cod elsewhere, it is still the same species. I think that the reality is that we don't know because there haven't been studies, that's the point I'm making. It's a risk-based assessment because you don't have the evidential knowledge to inform the decision. There would be no basis on which to do something different, we have no reason to expect that the spawning behaviour of cod and the Clyde would be different from the spawning behaviour elsewhere. Dr Gibb, you said that where it's a risk-based assessment you would obviously rely on stakeholders, but your stakeholders, as far as I can see, have said that they think that this measure is wrong. Why haven't you listened to them? It's about maintaining focus on the issues, so we believe, and as Coby Nadle has just said, there would be no reason not to believe that the Atlantic cod species spawns in the same way and similar habitat, whether it be the Clyde or the North Sea, may be different in other parts of the world, but not there. The management that is based, I was talking about, was where evidence didn't exist and we would look to engage stakeholders in the co-management. We very successfully do that across lots of forums in lots of areas in Scotland. The issue here isn't about stakeholders not agreeing necessarily, it's about them not wanting to accept the basis on which we have removed all exemptions because there are different views around levels of impact and so forth. We are very much based on the disturbance element of the scientific report that has been published and has been on the website for some time now. Okay, can I ask you why the new proposal excludes historical areas of cod spawning because you've removed 28 per cent of the area as I understand it? I don't understand how that's a precautionary approach when you have no evidence to justify that. I think my simple answer would be that we were looking at the existing cod closure rather than cutting out another series of work to try and look to see should there be further cod closures or expanded cod closures, so that would require quite a lot more analysis and so forth. That may well happen in the future, that may be something that we'll need to consider, but the policy objective here was to review the existing closure and to maximise the protection for the spawning cod, which is being achieved by removing disturbance. Okay, but as an academic said to me, the size of the most important area, and I quote, mysteriously reduced by almost half. Why would it be mysterious if you're saying it's evidence-based? I'm not sure what that's reference to. The existing cod area was what we were looking at. We have allowed 28 per cent of that area to remain open. The evidence that we've used to justify that opening, 28 quite a bit less than half, the evidence that we've used to do that is that that is the mud area where cod won't be spawning or are likely to be spawning, and we haven't found any cod in any of the observations as yet on that. But that area was included before, based on the same evidence. Your evidence hasn't changed. That area was included, and that's why the Cabinet Secretary has asked us to review, based on representations, based on uncertainties, is there a need to close that entire area? Can the evidence that we have now, the report that Dr Needle is referring to in terms of the disturbance and our understanding of the habitat and the ground, whether there's coarse gravel or so forth, whether we can look at that and deliver the policy objective as best we can to its maximum without having to close the entire area? That was just another reflection that we too the Cabinet Secretary has arrived at the conclusion looking at that evidence that we can do that by opening or letting a small area remain open. Looking at the areas where cod are most likely to spawn, and again that's where I'm relying on the evidence that I received from the likes of Dr Needle in terms of determining that, and that's why we reached the conclusion that we did, and ultimately ended up reducing the overall area by 28 per cent. I'm still unclear whether that was a result of lobbying and representation made or actual evidence, because it strikes me that it's based on representation made rather than scientific evidence. But let me move on to my final question, convener. There was a stakeholder meeting with Marine Scotland at the end of January, where you were specifically asked whether the measure could be reviewed. Marine Scotland's response was that they had no resources to do so. Can I ask you what's changed? What form will the review take? Will it be done before 2023, so done this year, so it can inform what happens next? Yes, we've already said and committed to collaborating with stakeholders and coming together after the closure this year and to assess the effectiveness of that, and to see how we move forward. Can that be fed into changes for 2023, if the evidence suggests that that's required? Well, the closure is for 2022 and 2023, and I wouldn't want to prejudge the meeting that will take place at the end of that, but, of course, we'll take any views that come out of that meeting into consideration. There was outrage when the first order was laid, and it was very quickly withdrawn. He then undertook some sort of consultation and resulted in a change, which still I struggle to find any of the respondents or stakeholders that he talked about consulting actually think that it's the right solution. Have all the stakeholders, including scientists, got it wrong and you've got it right? I wouldn't agree with that assertion at all. When you look back to the results that we had from the consultations that we'd heard, we'd held between September and October, then between October and November, there was strong representation there, and I think that the overwhelming majority of those representations wanted to see the exemptions removed in their entirety. Again, it's important that we take all those views into consideration, but I do believe that—I would come back to what I've said earlier—the position that we've reached now meets the policy objective, which strengthens the objectives in protecting spawning cod by removing any potential disturbance to those areas where we believe that the cod are spawning, while balancing that with the socioeconomic impacts as well. I highlighted what I said at the beginning. The whole process of that has been far from ideal, which I have apologised for, but I think that it's important for me to listen when I'm in this role and in this position to make sure that we're balancing those objectives. I believe that, ultimately, we've ended up making the right decision here, with the revised closure area that we've put forward. Thanks very much. Just a quick follow-up question for Dr Needle. You've mentioned today, and you wrote to us about the scientific literature on the spawning behaviour of cod, which has affected this decision specifically around the movement of up to 10 metres from the seabed. Are you able to share with the committee which specific papers you're referring to? I've been lost, Dr Needle. Thank you, yes. I'm just waiting for the mute thing to come off. Certainly, I can share. In the submission to the committee, there is a reference list, which includes all the citations of the scientific literature that we used. One of them was, for example, including data storage tags that showed male cod while spawning coming off the seabed. That was quite clear in that evidence. The scientific literature that we've used as the basis for this decision is included in the submission. For the seven papers, it's a mixture of all of them, is it? It's, if you could just bear with me. I think that the specific ones would be, let me just follow this, I'm just getting to the end of this. Or you can always make a quick follow-up afterwards. I can follow up afterwards, yes. I can identify that for you and pass that on to the panel. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll now move on to a topic that's looking at the impact of closure and ask Rachel Hamilton for our questions, please. Thank you, convener. I'd like to ask—we received evidence that said that the Bria didn't follow the correct process, as described in the Scottish Government online Bria toolkit. The Bria in that description should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted, but it wasn't, was it, cabinet secretary? I wouldn't agree with that. I believe that it has followed the correct processes in terms of how it was brought together and how that's been presented. Stakeholders said that the Bria didn't follow the correct process in terms of the impact that it was going to have on fishermen. It's based on the information from our marine analytical unit. Do you mean in relation to the number of vessels that we'd outlined that would be impacted by that? You did take figures from 2018 rather than 2020. Obviously, they had reduced significantly considering the number of people during that period of time due to the Covid pandemic. We have figures in there from 2021, not just from 2018. The evidence that was taken suggested that the fishing vessels that were considered to be impacted were much less than the number that you had put into the evidence paper. I know that there is a discrepancy in terms of what we've outlined here in terms of the impact and the number of vessels that some stakeholders have been impacted. That's one thing that I'm keen to take away and look at and to see why there is such a divergence of use in that, but it might be helpful if I hand over to Alan on how we accumulated that information and how that fed into the Bria process. I think that from looking at the evidence just on the flawed point, I think that that might be the reference to diving not being mentioned in the Bria. Of course, diving wasn't an exempted element beforehand, so that wouldn't represent a shift in policy, but there's been quite a lot said about the Bria not being accurate in terms of values and number of vessels and so forth. We're very keen to understand that because some of the numbers that have been suggested to us that are impacted, we don't see in our analysis, so there's two things here. Any vessel over 12m in length carries a vessel monitoring system, so our understanding of the activities of vessels who are 12m and above is 100% accurate. We know that. Vessels under 12m aren't required by law to carry that and they submit landing declarations or catch forms. On those catch forms, they have to self-declare where they caught the majority of their catch. That is recorded in our local offices and then is available to our statisticians. It seems that that's where the discrepancy lies. I don't know 100% whether what was reported to us is exactly right and therefore our figures are 100% right or whether there is some kind of breakdown in how individuals report it or if they don't break it down into various areas because lots of them move about. That's something that I've personally committed. Some of my staff to explore with the fishermen in the Clyde area to say that this is the information that we have, why can it be so different from what you're saying and if there's a reason for it, then to find that reason and fix it. Why were you not able to differentiate between the management measures for different gear type activity to protect the cod spawning? We can readily identify the different gear types. That's the location that seems to be the issue in terms of justifying how many boats operate in each area. We identify the different gear types relatively straightforward, such as scallop dredge, diving, krill, nephrop trawl, demersal trawl, pelagic, whatever it happens to be. That is straightforward. The conclusion, as you've heard earlier on this morning, was that disturbance is the point and those gear types cause disturbance and therefore would minimise the policy objective. The challenge that we're getting is that the Bria is suggesting far less activity than those in the area are claiming and we're using what has been declared to us, but we need to understand why that is different to what is being claimed. In comparison to the support that was given with furlough when businesses were shut down due to Covid pandemic regulations, that your Government gave such short notice to stakeholders that the exemptions would be removed and therefore their livelihoods would be removed. As one person described it, it would be three months without income, but it's not just that, Cabinet Secretary, because it's about the processes, it's about the hauliers, it's about the skippers' families. I can't see anywhere in this information other than the pleas from the stakeholders that the Scottish Government has taken account of the economic impact of removing those exemptions. I absolutely recognise the impact that the policy change has had. Again, I've already said about the process and how, of course, we want to learn lessons from this to ensure that we're not in the same position. I have apologised for the process in this instance that has led us to where we are. In relation to the impact, I don't think that comparing furlough to this is a fair comparison to make at all. We haven't offered compensatory measures or payments in relation to similar closures elsewhere, whether that's the North Sea Cod avoidance plan or the Inner Sound MPA. That is also a short-term closure. Of course, I recognise the impact that there is, but again, vessels can go elsewhere. I know that some regularly do too, but that's also why, with reducing the overall area by 28 per cent, we've enabled more activity to take place than would normally be the case through the closure. I'm sorry, cabinet secretary, but displacement can cause safety issues, and some fishermen cannot move, so their livelihoods are completely cut off. We've heard evidence from individuals who have had to take loans and dip into savings, and they are having to continue to pay out insurances and other costs that are associated with fishing. If your salary was removed for three months, I'm sure you would feel it. Again, I understand the impact that this can have. I may have on some fishers, but, as I say, it is a short-term measure. Throughout that time, I know that many will move. I realise that that's not necessarily the case for everyone who will have been impacted by this, but I think that, ultimately, through the closure, by achieving the policy objective that we look to set out as well, that, beyond the point of this closure, that will open up more opportunities after the period of the closure has ended. Has there been an assessment on the future financial benefit that fishermen will get for forgoing their income for 11 weeks? We don't know what the overall impact of that would be. Like I say, hopefully, with that period of closure, we will see a positive effect on that, but it's not possible for us to mark that out or what that might look like. So you are asking the fishermen to trust the Scottish Government without evidence and to put their livelihoods on the line with the future benefit? We're taking a measure here that we hope will ultimately boost the stock, but, of course, we've strengthened the objectives and the policy objectives this time round in terms of the overall protections that we're looking to put in place, but, of course, it's just not possible for us to quantify what that will look like. But, hopefully, we will see increased opportunities in the future. I'm just interested in that. You say that it might increase stocks. Rich Hamilton was referring to the fishermen that are currently in the Clyde. Is it going to increase stock of scallops or prawns or other products? What is going to be a benefit from an increase in stock? How will that benefit Clyde fishermen? We'll hopefully provide more fishing opportunities beyond the point of the closure. Fishing opportunities in what way? What fishing opportunities? Sorry, I'm confused. I'm sorry, I don't really understand why they're not yet... You said that, after the closure, that closure would bring more opportunities. What opportunities, additional opportunities, will there be for creel fishermen or scallop fishermen after the closure? Again, the overall policy objective here is about protecting spawning cod. Now, by not allowing any activity throughout that time, better protecting the areas where we believe the cod to be spawning. Now, hopefully, we will see an increase in the stock from that point, and without the fishing taking place within those closed areas, and hopefully, that would be providing more better opportunities. How many cod fishermen are in the Clyde? Do you have any idea how many cod fishermen are in the Clyde? I don't know that, Alan. I'll be interested to hear how many cod fishermen you think there is in the Clyde. So, we don't have cod fishermen, we have fishermen. There's no dedicated cod fishing in the entire west coast of Scotland. That's fine, thank you. Alasdair Allan. Thank you, convener. Obviously, the Government has moved some of the way to meet fishers' concerns. Clearly, that was, from what you're saying, motivated by a desire to mitigate impact on the industry. Is the Government open, in principle, to any other mitigations to help in the future, should the evidence merit it? Absolutely. Again, that's why we want to meet stakeholders after the period of the closure to really look at that and to see how we can move forward from here, essentially. Of course, we would be open to considering that with stakeholders. The drift of some of the questioning today, it must be said, has been suggesting that it's an unscientific act to respond to representations made to the Government. I don't know how you would respond to those accusations because, well, you give me your own view, but you seem to be indicating that responding to representations is a reasonable thing for a Government to do. I think it is. What's critical in my role is that you obviously have a lot of things to balance here. You recognise that it's people's livelihoods that are on the line. It's about balancing the socioeconomic impact with the environmental impact. Obviously, we want to make sure that we strike the right balance throughout that too. I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't listen to representations or take those on board throughout the decision-making process. That's ultimately why we've ended up where we are in relation to this SSI. Again, the process in relation to reaching this stage hasn't been the ideal way that we would like to ultimately conduct this, and it's only been through that further reflection trying to work with our stakeholders, whether it's the fisheries interests or the environmental interests, that we've reached the position that we have, which I believe has struck the right balance in terms of the socioeconomic impact, as well as meeting the policy objective of protecting spawning cod. You'll have seen from the evidence that you're taking that there's nothing about this that is, by any means, easy in reaching those decisions, but I believe that we've ended up in taking the right one with the SSI that's in front of you today. I can ask Mr Gibb and Dr Needle again returning to the precautionary principle, but thinking here of the impact it has, or it may have, on the industry and the environment. Could you say a bit more about the reasoning behind not so much the use of the precautionary principle, but what the scenario might be if the precautionary principle were not applied and that every decision waited for evidence that might never come? Can you give an indication of what you're thinking about the precautionary principle in terms of what would happen if it were not applied? I think it's relatively straightforward. If you don't consider a precautionary approach and there's a precautionary approach in the formal precautionary principle, that in the absence of today's discussions has been quite clear. There's clearly different opinions, different emphasis on evidence and what that is and various things. We're very clear on the disturbance point, but if you take a position that you can't do anything until you have imperial 100 per cent consensually agreed evidence across the board, then you wouldn't do anything. There would be no stop management. There would be no environmental management. We can't manage the stocks, what we can manage as managers, we don't manage the fish at all and often misleading concept. We managed the activities, we managed the human activity, the fishermen, whatever other activities there are. You just wouldn't manage and therefore the negatives are bound to flow from that and that would be the ultimate consequence. Dr Nidl? I don't really have anything to add to what Alan just said. If fisheries science is intrinsically uncertain, you're trying to estimate the numbers and dynamics of animals that you can't see, you have small samples on which this is the same for any fishery, this isn't just a clay cod. You have relatively small samples on which to try and base the estimation of stock dynamics, but you're still expected to or requested to provide advice to managers as how best to manage that resource. That's what we're doing. In this particular case, the information that we're using is far from the clay but it is quite clear on the spawning preference of cod and that's what we've used and that's the basis on which we have provided this advice. It's using the precautionary principle in the right way. It was just to say that in terms of the creelers not being people who catch cod, I think that they understand the issues and the reasoning behind protecting cod's spawning areas, but just because they don't catch them, I'm sure they understand that no man is an island and we're all in this trying to protect our seas and environment together. I'm sure they don't have that selfish viewpoint. I'd like to ask the cabinet secretary in terms of this, how important is it that we have these on-going dialogues with everybody and with stakeholders so that we can ensure that we all understand that this is for the greater good of our seas and for the economic environment of our coastal communities? That's absolutely vital and certainly something that I see is critical in relation to us moving forward as well. I think that in relation to the meeting that we've had to talk about the closed area, it was positive in the sense that we've had environmental stakeholders and fishers all around the table and I think it's more of the work that we would like to see is bringing people together to see how we can move forward. The environmental protection is absolutely critical. We've got to consider the socio-economic impact of the measures that we take as well, but I think that what you've raised is a really important point and one that we are committed to. I've got a number of questions and Karen Adams has just touched on one that was going to ask how I appreciate the response from the cabinet secretary. There's consideration to annul this SSI this morning and I would love to understand what the impact on the area would be if it were to be annulled. If the instrument was to be annulled then we wouldn't have the closure in place at all so we wouldn't have those protections in place for Spawning Cod and that would remove the protection that's been in place since the 14th of February. If there's no protection, what could we see happening in the area? You could see an increase in activity because the area would be reopened so that would be for trailers but as well as for the nephrops and the scallops as well. The long-term impact of having no protection for the next two years, what would that be? I mean, I notice maybe a bit hypothetical but I'm concerned that we don't have anything in place. Ultimately, what we're setting out with the policy objective that I mentioned previously is that we want to protect Spawning Cod and to try and increase the overall stock. If we didn't have the closure in place and that activity was to resume, then ultimately we could see a further impact on the stock, which so far, over the course of the closures in previous years, hasn't recovered. We want to make sure that we give the stock every best chance we can to try and recover it in the Clyde. Ultimately, the removal of the closure could put that at risk. How would that impact our fishing sector if this was an ald? Again, I think that ultimately we would see a bigger impact. Like I said, they could resume their activity so in the meantime I think that there could be over the short term less of an economic impact on fishers immediately. But again, in terms of what we're trying to do here in protecting that species, I think that's where we'd see the ultimate damage. The evidence from Mike Heath last week was compelling about the need to recover the stocks and mitigate unintended by-catch and discards. What will the cabinet secretary be doing to address this as part of the coming future catching policy? In terms of future catching policy, I think that something will be due to make announcements on that in the coming weeks, so I think that something I'd be happier to come to committee with at that point rather than going into further detail today. The regional inshore fisheries groups are required to establish a management plan for the fisheries in their patch. Does the cabinet secretary think that the west coast and Clyde management plan is sufficient to achieve a sustainable fishery? It seems not, given that the SSI is being debated is not part of that plan. So what else is needed? That's where the on-going dialogue that we have with our different stakeholders is really important in that regard. Again, I think that it's that collaboration that we want to take forward and really to monitor the effect of this closure as well and see what touches on Dr Allan's point as well about what other mitigations we might see in future and how we take that forward. I think that that's the conversation that we want to have after this period of the closure is finished so that we can assess the effectiveness and how we can move forward from there. Thank you for that response. It has been very good to hear that there's great consideration to collaboration that has been taking place and going forward and recognising that that needs to be underpinned in future activity. I've got the final question on the RFGs. Does the cabinet secretary consider that the RFGs are suitably democratic? Why are community and environmental voices not present at the meetings? Where should those voices make their arguments if not in the RFGs? What I might do is I'll just talk about some of the structures that we have in place for that at the moment, but I'd probably also touch on a point that I'd mentioned in response to Karen Adam as well. I think that one of the positive measures has been able to get all stakeholders together to discuss the closure and to assess how we can move forward from that. I think that that's something that I'm keen to do moving forward from here, but in relation to some of the other structures, I'll pass to Alan who can provide more information. Thank you. I suggest this agenda item specifically about the code box regulations. It might be helpful, given that we're short on time or we're behind time, that you're right to the committee with regard to Arianne Burgess's. I'd like to do that. I'd like to provide that further information. Thank you very much. I understand that the closure area, the latest proposal, is that that is reduced, and that will mean that all fisheries will be able to operate outside of that area, including in parts that had previously been designated a closure area. The Scottish Government commissioned research that found that better spatial management of the trawl fishery and greater access for the creel fishery in the Clyde would generate significantly better gross value added and employment opportunities. So, why hasn't spatial management been applied to the Clyde? That's an approach that we are committed to taking forward through a future fisheries management strategy as well. In relation to the Clyde closure that we have in front of us at the moment, the basis on which we took that decision was to ultimately meet our policy objective and to see where we'd ask for further advice in relation to the area to make sure that we were giving the best protection to Spawning Cod in the areas that they were more likely to be spawning to. Again, coming back to the point that I made about trying to ensure that we get that balance right between meeting our policy objectives, balancing the environmental considerations with the socio-economic considerations throughout that too, but ultimately the policy objective here is about protecting Spawning Cod, which is what we've done through this closure. Sorry, Mercedes, we'll need to move on. I'll get a supplementary from Jim Fairlie and then Alison Allen. Thank you, convener. I just apologise to my committee members, my fellow committee members and the panel. Unfortunately, my internet connection has been terrible and I have lost large chunks of the evidence session this morning. I may be asking a question that has already been asked and I do apologise if I am, but this is specifically to Dr Needle and the scientists in the committee. Cod are clearly a very sensitive animal when it comes to spawning. We have differing, competing challenges in the Cod box area. Do we actually want to save the Cod to allow the socio-economic impact not to be felt by humans, or is it better to try and find a solution in order to be saving the Cod given its sensitivity to all the other activities that have gone on around about them? I'm not quite sure that I understand the question there. You said that we want to save the Cod, but then you said that we want to save the Cod. I'm looking for the balance between the mitigations that we have to take in order to try and save the Cod against the socio-economic impacts that were being told about by the fishing community. Should we just let the Cod be fished out of existence, or do we actually want to save the Cod? I think that that's a view for society to take for myself. As a scientific advisor, my role is to provide scientific advice against any question that we're asked. If we're asked how best to protect spawning Cod, we provide that advice. If society in general decides that Cod and the Clyde are not worth saving, they're not worth the socio-economic hardship such as it is, then that's a different piece of advice that would need to be given. Scientists don't manage the fisheries, we provide advice to enable managers to manage those fisheries as best they can. That's a fair point. Everybody is telling us that we want to save the Cod, so using the precautionary principle, as has been spoken about before, that would appear to me, given the sensitivity of the animal that we're trying to save, the precautionary principle would be the one that we would have to take. Is that correct? Yes, I would argue that that is true, and also the sensitivity of the animal, and also to a certain extent the uncertainty of the information on which we're basing that decision. What I would also say is that it is a societal decision as to whether we need to save Cod or not, but that's a bit blunt. It's also true that Cod or a top predator in that area, and if you start removing too many top predators then you'll have unintended consequences further down the food chain and into the ecosystem. From that perspective, in general, it is important to try and maintain that balance between predators and prey, and Cod are key predators in that area. From a scientific perspective, personally, I would argue that we need to try to protect Cod in that area, as in other areas, but it remains a societal decision as to how much we want to do that. There should be unintended consequences of allowing the Cod to disappear in what would be available in the Cod box if the Cod were just fished out. Is that what you're saying? I think that we wouldn't necessarily be able to predict very succinctly what the consequences for the rest of the ecosystem would be. It's like if you remove any predator from a system that's going to have knock-on effects in terms of prey abundance and prey availability, so you'd need to be careful in that aspect. We've heard about the socio-economic impact on the closure. Is the Scottish Government going to offer any compensation to the individuals who were unable to fish during the closure? Although it's a short-term measure, as you've already said, people's livelihoods are on the line. As I said in a previous response, we haven't been looking to that. That's consistent with other measures that we've taken in other areas. We've prevented activity from taking place, such as with the North Sea Cod avoidance plan. It's also consistent with the inner sound NPA where we've prevented any activity from taking place, so we're not looking to introduce compensation. Thank you, convener. It's returning to the point that Dr Needle mentioned. He says that it's perhaps for others to decide whether we seek to save a species, but he hinted at consequences. We haven't talked very much today about the ecosystem or biodiversity, so I wonder whether yourself or Mr Gibb can say anything about any modelling that's been done of impacts on the wider ecosystem on the Firth of Clyde where there's not to be cod spawning there. Perhaps Coby can come on and whether there's been any modelling done just on the fishing, the cod out point. To an extent, it's just a subtle question, but we've got a legal regulatory obligation to manage fish stocks that are at low biomass to try and recover those stocks to a healthy element. That's what we do across a number of things, based on advice from Isys that Coby mentioned. It's a management decision and you're interfering in nature, you're interfering in the environment. I recall when the North Sea cod stock was in a perilous position, there were calls for banning of nephrop fishing so that there was lots of nephrops for the cod to eat, so they got more food and help than to recover. We didn't do that because there's a balance of activities. I'm not a scientist, but it's reasonable to expect that if you fish to extinction or depletion a stock, particularly a main top-level predator stock, you're going to change the natural order in that sea basin or that area somehow. Who knows whether that would be good or bad, but I'm personally not particularly comfortable about giving up on anything. We should be trying our best to support and enhance and recover, but Coby will know if there's actual modelling on that. So there are certainly models that we're developing, colleagues of mine and Marine Scotland Science, on the west coast ecosystem, determining what the likely consequences of that sort of action would be. Specific to the Clyde, I think that you'd be better addressing that question to Professor Heath from last week. He would be leading on that work and would know more about specific details there. I should say that I'm content with the model for the west of Scotland, so if you want to speak about that, I'm happy to hear about that. As I say, it's one of my colleagues in Aberdeen who's leading on that. It's not something that I'm particularly... It's a model that's in development, so it's not something that we're using in terms of providing advice yet. It's quite difficult to do so. ISIS in Copenhagen have been going through this process for a number of years now. They tend to provide advice on single stocks at a time, so mostly cod, west coast cod, et cetera, but they are finding it much more difficult to develop ecosystem-based advice. This is just a general feature of marine science. It's relatively straightforward to provide advice for single stocks. It's much more difficult when you start to consider all the interacting features of an ecosystem. Those are models that are in development. I wouldn't be in a position to speak in detail about them right now because, as I say, they're still being developed. I think that's where we are. What I would say, though, is that if you start removing top predators, you're removing a key part of the commercial fishery. In my experience with these things, you will tend to end up with roughly similar biomass at the end of that process, but it may well be biomass that is not particularly palatable to humans, for example. There are areas where you end up—if you fish down the top predators, you end up with a lot of jellyfish, for example, which is not something that there will be a big market for in this country, at least. That's why we need to be careful. We need to try to maintain a natural order and predator-prey relationships where possible, given that humans are one of the key predators in any marine ecosystem. We just have to factor those things in. Just before we move on to Cabinet Secretary, you suggested that there was just a short-term impact on local fishers. There would be no compensation. You compared it to some cod closures in the North Sea. That is completely different. We have heard from one fisherman who will have to move 430 creels from the area for a 11-week period. Given the normal size of a creel boat, they are not able to fish as extensively as they might wish to do. They have to keep to inshore waters or whatever. Moving a large quantity of creels at risk of the stability of the vessels, risks and cap size, putting the lives of those fishermen at risk. 11 weeks are not only without income, because, once again, I do not think that I could survive losing my income for 11 weeks. It just would not happen. It could not happen at all, but when we hear your Government talking about a just transition for the oil industry to look at the impact of climate change, whatever a just transition for our farmers, why should coastal communities who are already feeling the pinch from this, cannot just get up and move? We have got coastal communities where families already have no income because of the U-turn on a policy. Why cannot you consider compensating those families and saving their livelihoods and potentially saving the economic sustainability of our rural and coastal communities? Again, I would say that it is consistent with other closures that we have introduced elsewhere. Of course, in the closure, we have reduced the overall size of it by 28 per cent, along with some of that activity to take place. It is for a period of 11 weeks, too, which is why that has not been considered. 11 weeks is okay to lose all your income. I am not saying that that is okay. Again, that is why we undertake the impact assessments that we do to try to assess what the overall impact of that is going to be, but again, it is consistent with measures that we have introduced in other closures, too, which is why it has not been considered. Fishermen should be considering a different way from oil workers or farmers when they are trying to do their best. I am not saying that at all. I have already reiterated and made that point in relation to other closures that we have introduced where we have prevented similar activity from taking place. We have not provided compensation in those instances. We have reduced the overall size of the closure, and it is for that short-term period, until 30 April. You have said in your previous answers that you have been listening to the stakeholders, the scientists, the fishers and the environmentalists, and you have also said that you have acknowledged different positions on that. You then took action according to their views and evidence. I am interested if you could emphasise what lessons you would draw from that process and also look to apply in the future. I have definitely quite a few lessons from that. It was hard, obviously, to read the evidence and to hear the evidence that was taken about a lack of trust that is there. Obviously, that is something that I am keen to rebuild. The approach throughout this has not been ideal in terms of our work with stakeholders and the co-management process that we normally strive to have and work to achieve. There has traditionally been a strong collaboration with our different stakeholders. Those are certainly the lessons that I would be taking away from that. There were a number of different impacts that meant that we were very much constrained in time in relation to dealing with that, which is why we have ended up in the situation that we are in. The meeting that we hoped to have with stakeholders after the closures so that we can assess the impact of that. I would really hope to take from that foster greater collaboration and make sure that we learn the lessons from that process so that we are not in a similar situation. That is something that I will definitely be taking away from that. I look forward to that increased collaboration and further collaboration with our stakeholders. Mr Gibb, you mentioned earlier that you are doing a piece of work looking at the records of the boats, the vessels that you have and discussing with the stakeholders, the fishers, how you would like to marry the two up. Can you expand a bit more on that, please? On that particular element, it is just recognising that through the consultation, through the challenges back in the BIA and some of the evidence that has come forward, that there were assertions made about the level of activity that we just simply did not recognise from our data. One of the judgments that we have—it is quite clear from this committee—one of the judgments that the cabinet secretary takes is the overall socioeconomic impact of that versus the importance of protecting the cod and so forth. I am concerned if there is a huge discrepancy and I need to understand why that would be the case. It is about doing that or how records are completed. It is about helping fishermen to get them done properly. If it is about many Scotland not recording it properly, then to fix that, I genuinely do not know what the answer is. That is one part. The lesson for me, the head of sea fisheries, is that we have to do a formal consultation and there is a legal obligation. That gives you polarised views and often does not really help, but there are camps. Those camps sometimes do not understand why other people take different views. For me, we need to make a step change in how we do that. There is going to be competing challenges across the whole marine environment for space across a number of areas. That is not a one-off. We already have lots of closed areas, hence the consistency approach for the conversation. However, there needs to be a step change not just on the formal consultation but getting all the voices in one room. No lobbying, no throwing brickbats at each other, get people in the one room—something that I can facilitate—so that I do not expect them all to agree with everybody, but at least understand where other people are coming from in the impacts and get voices. We have lots of positive examples of that working in other areas. Hopefully, we can come to some kind of compromise consensual approach that is fit for purpose. That process will not allow a V2 of a Government that has to govern, but, for me, that is the step change that is required. It sounds like that is pulling all the different voices together, so you get a much more balanced approach to advise Governments as to what policy should be. I am very pleased to hear that. What has overall been clear today is that Scotland's marine environment is one of the country's greatest treasures, and it is right that we continue to take robust steps to ensure that it remains a prized asset for future generations. However, that can often be quite complex in terms of getting the balance right between competing interests and potential tensions. Do you think that there has been a reasonable level of recognition of the complexity involved in taking those decisions when carefully balancing between environmental, social and economic interests by using the best available evidence that you have at this time? Protect marine species while also allowing fishing activity? I think that, just as Alan Hudd alluded to, that is probably what you have been able to see yourself as a committee through the discussion on this, is just the sheer range of different views and the competing and complex issues that we have to try to balance when we are taking those decisions. However, I think that what Alan Hudd had just set out in terms of moving forward and where we need to see that step change, that is what is going to be really critical moving forward because this is one difficult area that we are looking at today. There will be more of that to come in the future with various other measures that we are looking to introduce. Ensuring that we get the foundations of that right is going to be critical going forward. I will take you back to the co-management that you mentioned, cabinet secretary. It was thought that co-management was at the gold standard and that was from evidence that we took. However, we heard that fishing families want to be able to feed into the process, not accepting last-minute policies and compromises that they do not understand and fear because they fear that not accepting them might lead to something worse. Are you aware of the culture of fear that exists in the so-called gold standard of management? I would not want there to be that or people to be scared to have that fear about the process at all. That is not where we want to be. We want to have the gold standard of co-management. We want to engage people who are impacted by those decisions and all the various different interests that are represented in that too. That is absolutely critical for us. If there are points that they can try to address and learn lessons from this process in particular, that is what I said, we are absolutely keen to address that and make sure that we learn lessons from that because it is that gold standard of co-management that we will be looking to aim to achieve. Would you accept that the accusation that you have put the Bute house agreement before fishermen and their livelihood and their families is true? I would not say that that is true. As I said, there has been a variety of different factors that fed into that and the change of position that we have taken and ultimately leading to the SSI that is before the committee today. I do think that ultimately listening to all those different points of view, going over the science and the evidence that we have available, we have reached the best outcome that provides the ultimate, well it reaches the policy objective of giving enhanced protection to Spawning Cod as well as trying to balance those other interests too. Finally, convener, I wonder if you could provide the committee with detail of all the public funded organisations that campaigned for the removal of the exemptions within those stakeholder inputs. We have heard today about the financial impacts of closures and I do not doubt at all that those are real. Obviously, many of us represent fishing communities around this table and will be familiar with the fact that the main issues that people bring to us from those communities are around the financial impacts on businesses and families and individuals caused by the difficulties that have been in accessing European markets and the difficulties that have been both in fishing and in fish processing and finding a workforce. Where do some of the issues that we are talking about today fit into the Scottish Government's response to the realities of Scotland being dragged out of the EU? I recognise that this comes on the back of what has been a really challenging time for people, let you say, the loss of EU markets and the impacts of that, which have been stark and in terms of the labour issues too. I have met Dr Allan and some of your constituents to talk about some of those issues. We recognise that. We have talked through the process of how we reach the decision and the different financial information that is taken into account when we are looking at decisions such as this, but undoubtedly this has been a particularly difficult time for the industry because of some of the other issues that you have outlined. The only thing that I would add to that is that you are too polite to have mentioned the word, but the word of Lizley is Brexit and that is what has had a real impact on those communities. Thank you, convener. I move on to Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener. Obviously this discussion is all about the Clyde card box, but I wonder if you could tell us what consideration has been given to wider spawning grounds when deciding on offshore wind areas. I do not expect you to answer that today, but perhaps we could get something in a written response. Yes. I think that that touches on some of the difficult and complex decisions that we will have to take in moving forward in balancing the interests here too. Thank you very much, convener. Thank you, convener. Can everybody hear me? Yes. Yes, thank you. I'm sorry, I'm working very remotely from a phone, so this is quite tricky. I was saying that notwithstanding that there are undoubtedly huge pressures on the fishing community right now, and as Dr Allan just mentioned, Brexit will be one of the biggest ones, but we've already established in the earlier questioning that the right thing to do is to try and save the cod from an ecological point of view in order to make sure that we don't take out a top predator. With that decision being made, we have to take action to do it. I don't know if you were included in it, but during the week or last week, all of the members of this committee were tagged in a Twitter thread. They were competing interests in the cod box area, and I'll politely say that they were talking to each other on Twitter. I'm being less polite. I would say that they were like ferrets in a sack because they simply cannot agree on anything as far as I can see. Now, maybe there's something that I'm missing because I'm not in a coastal community, I don't know, but there seems to be a huge diversion and difference of opinions on what's the right way to go in order to protect individual species and individual industries. How do the Government manage all of these competing factions where some folk want no fishing, others don't want their own sector protected but they're not too worried about others? How does the Government be the guy in the middle and find the solutions to make sure that all of these interests are protected? Before you answer that, can we try and stick to the cod box perspective and what we're discussing today rather than spreading it a little bit wider, given the technical strengths? I'm absolutely talking about the cod box. What I'm talking about is the pressure that families are feeling across their industry. They don't care where the problems come from, they just know that they've got a problem. I'm very much sticking to the cod box people, which is where the basis of my question went. We obviously have to try and manage that as best as we possibly can. I'm dependent on the advice that I receive, the likes of the advice from Dr Needle, as well as speaking to people and listening to the different representations that we've heard. That's where it is. You are ultimately trying to take the best decision, the best decision in relation to trying to reach the policy objective and protecting and hopefully increasing the biomass of the stock, but then recognising that there are also socioeconomic consequences to that and trying to balance that as best you possibly can, which I think is what we have achieved with the SSI that's in front of the committee today by reducing the area and allowing more of that activity to take place while ultimately protecting the spawning cod. With that in mind, cabinet secretary, I don't know if I've heard this earlier on or not, but you've got to find the balance for all those competing sectors. Does that mean that you are going to consult in the coming year for looking at 2023? Will you be able to get everybody in the room to be able to smash out those problems? I would just come back on the point that Alan Gipp had made earlier about lessons that we're looking to learn from this process and making sure that we get all the different interests and perspectives in the room so that we can so that hopefully everybody can ultimately try and understand the different positions and so that we can try and find a way forward and I think that that's a positive action that we can take away from this. Mercedes Villalba, finally. Thank you very much. This is, hopefully, a straightforward yes or no question that I'd like Mr Geir, cabinet secretary and Dr Neil to each answer. Is it your view that trawling and dredging has a higher environmental impact than crewing and diving? They do have a different impact and I hope that that's not something we've tried to say, that they all have exactly the same impact. In relation to the cod box, all activity has been prohibited from taking place because any impact has the potential to impact on spawning cod, which is why all of these have been stopped throughout the period of disclosure. Is that it? Mr Geir, but Dr Neil, do you agree? I would agree with the cabinet secretary about if we keep on focus about the cod box, about disturbance, but in answer to your basic question, then yes, mobile activity has a larger impact than some other activities. Thank you. Yes, I would agree in terms of particularly benfic disturbance, the disturbance of the seabed. So just a very quick follow-up based on that, can you explain the decision when the closure area was reduced? Why is it that the area outside of the new closure area, but that fell within the original closure area, this kind of, this border, why is it that all fishing has been treated equally within that border, all activity? Even within the claw studio? On what basis was the decision made when you reduce the closure area to make it smaller? The area that falls outside that, but that was part of the original area. On what basis was the decision made to allow all fishing to take place in that area? That was because of the disturbance point that I talked about there, and that's why all activity was prevented within those areas. In the new area, but outside all fishing is now allowed, but in an area that was originally designated as the closure area, now it's been reduced, but what you had previously thought ought to be, having all fishing activity excluded, now what everything is allowed, why hasn't there been any variation between different types of activity? I don't think that's right, we looked at the existing closure, that remains, it hasn't been reduced other than a section in the middle of it, 28 per cent that has been left open. We haven't changed the boundaries anywhere else just a bit that's been open. The part that's closed, it hasn't reduced, it's the right area, the parts that are closed, it's closed to everybody because that's called can or may spawn there for habitat and for the disturbance point. The bit that's remained open within the original closure was a reflection by the Scottish Government and that's because we have a high degree of belief, if not certainty, that there won't be any spawning cod in that area because of the habitat and so far that's proven, the monitoring so far has proven that to be the case. So the precautionary approach hasn't been applied at all in that 28 per cent that you've taken out, there's no precautionary approach there, that's just a free parole for any type of activity? No, not at all, it's entirely precautionary, so for example, this is precautionary in relation to the policy, this isn't precautionary in relation to fishing, mobile or otherwise, this is about protecting the spawning cod and I think convener that's been part of the challenge in this process about getting everybody to stay on focus about what the objective was, it's not about types of fishing or so forth. The bit that's open is precautionary in the sense of spawning cod won't be there, actually it's only mud, there won't even be scallops there, there'll be no scallop dredging there, there'll only be nephrops there, it's a nephrop habitat, it's not for scallops, it's not for spawning cod and it's very precautionary in the evidence in its approach. Yeah, for some clarification. Can I get clarification on that 28 per cent area that you've discussed? Was that area previously closed? Yes, but with exemptions. Well, rest my case. Sorry, I do apologise, but I find this entirely inconsistent. That area was previously included, you yourself said that there isn't much evidence that you've got about the Clyde, about that area, yet you've taken it out. So on the one hand we're hearing it is because of representations made and I accept that, but it's not based on the science and I think we just should be honest about that. So it is, so what I said was it was, so the entire area was closed with exemptions that permitted nephrop trawlers, scallop dredgers and crealers to fish in some areas. The evidence that we're using suggests that any disturbance, including by those methods, is detrimental to the spawning activities. The area that has been left remained open is science-based because it's mud habitat. Spawning cod won't be there, therefore there is no need to close that area. But it was closed previously, based on the same science. It wasn't based on the same science. There's new science. Well, we're looking at the best available science we've got now. The original closure was done based on a collaboration with the Government and industry as to what would be the right place to close. But there is no new science. We're being far more directive to deliver the maximum protection. And that was part of the extra advice that we'd asked for. I sought that information from Dr Needill in terms of looking again at the closure and really asking that question. Are we closing off the correct areas and are we prohibiting the right the correct fishing measures within that closure as well? I entirely accept that, but what I want is a degree of transparency about where it's risk-based, where it's new science and where it's just because you've been lobbied by other stakeholders. I think that's important information, otherwise you could be in a position where you could be destroying livelihoods and you could be protecting the wrong area, which would be a disaster in everybody's book. I think that that certainly opens up some questions about what additional evidence, scientific-based evidence, was introduced between order number one and order number two. I've got one very final, very short question from Jim Fairlie and then we'll need to move on. My question has been answered, convener. Thank you very much for staying with us for this extended period. We really appreciate it, as you can understand. There's a lot of questions to be asked. We now move on to our next agenda item today, which relates to Rachel Hamilton's motion S6M-03543, which is asking the committee to agree to recommend that the sea fish prohibition on fishing forth of Clyde Order 2022, SSI 2022-35, be annulled. I will invite Rachel to set out her reasons for lodging the motion under this agenda item. The cabinet secretary will have an opportunity to comment and may bring in her officials if necessary. Please note that there will be debating the motion formally at agenda item 3. Thank you, convener, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to explain the reason for annulling the motion. The further Clyde closures is a yearly expected event that fishermen have supported since its initial implementation to ensure sustainability. Fishermen have supported this not only for their livelihoods but to encourage the sustainability of the cod and other fish in their fishing areas so that that tradition can continue. However, this year is different with there being no exemptions for any fisherman, meaning that those who would normally continue to have some income now have none. Elaine White of the Clyde Fisheries Association spoke to this committee last week. She told us how the removal of the exemptions is detrimentally impacting the fishermen who are proud to call the furth of Clyde their home waters. She said that fishermen are having to find other sources of income as they simply have no other alternatives, and according to other witnesses, the Scottish Government did not follow the business and regulatory impact assessment guidance for policy officials. Last Thursday, in response to my colleague Jackson Carlaw MSP, the cabinet secretary said that she listened to the voices of industry, but it appears that the reality of the situation is much different to what was said in the chamber. The committee will be aware that fishermen are struggling to find any source of income now, and they were told bluntly by the cabinet secretary that there would be no financial help or compensation forthcoming from the Scottish Government. Again, to quote a witness, seemingly, need jerk reactions without consultation or evidence concluded that there was no need for compensation. At a time when living costs are rising, we cannot afford to abandon our fishing communities as this Government is doing. The removal of the exemptions result in reduced income for vessel crews and have a knock-on effect on the livelihoods of families and the coastal communities that some people in this room I can imagine represent. I would urge members to think of the evidence that we have heard. Imagine yourself in the position of the fishermen left without work for 11 weeks, forced to operate in unsafe surroundings and conditions, or even worse, not in a position to move elsewhere. The truth is that this Scottish Government did not consult fishermen properly. Elspeth Macdonald from the Scottish Fisherman's Federation suggested that, given the outcome, the consultation document misled industry and effectively placed it in a false sense of security without providing any real opportunity to argue against the removal of the exemptions. The committee heard that stakeholders had insufficient warning about changes to proposals and there was a lack of stakeholder engagement in advance of the announcement to remove existing exemptions. Furthermore, stakeholders said that there was a lack of collaborative working from the Scottish Government. Worryingly, stakeholders did not have equal access to information that others did. I suggest that this was not a level playing field. Consultation responses were only published at the end of January 2022, which was after two orders had been made. That is a serious lack of transparency in the decision-making process. The committee should be worried about what we have heard today and in the past from witnesses. I have been motivated to annul the order today because bad regulation cannot be the cornerstone of this Scottish Parliament. The Bute House agreement has been raised as a concern. The committee has a duty to hold the SNP green collaboration to account. We cannot allow this badly executed process, which is clearly detrimental to Clyde Fisherman, impacting on socio-economic, environmental, safety and proportionality go by. Ultimately, each and every one of us should heed the warnings from our witnesses of the Scottish Government's decision-making process. As was said by Simon MacDonald at committee, if you want to hear from a conservationist, ask a fisherman. Because their livelihood and their future, as well as their family's future, depend on it, this is something that this Government has failed to do. I want to finish by echoing the words of Elaine White, which perfectly summarises my decision to lodge a motion to annul. We are moving to managing fisheries by campaigning, as opposed to by data, science and process, which sets a very worrying precedent. I believe that colleagues should consider supporting my motion to annul, and I thank you. I would like to start by reiterating some of what I have already said earlier throughout the session today. I know that you have all heard across sections of stakeholders that you have heard a very diverse range of views, and I have already talked in the session about the complexity of this issue, and I think that the evidence that you have heard outlines that. It is a really difficult situation to find a solution, and it is actually impossible in this case to find a solution that would make everyone equally happy. As the Cabinet Secretary, who is responsible for fisheries management protection, it is my job, when I was responding to Jim Fairleys' question, to really take on board and try to balance all the different and the competing interests, no matter how well intentioned those interests are. Rachel Hamilton talked about some of the comments that I made in response to Jackson Carlaw last week, and I said in that response to his parliamentary question that responsible fisheries management means ensuring that we get the right balance between socio-economic and environmental outcomes. I believe, as I said earlier, that in this case we have done that by ensuring that we have the right and we have the increased protections in place for Spawning Cod, while also ensuring that fishing can continue to take place in surrounding areas. I know that the committee has also heard a variety of different scientific opinions about what constitutes protection, but on the advice of Dr Needle, the chief fisheries adviser for Scotland, we are applying the precautionary approach on minimising the disturbance of the seabed during the spawning period in the known spawning area, and that is the fundamental objective here, and I think that it is important that we don't lose sight of that. I said in my opening comments, I have also said throughout this session as well, that the process that has led up to this SSI being laid before you and in making this SSI is not ideal by no means, but I firmly stand by the decision of the closure and believe that we are doing the right thing to ultimately contribute to the protection of Spawning Cod. I have outlined the next steps that Marine Scotland is going to be taking. Alan has also talked about monitoring and compliance, and we will be meeting with stakeholders after the closure ends this year to hear their thoughts on how it works. We will, of course, as we have talked about today, look to learn lessons on how the processes can be improved, but ensuring that the closure was in place for 14 February until the end of April was the right decision, and that was ultimately our number one priority here. I do hope that Rachael Hamilton would consider withdrawing her motion, but failing that, the committee will not support it. I will now move on to agenda item 3, which is a formal consideration of the motion to a null. I would ask Rachael Hamilton to speak to and move the motion S6M-03543 that the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee recommends that the seafish prohibition on fishing forth of Clyde, order 2022, SSI 2022, slash 35, be annulled. I thank you for giving me this opportunity, and I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary had to say. I believe that my arguments are even more justified to annull this motion, because I do not feel that the cabinet secretary or Marine Scotland today have justified the actions of the Scottish Government. I believe that the process is utterly botched. I think that there has been a complete lack of evidence, there is a lack of engagement, fishermen are fearful and questions need to be asked about the intent of the Bute House agreement, which seems, in my mind, to be behind what has happened here in this absolutely devastating impact to the fishermen on the Clyde. I move the motion in my name. Would any members like to speak in this debate? I am not sure how everything works, but I will say what I think. I do not feel that this has been done fairly. I would like to see the Government go away, rethink it and bring it back, if that is an option, if we need to annull it in order for that to happen. On balance, I would support that, because I am concerned about the evidence base. I am supportive of a precautionary approach, but that needs to be in balance with economic factors and livelihoods, and I just do not think that the Government has got the balance right on this. During committee, I have been looking at the research papers that were cited, and I am not even able to see this thing about the five to ten metres above the seabed that seems to be based on tidal activity rather than fishing. I just do not feel that in the round that this is the right approach. I would support the motion to annull it in order for that to happen. I am only getting bits and pieces of this conversation. I urge you to get the fishing communities into the room to talk to each other about what is needed to be done for next year. I will not support the motion to annull it, because I think that the precautionary principle is correct in trying to protect the cod stocks. We have heard from every stakeholder that they want to see the cod stocks protected, but I would say that there are clearly issues with the process, and if that can be improved, then great, but I will not support the motion to annull at this point. I think that we all agree that this has been a botched approach and that there is no credit to Marine Scotland or the Scottish Government in how it has been handled. Fishermen's livelihoods are not about one individual, either. We have all heard the evidence. We have also heard that in the past 20 years, the cod has not recovered, so there is an imbalance there in understanding how the new approach is going to make any difference. I am finding this one extremely difficult. I was staying quiet because I do not have a vote in this, as somebody who is not a member of the committee. My opening position is that I share the ambition to protect cod stocks, but I think that the way that this has been done has led to a lack of confidence in Marine Scotland's thinking and evidential base, and that has harmed the debate. There is a lack of specific evidence about the Clyde, and I think that that has been acknowledged by everybody, and that is something that is being rectified. I welcome that, but it is the case that cod and the Clyde are different. Juveniles occupy shallow coastal habitats in the west coast, whereas they occupy offshore banks in the North Sea. Their behaviours are different, and we have not taken the time to understand that. I understand a risk-based approach, but what we are trying to do—what you appear to be trying to do as the Government—is muddle both evidential and risk-based approaches, because the evidence in relation to the Clyde is simply not there. I am genuinely worried that we are excluding areas that we previously thought were important to include based on the evidence on discussion debate. I genuinely do not know, so we are at risk of taking away people's livelihoods, but we might not be protecting the areas that we need to protect. On that basis, I would genuinely ask if the cabinet secretary would withdraw that and bring it back, because I think that we shared the ambition of protecting the cod stocks, but to do it properly. I am afraid that that exercise has not been done properly on this occasion. My comments—this process, as the cabinet secretary has admitted, has been flawed from the start, and I believe that it is still flawed at the finish. The unprecedented numbers of responses were in regards to the first order that was laid. The subsequent very short timescale before order number two was laid is of concern and there is a lack of transparency over what factors contributed to the orders being changed. We have heard of concerns about the scientific evidence, data collection and monitoring, concerns over the lack of appreciation of the impact of the closures on socio-economic environmental safety and about the proportionality. Indeed, one fisherman suggested that the comment about a short-term impact on local fishers was almost a flippant attitude to the economic impact. Given the new bute house agreement, that is not going to be the last type of order that we see in front of us. On that basis, there needs to be some recognition that, along with other sectors, whether that is oil and gas, transport or farming, there is a recognition that a transition to a more sustainable way of fishing needs to be compensated or supported in some way, and there is a complete lack of appreciation of the impact as those fishers try to do the best to produce and create sustainable fisheries. On that basis, I will be supporting the motion to annul. I think that protecting the future of cod fisheries from the evidence that I have heard today is paramount, and I agree with the precautionary approach. I will not be supporting the motion to annul, but we must get all voices in the room, which I think that you have indicated that you are planning to do going forward. Assessing the closure after this period of time is important to do, and I also would like to see something that has come to me very strongly in the course of these evidence sessions and other ones that we have been taking around the marine space. There is a lack of resource for an increasing amount of responsibility for marine Scotland, so that needs to be reviewed and ensured that we have the right resource for data gathering and monitoring. We understand the spatial issues, the spawning issues and whatever issues that we need to understand so that we have fisheries for the future. What we are talking about here and what we are trying to do for the long term is to ensure that people who need to fish to make a living will have fish 20 or 100 years from now. We are taking the right approach with the precautionary approach, and we are looking for a long-term impact. I will not be supporting the motion to annul today. After all the evidence that I have heard so far, I feel that I am in favour of protecting the cod's spawning grounds for future generations, for the future sustainability of fishing for coastal communities. I understand that there are some competing views on that, and I think that the Scottish Government has been reflective on the way that this has been done, and I am glad that it is going to have discussions on that to go on forward. I am glad that Rachael Hamilton is concerned about the welfare and wellbeing and socio-economic implications for fishing in coastal areas. I hope that we will see more of that. The long-term implications for our fishing in coastal communities, representing one myself, is Brexit and the rising cost of living. At this moment in time, adding an environmental disaster on top of that and reducing the potential amount of cod numbers for our future generations is going to be too big of an impact that I can support. I will not be supporting that today. I have found this process incredibly difficult. I represent Argyllyn but, which is one of the constituencies that is impacted by this decision. I have thought long and hard about that. I have spoken to all the communities that are impacted. I clearly think that we have to ensure that we strike the right balance, sustainability of the stocks and sustainability of the communities. Given what the Government in Marine Scotland has done since in relation to the process, it could have been better, but there has been a listening to what stakeholders have said. I agree entirely with what my colleague Ariane Burgess has said about ensuring that we continue to pull the right people around the table and listen to them. I appreciate that there are polarised views, but we have to come to some agreement and strike the right balance to ensure the sustainability of, as I said, both the fish and the communities. I will vote against the annulment. Have any other members got any points to raise? Minister, can I ask you to respond to those points? I believe that a lot of the comments that I have covered in my previous remarks, but I understand where Mercedes Villalba is coming from in relation to some of the points that she has raised, but I agree to annul the SSI that is before the committee today removes all protections that are there. I just really want to re-emphasise that point. As I said previously, I recognise the committee members' points about the process and absolutely we want to make sure that we learn the lessons from that going forward. Cabinet Secretary, would you take an intervention on that comment? I presume that, if this was to be annulled, the Scottish Government, if it were to do the right thing, would be to look at laying another instrument. Would that not be the case, or are you suggesting that, if this was to be annulled, you would just walk away from protecting cod altogether? Of course we wouldn't want to do that, but that's what the committee would essentially be allowing to happen if the SSI was annulled. If there was more work to be done, obviously that's going to take time, which means that there isn't that protection in place, which is during the spawning time, which is for a short window of time as it is. That just means that the protections aren't in place for that. Again, those are the points that essentially I've covered in my previous remarks, and that's what I would just draw to a close in highlighting that to the committee. I now invite Rachel Hamilton to wind up. I thank you to committee members for setting out their stall. We do want to protect cod stocks, of course we do, and so do fishermen, and they call themselves conservationists. We know that. I'm really disappointed that some colleagues don't consider this seriously enough. I just think that they're getting in behind the Government on this, and I think that it's a spineless approach of back benches particularly. I'm afraid that I have to call out my colleague Jenny Minto, who called for compensation for her constituents in January over this. I'm sorry that your Government, Jenny, don't support you and your constituents on that particular issue, and that's just regretful. I think that it's absolutely imperative that the Cabinet Secretary takes our concerns at face value. I'm going to continue with this annulment. However, this is urgent, and the Government must come back to the table with urgency with new proposals. I know that this will fail today because I won't have the numbers behind me because they're stacked up against me, because the back benches on the SNP side will support the Government on this, and that is regretful. However, I urge you to come back with new proposals and a review urgently, Cabinet Secretary. Is it a point of order? It's entirely parliamentary for members on this committee to describe each other as spineless. I've got no comment to make on that. The question is that motion S6M-03543, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We are in a hybrid meeting, so I will now go to a vote, and I would ask members who are attending virtually to vote via the chat function. Members who are in the committee room can raise their hands, and please keep your hand raised while the clerk records your vote. Can I ask members in favour of the motion and attending remotely to put a yes in the chat box now and members who are present in the room to raise your hand? Can I ask members who are voting against the motion and attending remotely to put a no in the chat box now and members who are present in the room to raise their hands? Can I ask any member who wishes to abstain and who are attending remotely to put a abstain in the chat box now and members who are present in the room to raise their hand? The number of votes supporting the motion is two, the number of votes opposing the motion is five, and the number of votes abstaining is two. The motion is therefore not carried. The committee must now produce a report on this draft instrument as the committee content to delegate responsibility to myself to sign off this report on behalf of the committee. This will be a brief factual report, which was linked to last week's and this week's official report. We now move to agenda item 4, which is to ask if any member has any comment on this instrument. Please raise your hand or type R in the chat box if participating remotely. The paper sets out some options for us to follow in this issue, in particular in relation to the joint fishery statement, which we will consider on 23 March. Any future related inquiry work, and particularly when the instrument for next year's fishing ban is laid, are members agreed to follow up the issue raised in the SSI in the future area for working programme content? At this point, I thank the cabinet secretary and our governor officials for attending today. Our third item of business today is consideration of the ivory prohibitions civil sanctions regulation 2022. I refer members to paper 3 on page 25. Under the protocol between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, this consent notification has been categorised as type 1, meaning that the Scottish Parliament agreement is sought before the Scottish Government gives consent to the UK Government making secondary legislation and devolved competence. Does any member have any comments on this consent notification? Please raise your hand or type R in the chat box if participating remotely. Is the committee content that the provision set out in the notification should be included in the proposed UKSI? Please raise your hand or type No in the chat box if you do not agree, otherwise I presume that members are content. We are content. That concludes our business in public. We will now move to private session and we will be meeting on teams at 11.30.