Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, that is something that we must consider as part of the decision-making process. If we were to prioritise that area, we would need to consider what other area to deprioritise.

I return to the point that Allan Gibb made. We know that there are gaps in some of the scientific evidence. However, in terms of our policy objective, the evidence is strong on the point about disturbance.

I am not sure that I understand the question.

I was looking at the areas where cod are most likely to spawn. I am reliant on the evidence that I receive from people such as Dr Needle in that regard. That is why we reached our conclusion and, ultimately, ended up reducing the overall area by 28 per cent.

Yes. We have already committed to collaborating with stakeholders and coming together after the closure this year to assess its effectiveness and to see how we can move forward.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak about the seasonal closure in the Firth of Clyde. I appreciate that it has elicited really strong feelings, and I welcome the call for evidence that the committee put out as well as the opportunity to pick up the legitimate concerns with you.

The long-standing seasonal closure aims to provide an area of protection for cod during their spawning season, from 14 February to 30 April. Since its introduction, in 2001, the Scottish statutory instrument has included exemptions to allow nephrops trawlers, creelers and scallop dredgers to continue to use the area, due to the low numbers of cod that they catch.

We initially intended to continue those exemptions for 2022 and 2023, and we laid an SSI to that effect. However, on further reflection, we considered that the 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 sea bed 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 the exemptions to increase the chances of boosting the west of Scotland cod stock. However, we recognise that removing the exemptions will have a short-term effect on fishers. We have listened to the concerns of stakeholders and, on the basis of scientific evidence, we have made the closure more targeted, reducing its overall size by 28 per cent compared with 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 reflects our commitment to protecting the spawning cod while, at the same time, mitigating potential socioeconomic impacts on our vulnerable coastal communities.

I accept that the process around the closure has been far from ideal, and I sincerely apologise for that. On this occasion, our approach 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 in which this closure has been managed. Nevertheless, 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.

Going forward, 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 Sea Fish (Prohibition on Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) (No 2) Order 2022 SSI was laid on 1 February, and I hope that the committee can support it. I am happy to take any questions that members might have. I draw the committee’s attention to my letter and the submission from Dr Coby Needle, the chief fisheries adviser for Scotland, who is here today and is also happy to take questions.

As I highlighted in my opening statement, I absolutely accept that the process has been far from ideal in this case and is not the normal means by which we would like to engage or make decisions. However, ultimately, we have ended up in the right place when it comes to the decision that has been taken and the SSI that has been laid.

As you will have seen from the evidence—both written and oral—that you have received, the issue is very complex and there are lots of different perspectives. We have done our best to base the decision on the best scientific evidence that is available to us and to take into consideration the precautionary principle.

The decision is not political. It is only right that anyone in a position such as mine takes the opportunity to reflect—which is why the initial decision was changed and why another SSI was laid—and to listen to the many different perspectives of the many stakeholders who are involved. We have laid this SSI in order to take account of their different perspectives and 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. It is important that we took the time to reflect on and undertake the work on that, to make sure that we were ultimately achieving the policy objective, which is to protect spawning cod. It is only right that we did that.

Yes.

I do not agree with that assertion at all. If members look back to the results from the consultations that we held between September and October and between October and November, they will see that there were strong representations in them, and the overwhelming majority wanted the exemptions to be removed in their entirety. It is important that we take all those views into consideration, but I go back to what I said earlier. I believe that the position that we have reached meets the policy objective and strengthens the objective of protecting spawning cod by removing potential disturbance to the areas in which we believe the cod are spawning, while balancing that with the socioeconomic impacts.

I highlight what I said at the beginning of the meeting. The whole process has been far from ideal, and I have apologised for that, but it is important for me, in this role and position, to listen in order to ensure that we balance the objectives. I believe that we have, ultimately, ended up making the right decision with the revised closure area that we have proposed.

I am not saying that that is okay—that is why we undertake impact assessments of what the overall impact will be—but it is consistent with measures that we have introduced in other closures, which is why compensation has not been considered.

I can probably answer for the activities that we are undertaking now and that we are looking to undertake. The policy objective that we are pursuing is the protection of spawning cod and, ultimately, boosting the numbers of cod in the Clyde. That is the objective that we are pursuing.