Seòmar agus comataidhean

The work that we have set out is a key step in that regard. As I said in response to Jamie Halcro Johnston, the position taken in this order might not be the same as it would be the next time that we introduce an instrument, because there might be more evidence or monitoring to draw from by that time, which could result in changes. I cannot prejudge that, but that is why I point to the work that we have set out as the key step in helping us to develop that wider picture.

You raise an important point. I go back to the point that Coby Needle made earlier about how engagement with fishers has already altered some of the plans that we had. You are absolutely right that they are the experts in the areas where they fish, which they know really well. That is why we want to continue to work with them.

I go back to Allan Gibb’s earlier point about all the measures in totality. How well the recovery is going is due to all the measures that we have implemented across the piece, including those to reduce bycatch and to protect the spawning areas. Those have all been critical to enabling the recovery.

As I said, we have been using the same evidence base that we supplied previously. At that time, there were similar questions about the science that we were using. As I have said many times today, we use the best scientific evidence that is available to us on which to base our decisions.

I appreciate what you say about the efforts that Rhoda Grant has made. However, as I have pointed out, if we annul the instrument that is in front of us today, there is no protection in place. We would not be able to bring forward another order in time to enable any changes to be made, let alone to allow time for us to undertake further monitoring and gather more information and evidence through the measures that I have talked about.

Again, I say that I cannot pre-empt what that work is going to look like or what evidence it may produce. Nevertheless, I emphasise that, if we annul the order that is in front of us today, there will be no protections in place for spawning cod. I appreciate that it is about working together to find a solution and a way through the issues. Ultimately, that is where we want to be. The work that I have set out today is important because it will enable us to do that.

You are right to highlight the breadth of policy areas that food touches on. We have our good food nation plan, which is out for consultation until 22 April, and, ultimately, the Scottish food commission’s role will be to monitor the plan’s effectiveness. We can ask it to pick up specific pieces of work in relation to what you have mentioned, too. With the regulations that we are introducing today, we hope to ensure that we have the relevant expertise to cover the broad variety of areas on which food policy touches. The matters that you have raised in relation to the importance of food production and food security are strong themes that we have picked up through our good food nation plan, which I should say will come to the committee for consideration soon and on which I would encourage all members to make their views known.

I attended last night’s meeting of the cross-party group on food, which Rhoda Grant chairs, and I heard different perspectives on the plan and the issues that people see as important being picked up. Given that this is our first plan, we want to get it in as strong a position as possible.

The intention was always to establish the commission at the same time as the laying of the final plan, which is why the timescale is for those sections of the 2022 act to come into effect at the same time. It is important that we introduce the regulations now, in order to at least start the work of building the commission, so that they can help to shape what the body will look like in time for the laying of the final plan.

As I set out at last night’s meeting of the cross-party group on food, this is our first iteration of the plan. Further reviews and progress reports on it will take place as we proceed and once the plan is finally laid, and the commission will play a critical role in that process. Our delivering the good food nation plan will set the direction for the other relevant authorities that have to produce such a plan for our local authorities and health boards, and we hope that the commission will help us in that work, too.

Our overall approach to setting up the commission is very similar, in respect of numbers and so on, to how the Scottish Government has set up other commissions and bodies, such as Environmental Standards Scotland, Consumer Scotland and the Scottish Commission on Social Security.

I am sorry—perhaps I need to be clearer with regard to the last element of your question. The matters that we have set out to be taken into consideration in relation to the appointments reflect the matters that are listed in sections 1(6) and 10(6) of the 2022 act. The provisions in the SSI mirror those provisions, essentially to ensure that we are not limiting ourselves at this time.

I know that, given all the evidence that it took as part of the scrutiny of the bill, the committee will be aware of how many different representatives and organisations from across civil society and different policy areas are interested in the good food nation plan and the 2022 act. We want to encompass that broad range of expertise in the board members that we appoint, so I will not pre-empt that process by talking about the types of expertise or the people we would be looking to appoint at that stage—it is far too early for that. With these regulations, we want to have flexibility and reflect the broad range of expertise of people who might put themselves forward.

Ultimately, as Allan Gibb set out, the available scientific evidence indicates that any disturbance to the sea bed can disrupt spawning cod. We want to make sure that we protect spawning cod as much as possible, which is why there are no exemptions for the closure, in line with our policy over the previous couple of years.

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

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

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