Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that we have been able to evidence that through the work that we have undertaken so far and, ultimately, through all the commitments that we have made throughout the whole process about how we develop policy. We want to do this with farmers and crofters because, as I have said a number of times today, they know their own business best. It is critical that any future system provides them with the flexibility to enable them to make the choices and undertake the measures that will work for their businesses. You can see some of those measures—we have published what some of that might look like. It is absolutely built in to everything that we do and everything that we have set out as part of the route map and the information that we are providing. What we are introducing ultimately has to be deliverable and it has to work for our farmers and crofters. It is in our best interests to continue that work with them to ensure that we get this right.

The points that you touched on and that I highlighted in previous responses to Rhoda Grant, including some of the points that are set out in section 26, enable us to do that. It is about having that consultation and engagement and, of course, reviewing the code, because, as we have discussed already today, things can change and improve in this space—things are developing all the time.

Again, if the committee has any particular views on the review period, I am happy to look at that point and consider it, but I want to clarify that we have already set out our expectations for support going forward, including the minimum standards that we are expecting, what conditions will apply to support from 2025 and what support will be introduced in 2026. I just want to be absolutely clear on that. If there are any other views on the review period, I am happy to consider them.

It is not possible for me to set that out at the moment. I cannot say that we would be looking to introduce other particular targets as part of the rural support plan, but we have statutory targets in relation to emissions reduction and the targets that are being looked at through the natural environment bill. Of course, we will have to consider those.

The bill will, ultimately, give us the powers to do any of those things, although we have a cap in place at the moment. The powers to enable us to manage payments are critical. I have had discussions about redistributive payments. I recognise that, quite broadly, there is support for front loading. However, I am not positioned to set out today exactly what that would look like or what form it would take, because that will be part of the consideration of what things might look like in the future framework. There will also be discussions with the people who will be impacted by that to consider how we would best progress things.

Absolutely. As I said, we have a cap in place at the moment. We do not have any businesses that are in support at the overall cap, which is just over £500,000. After that, there is tapering, at the level of 5 per cent, that applies to businesses that are in receipt of funding of more than £130,000 and 85 businesses are impacted by that. That is where things stand at the moment.

As we transition, we will set out more information. We would not change the cap or the taper or introduce front loading or redistribution without discussing that with the people who would be impacted. We would have those discussions before bringing forward such proposals.

Sorry. I used the figure of 3 hectares because that size was previously a determining factor for such support. It is not a case of my thinking being that someone who farms less land than that is a small producer and someone who farms more than that is a large producer. Obviously, it is not as simple as that, as you said.

This is about our enabling, through our measures, small producers and businesses to be supported, because we recognise how vital they are. I do not know whether John Kerr wants to come in with more information on that.

It is not possible for me to set out a timescale today. I hope that, in relation to the route map, I have been able to outline where we can expect to see changes and transition, but we still need to take forward that overall conversation.