Seòmar agus comataidhean

No. We have a number of other supplementaries.

I know that we will come back to the scientific trials a bit later, but I thought that Dr Robin Cook put the issue into far better words than I did on my previous attempt. In our evidence session two weeks ago, he suggested that there are two important points that call into question whether closing a spawning area is the most useful thing to do.

The production rates show that the number of juveniles that are producing females in the Clyde stock increased rapidly before the spawning closure was introduced. That was a direct response to heavy exploitation. Dr Cook said:

“That means that fish are being caught before they spawn, so, when a spawning closure is introduced, it is too late: much of the spawning potential has already been lost by catching the fish when they are very young. That is why one should ask the question: if we want to produce a more productive or healthier stock, is introducing a spawning closure really the optimal thing to do?”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 28 January 2026; c 49.]

Dr Cook was suggesting that the damage had been done before spawning, and the closures have not had any influence on the success of that spawning period. That is what I was trying to get across—that the SSI is not targeted at where the problem is.

My argument is that the closure will be in place to protect spawning, but the evidence suggests that there is not an issue in that regard, so do we need legislation? One of the driving arguments in favour of the SSI is that it will give us a fantastic opportunity to collect data for three years, but legislation is not needed for that, because there are great examples of the marine directorate and stakeholders working together collaboratively on sustainable fisheries. The only reason why the SSI is needed relates to whether people are allowed to fish in the closed area.

That concludes our questions.

We move to the formal consideration of the motion to recommend that the Parliament annul the instrument. I invite Tim Eagle to speak to and move motion S6M-20686.

Again, I am confused. We often hear that point—we have heard it in relation to agriculture policy, when we consider instruments at the end of the process and the minister says that there has been extensive consultation. We had a round-table session with scientists and other stakeholders. If I had asked for a show of hands of those who supported the order, I am sure that we would have had unanimous agreement that this is not the instrument that they want. In the past, there have been voluntary schemes, which shows that the sector and the NGOs want to work together to get a sustainable fishery in the Clyde.

You say that there has been all this negotiation but, despite that, we have arrived at a point at which it appears that no stakeholders support the order, either because it does not go far enough or because it damages fishing interests, although those actually have little impact on the cod population. The co-design and co-development have not worked. Otherwise, we would not be sitting here, discussing the order, as it would have gone ahead without a motion to annul.

The question is, that motion S6M-20686 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

That completes consideration of this negative instrument. I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes to allow for a comfort break and a changeover of witnesses.

11:00

Meeting suspended.

11:09

On resuming—

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

In the last paragraph of your statement, you said that you want to take an evidence-based approach. That does not appear to be what is happening at all. You also suggested that stakeholders and witnesses have expressed a range of views that are different from those of the committee. There was a range of views only in respect of how they thought future policy should be approached; they all agreed, almost unanimously, that the SSI in front of us will not do anything at all to preserve cod stocks.

Having looked through the evidence that we have taken and the various pieces of correspondence that we have received, there seem to be inconsistencies with your letter to the committee—indeed, there appear to be inconsistencies within that letter. It acknowledges that, as the Clyde-specific evidence says there is high productivity, that means that fish disturbance is unlikely to be a major factor. At the same time, however, it suggests that the evidence for disturbance being an issue is lacking. You say:

“there is no direct evidence from the Clyde demonstrating that fishing activity disrupts cod spawning.”

Is that correct?

I am still confused. All the data suggests that spawning may not be the main problem limiting stock recovery, but this SSI does not bring anything to the table that addresses anything other than spawning. We heard evidence of the economic and socioeconomic impact of the closures, but there is no evidence that the marine directorate is actually doing anything to address the main problem that is limiting stock recovery. It is all about spawning, but there is absolutely no evidence that spawning is the issue here.