Chamber and committees

Thanks for that.

I go back to the reference in the regulations to “a board”. Could you go into a bit more detail about what that means and about what you imagine the chair and the commissioners will be doing?

That was really helpful—thank you. Indeed, it is, I would say, reassuring.

I am also interested in understanding in what situation the Scottish Government would appoint only one commissioner who is

“representative of ... the food business or ... third sector”

and only one commissioner who possesses the “expertise or experience” with regard to the list of “food-related issues”. Again, why would we not want all commissioners to fulfil at least one of those criteria? I understand that this is about flexibility, but I just want to understand what you are imagining here. I know that you are trying to create flexibility in order to bring all kinds of people in, but surely, as you thought through the SSI, you would have imagined certain scenarios where that might have been the case.

It is clear from the committee’s fisheries adviser’s advice, as well as the stakeholder evidence that has been sent to the committee over the past few days, that the SSI before us is necessary but is not sufficient to restore the Clyde cod stock. As the deputy convener has said, we are aware of the PhD work on the Clyde stock assessment, which is being supervised by the marine directorate and the University of Strathclyde. The committee’s fisheries adviser, Professor Paul Fernandes, said that such an assessment is necessary in order to properly manage the Clyde stock and that peer review is not essential for it to be used to inform policy.

As many of our comments and questions today have indicated, there is concern about the scientific evidence. I would appreciate a commitment from the Government that the PhD work in relation to the SSI will be shared with the committee, although I understand that it is a draft. That is the work of the marine directorate and Professor Mike Heath at the University of Strathclyde on the state of the stock and the recommendations for recovery.

I would appreciate a commitment to using the latest science, including that PhD, when such SSIs are developed—I am thinking, in particular, of the replacement SSI on the Clyde cod closures from 2026 onwards. I would also appreciate it if the Scottish Government marine directorate could begin scoping additional measures to protect the stock, especially bycatch reduction measures, because the latest science says that that is the main pressure.

Thanks for that. It is good to hear that that work is being done. I understand that the Strathclyde university assessment provides clear evidence confirming the results of peer-reviewed studies that show that high fishing mortality, not disturbance of the sea bed, is the key cause of low population size.

I go back to my earlier point that bycatch from nephrops trawling is part of the issue. It is interesting that we end up returning to bycatch in a discussion about creeling, but I think that we need to keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that it is trawling that is the issue.

Earlier, in response to a question about the benchmarking of the stocks in the west of Scotland, Allan Gibb made a point that I want to bring into the conversation. In a letter to the committee, Gillian Martin said:

“In the West of Scotland ICES benchmark report (ICES 2022), it is made clear that … , the best scientific evidence indicates that … Clyde cod are very likely to be a distinct stock from the rest of Division 6a”

but that they are lumped together with those cod—that is, the other west of Scotland cod—because of “data limitations.” I want to get the message out there that those stocks are considered to be separate.

That comes back to the issue around data that we have been getting into today. I know that we carry out our work on the basis of scientific evidence, but we are now asking what that scientific evidence is and who is using which evidence. Elena Whitham made a good point about gathering evidence in partnership with the sector and with the tremendous marine environmental non-governmental organisations that are doing work in the area. We need to get a much better understanding of the picture that we are looking at, and Gillian Martin’s point about data limitations shows that there is work to be done if we want to get the best picture of what we are trying to support in terms of stock recovery and so on. I go back to my point about the fact that we are trying to ensure that there is a flourishing fishery across all sectors.

I am grateful that the cabinet secretary is here today to clarify points around the SSI, but can she tell us what it means when it refers to “a board”? The term is not used in the 2022 act, and my understanding is that the role of the chair and the set of commissioners will be more than the standard role that a board plays. I would appreciate clarification in that respect, because, as you will know, we discussed the point at length during the passage of the good food nation legislation.

The point of the Scottish food commission is to provide board expertise and understanding of all aspects of the food system to ensure that good food nation plans and other policies bring about the fundamental changes that we need. In what situation would the Scottish Government appoint a member of the food commission who is not

“representative of ... the food business sector or ... third sector bodies”

or does not possess

“expertise in or experience of”

the list of “food-related issues”?

I would appreciate knowing about that work.

I want to pick up on Allan Gibb’s anecdotal mention of a creel fisherman in the area. You said that 4,000 to 5,000 creels are being deployed—I do not know what the right word is—or dropped every day, or frequently. I would appreciate some evidence on that. I remember that, when you were here last year or the year before, you mentioned such staggering numbers. Other people have said to me that that would be impossible unless it is a cumulative figure. I would like you to give the committee some evidence on that.

I am also interested in what the Government is doing to look into the issue. As I understand it, there are creelers who work on the west coast—although not necessarily in the Clyde—who are calling for a cap or limit on what they can deploy, and I think that we need to take that on board. It is very reasonable to request that there be a cap so that there is enough to share between everybody; meanwhile, we would get proper recovery of stocks and so on.

What are we doing here? We are trying to ensure that there will be fisheries in Scotland 30 or 100 years from now and that we will be able to continue to say that fishing is part of our culture. I would like to get a bit more information from the Scottish Government marine directorate on the evidence on the number of creels that are being deployed in the Clyde cod box area and a bit more on what work is being done to look into the cap that creelers are calling for.

As I said, the science says that the SSI is necessary but not sufficient to protect and restore cod stocks. Rhoda Grant raised a serious point about the impact on creelers’ and divers’ livelihoods. A 2015 document from Marine Scotland showed that trawling affects the sea bed more than 18,000 times as much as creeling does. I reiterate my request for assurances from the Scottish Government that it will share with the committee the PhD work that the marine directorate and Professor Mike Heath at Strathclyde university are supervising, after the cabinet secretary has sought advice, so that we can see the recommendations for recovery.

I ask for a commitment to use the latest science, including the PhD work, when there is a replacement for the Clyde closures SSI in 2026 and beyond. I also request that the Scottish Government begin scoping additional measures, especially bycatch reduction, in order to protect the stock, because the latest science says that that is the main pressure.

I want to clarify a point about the Clyde cod stock being separate from the other west of Scotland cod stock. That is about not genetics but the potential to manage our Clyde cod stock separately. The Clyde cod stock sits completely within the Scottish Government’s purview, so we could absolutely bring in measures to minimise bycatch from trawling. I am glad to hear about the work that is being done on that, but I urge that that be accelerated, given the state of Clyde cod and our at-risk seabirds.

So, you are just using the term as a quick, catch-all, shortened way of saying all of that.

I would just like to get a few things on record. I was a strong advocate for the inclusion of the Scottish food commission in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022. We have seen examples of strong commissions that have achieved transformational change, such as the Scottish Land Commission, or which have pulled together different strands into a whole-system approach, such as the Just Transition Commission. We absolutely need that kind of thing now in Scotland, but, in order to do those things, the commission needs the right expertise and experience.

The appointment of the chair and commissioners is central to how the culture of the Scottish food commission will develop and, in turn, how it will carve out its place and a reputation for stewarding the 2022 act and holding national Government and relevant authorities to account. The appointment group will set the tone for how areas of work are driven forward, particularly in respect of policy coherence and holding ministers to account for how the 2022 act and the good food nation plans impact, or are impacted by, the plethora of existing—and future—policies and legislation.

As such—and given the focus on the transformation of our food system—it is essential that a group of highly engaged individuals who are comfortable with systems thinking are appointed. They must have a breadth and depth of experience and skills as well as lived experience of our food system. It is not desirable for places to be reserved for any specific sector or stakeholder group, as all commissioners will need to be able to consider the impact on multi-stakeholder and public groups and be skilled in understanding the tensions, power dynamics and interests at play.

Looking at the text of the regulations, I think that in regulation 2, which relates to the appointment of commissioners, the third paragraph is the weakest of the three and is quite oddly worded. I have concerns about what it means and how skills and “expertise” will be established and prioritised within recruitment. I understand the desire to keep the provision broad, but it is important to ensure that commissioners have the appropriate skills and experience. Appointed commissioners will need those core skills and competencies, and it will be worth checking how that will be managed through the person specification appointments process. The key is to ensure that those skills and competencies are not dependent on sectoral expertise or a candidate’s connections and that a commissioner should not be appointed to represent particular interest groups.

I will vote for the secondary legislation, but I strongly encourage the Scottish Government to go further. Not only should it consider the desirability for the board to include one member who fulfils the criteria that are set out, but it should consider how much more effective the commission will be if all members fulfil all those criteria.

The food commission will not have an easy job. Our country is not well served by the current operation of our food system, which is letting down producers and consumers alike and is putting pressure on our healthcare system and our environment. However, if the food commission has the right expertise and know-how to put things into practice, our food system can, instead of contributing to problems, contribute to solutions, which will help us to reach net zero; improve health and wellbeing; strengthen national food security and local economies; provide good jobs; and ensure that everyone in Scotland can afford and enjoy the world-class food that is produced in our good food nation.

Do you have a sense of how the marine directorate could pursue work to understand how many there are? I know that remote technology is now available—in fact, I think that I forwarded information about that to the marine directorate—but that is more to do with losing gear. If we have tracking equipment that can prevent fishermen from losing gear, which causes a marine litter problem, that could also help us to understand the number of creels in the water. Do we need a policy on that? What could we do to get such an understanding? We are having to make decisions without having the full picture.