Chamber and committees

Why does the new proposal exclude historical areas of cod spawning? As I understand it, you have removed 28 per cent of the area. I do not understand how that is a precautionary approach when you have no evidence to justify that.

Okay. However, an academic said to me that the size of the most important area “mysteriously reduced by almost half”. Why would it be “mysterious” if, as you say, it is an evidence-based decision?

I am still unclear whether that was a result of lobbying and representations that were made or of actual scientific evidence. It strikes me that it was the former.

I will move on to my final question. At the end of January, there was a stakeholder meeting with Marine Scotland in which you were specifically asked whether the measure could be reviewed. Marine Scotland’s response was that it could not, because it had no resources to do so. What has changed? What form will the review take? Will it be done before 2023? Will it be done this year, so that it can inform what happens next?

Thank you, convener. I am grateful to you and the committee for the opportunity to participate in this morning’s session. I should confess at the start that I am not an expert on fish or fisheries, but I have constituents who are academic experts in the field.

Cabinet secretary, you and Dr Needle seemed to suggest that there is no robust evidence, based on what is going on in the Clyde, although you might have evidence from elsewhere. I think that there is also acknowledgment that cod stocks in the Clyde could well be different to cod stocks elsewhere, yet the cabinet secretary says that the decision is evidence based. I am not quite clear who is right. Has it been a risk-based assessment, which is one thing, or has it been evidence based? If it is evidence based, will you publish that evidence?

Can that be fed into changes for 2023, if the evidence suggests that that is required?

I find this entirely inconsistent. That area was previously included. You said that you do not have much evidence about that area of the Clyde, yet you have taken it out. We hear that it is because of representations made—I accept that—but it is not based on the science, and I think that we should be honest about that.

But it was closed previously, on the basis of the same science.

But there is no new science.

Convener, I was staying quiet because I do not have a vote, as I am not a member of the committee. My opening position is that I share the ambition to protect cod stocks. However, the way that the process has been done has led to a lack of confidence in Marine Scotland’s thinking and evidential base, and that has harmed the debate.

There is a lack of specific evidence about the Clyde. That has been acknowledged by everybody. It is being rectified, and I welcome that. However, it is the case that cod in the Clyde are different. On the west coast, juveniles occupy shallow coastal habitats, whereas, in the North Sea, they occupy offshore banks. Their behaviours are different, and we have not taken the time to understand that.

I understand the risk-based approach, but the Government appears to be muddling the evidential and the risk-based approaches, because evidence in relation to the Clyde is simply not there. I am genuinely worried that we are excluding areas that we previously thought it important to include. Whether that is based on evidence, discussion or debate, I genuinely do not know. We are at risk of taking away people’s livelihoods but might not be protecting the areas that we need to protect. On that basis, I genuinely ask whether the cabinet secretary would withdraw the SSI and bring it back, because we share the ambition of protecting the cod stocks. However, we need to do that properly; the exercise has not been done properly, on this occasion.

So, there is no new science.