Chamber and committees

We have heard about the financial impacts of the closures, and I do not doubt that those are real.

Many of us around the table represent fishing communities and we are familiar with the biggest issues that people in those communities bring to us. Those are around the financial impacts on businesses, families and individuals that have been caused by difficulties in accessing European markets and in finding a workforce for fishing and fish processing. Where do some of the issues that we have been talking about fit into the Government’s response to the realities of Scotland being dragged out of the European Union?

No, can I ask if it is entirely parliamentary—

On a point of order, convener. Is it entirely parliamentary for members on the committee to describe each other as “spineless”?

The use of the precautionary principle in Government science has been discussed throughout. Will Dr Needle articulate what that means in this context and what its aims are?

Does the cabinet secretary want to add anything to that? Perhaps Allan Gibb might want to come in, because my question is about the science.

The Government has moved some of the way to meet fishers’ concerns. From what you say, that was clearly motivated by a desire to mitigate the impact on the industry. Is the Government open in principle to introducing any other mitigations in future should the evidence merit it?

Thank you.

I do not think that anyone would underestimate the difficulties around the issue and the balancing acts that are involved, but I think that we are dealing with a Government that has attempted to meet concerns, so I will vote accordingly.

What would be the future implications for conservation of identifying a separate or distinct sub-stock?

The only thing that I would add to that is a certain word that you are too polite to mention: Brexit. That has had a real impact on those communities.