Chamber and committees

I am sure that you will be.

I refer to the example that I provided earlier of the future catching policy and REM. The future catching policy sets out how we will meet not just the national benefit objective, but the other objectives that are set out in the Fisheries Act 2020. It is critical that the delivery mechanisms that we use for our policies meet the objectives that are set out. I would say that the future catching policy is an example of how we will meet that objective.

The proposals in the consultation were developed following consultation with our stakeholders, because, as I said, if we implement that policy, we want to ensure that we get it right. That will involve discussion and consideration of the responses to the consultation so that we can shape a policy that will deliver on the objective.

Thank you, convener. I also thank the committee for providing me with an opportunity to introduce briefly and discuss the draft joint fisheries statement and the UK fisheries framework.

Together, the documents help to explain how, in future years, fisheries will be managed across the UK in a way that allows the UK as a whole to share common goals on fisheries management and marine protection while, at the same time, protecting the Scottish Government’s devolved powers in the area as it decides its approach to the goals and the implementation of policy.

The future of fisheries management strategy and the future catching policy, along with the blue economy strategy that will be launched this spring, set out how I intend to make Scotland a world-class fisheries manager by focusing on the issues that are of importance and relevance to Scottish waters and Scottish communities. As the documents show, the commitment to achieving sustainable management of fisheries is locked into our overarching fisheries management strategy and will drive many of the new policies.

In that context, the JFS and the framework help to establish the high-level UK policy and describe how the UK Administrations will work together to ensure that devolution is respected. They also identify where we need to work together to deliver sustainable management of our seas. With the high-level goals having been established at a UK level through the JFS and the framework, both will be implemented through the Scottish Government’s actions to achieve our goals on marine protection, recovery of biodiversity, net zero and growing the blue economy.

The documents are split, because the draft joint fisheries statement predates the UK frameworks process, but broadly speaking the JFS sets out the joint policies that the four UK Administrations will pursue and the framework sets out how the Administrations will work together. The JFS sets out the Administrations’ policies to achieve the eight policy objectives in the Fisheries Act 2020. It also sets out how the objectives in the 2020 act have been interpreted and how the Administrations aim to deliver a vibrant, profitable and sustainable fishing industry that is supported by a healthy marine environment.

The policies cover sea fisheries policy and management both within UK waters and in negotiation with other coastal states. They also cover fisheries science; fisheries management; determination and apportionment of fishing opportunities; access to UK waters; bycatch; illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; marine protected areas; climate change and a number of other areas. In order to protect devolved competence, the policies are set at a high level, with the detail to be delivered by the Scottish Government to ensure that policy is tailored to Scottish waters and Scottish circumstances while achieving the high-level goals.

The JFS also sets out our approach to fisheries management plans, which the Government will take the lead in drafting in relation to many of the stocks that are of greatest interest to us, including pelagic and demersal stocks.

The UK fisheries management and support framework is a more operationally focused document that, broadly speaking, addresses how the Administrations should engage with each other, and establishes groups and processes by which we will regulate day-to-day business.

The structure of the memorandum of understanding consists of one high-level agreement covering common principles on working together, dispute avoidance and resolution, and data collection and sharing. Underneath that MOU sit more detailed operational agreements that detail how exactly the Administrations will work together on a number of other areas. That approach allows Administrations to approach each issue independently by allowing, for example, changes to quota management to be made without the entire MOU needing to be reopened. The ability to take issues singly should allow for considerable flexibility in deciding when and how we wish to amend any part of the MOU or any of its annexed agreements.

Together, the documents help to explain how fisheries will be managed across the UK for future years in a way that allows the UK as a whole to share common goals on fisheries management and marine protection while protecting the Scottish Government’s devolved powers in decisions on how the goals should be approached and how policy should be implemented.

I hope that it has been helpful to set that out. I am happy to take questions from the committee.

The process of developing the statement has shown how effectively the four Administrations in the UK can work together. It also, importantly, shows the alignment that we have on the high-level goals and ambitions that have been set out in the JFS.

The process also shows how devolution should work. A key consideration has been that we want to ensure that devolved powers are respected and adhered to. The agreement that we have set out in the joint fisheries statement and the framework identifies that. It sets out the high-level ambitions while allowing us the flexibility to determine the individual policies that are right for our industry and sectors.

It has been a positive piece of work. We will continue to see how it develops, but it shows that we are aligned on our ultimate objectives for the issues that it covers. That is not to say that that has always been the case and that we will always agree on every element. One example on which there has been disagreement—which we have raised with the committee previously—is the UK seafood fund, which cuts across devolved competence and spends in an area that is entirely devolved. That has caused confusion for the industry. It spends in areas that we already plan to fund in Scotland. However, although there are specific issues, the process shows how we can work together positively and effectively.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak about the seasonal closure in the Firth of Clyde. I appreciate that it has elicited really strong feelings, and I welcome the call for evidence that the committee put out as well as the opportunity to pick up the legitimate concerns with you.

The long-standing seasonal closure aims to provide an area of protection for cod during their spawning season, from 14 February to 30 April. Since its introduction, in 2001, the Scottish statutory instrument has included exemptions to allow nephrops trawlers, creelers and scallop dredgers to continue to use the area, due to the low numbers of cod that they catch.

We initially intended to continue those exemptions for 2022 and 2023, and we laid an SSI to that effect. However, on further reflection, we considered that the approach should be adapted and the exemptions removed. The stock has shown little sign of recovery under the present measures and there is evidence that any activity within 10m of the sea bed has the potential to disturb spawning cod. Moreover, removing exemptions brings the Clyde cod closure into line with other management measures in Scottish waters, including the national cod avoidance plan and measures in the Inner Sound.

We therefore decided to remove the exemptions to increase the chances of boosting the west of Scotland cod stock. However, we recognise that removing the exemptions will have a short-term effect on fishers. We have listened to the concerns of stakeholders and, on the basis of scientific evidence, we have made the closure more targeted, reducing its overall size by 28 per cent compared with previous years while providing comprehensive protection to the cod in areas where they are most likely to be spawning. The revised closure areas are a pragmatic and evidence-based solution that reflects our commitment to protecting the spawning cod while, at the same time, mitigating potential socioeconomic impacts on our vulnerable coastal communities.

I accept that the process around the closure has been far from ideal, and I sincerely apologise for that. On this occasion, our approach has fallen short of our co-management principles and practice. It has been a really complex issue to balance, and we will ensure that we learn the lessons from the way in which this closure has been managed. Nevertheless, I believe that we have made the right call in adapting the closure this year and that the measures that we have put in place offer better protection for spawning cod.

Going forward, we will keep the measure under review. Marine Scotland Compliance will closely monitor activity in the Firth of Clyde over the coming weeks, and we will arrange a meeting with stakeholders after the closure ends, to reflect on its effectiveness and practicality.

The Sea Fish (Prohibition on Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) (No 2) Order 2022 SSI was laid on 1 February, and I hope that the committee can support it. I am happy to take any questions that members might have. I draw the committee’s attention to my letter and the submission from Dr Coby Needle, the chief fisheries adviser for Scotland, who is here today and is also happy to take questions.

As I highlighted in my opening statement, I absolutely accept that the process has been far from ideal in this case and is not the normal means by which we would like to engage or make decisions. However, ultimately, we have ended up in the right place when it comes to the decision that has been taken and the SSI that has been laid.

As you will have seen from the evidence—both written and oral—that you have received, the issue is very complex and there are lots of different perspectives. We have done our best to base the decision on the best scientific evidence that is available to us and to take into consideration the precautionary principle.

The decision is not political. It is only right that anyone in a position such as mine takes the opportunity to reflect—which is why the initial decision was changed and why another SSI was laid—and to listen to the many different perspectives of the many stakeholders who are involved. We have laid this SSI in order to take account of their different perspectives and to protect the correct areas. As a result of the work that was undertaken, we were able to reduce the overall closure by 28 per cent. It is important that we took the time to reflect on and undertake the work on that, to make sure that we were ultimately achieving the policy objective, which is to protect spawning cod. It is only right that we did that.

Absolutely. That is why we want to meet stakeholders after the closure period to consider how we can move forward. However, in essence, we are open to considering mitigations with stakeholders.

It is consistent with closures that we have introduced elsewhere, and we have reduced the overall size of this closure by 28 per cent, which allows some of that activity to take place. It is for a period of 11 weeks, which is why compensation has not been considered.

They have a different impact. We have not tried to say that they all have exactly the same impact.

In relation to the cod box, all activity has been prohibited because any activity has the potential to impact on spawning cod. That is why all activity has been stopped throughout the closure period.