Chamber and committees

No, I have not.

I do not agree with that. I believe that the BRIA has followed the correct processes in terms of how it was brought together and how it has been presented.

The BRIA was based on the information from our marine analytical unit. Are you referring to the number of vessels that we had outlined would be impacted?

We are taking a measure that we hope will ultimately boost the stock, and we have strengthened the policy objectives this time around for the overall protections that we are looking to put in place, but, of course, it is just not possible for us to quantify what that will look like. I hope that we will see increased opportunities in the future.

Again, the overall policy objective is to protect spawning cod. Not allowing any activity in that area throughout that time will better protect the areas where we believe the cod to be spawning. If we close those areas and stop fishing taking place there during that time, I hope that we will see an increase in the stock from that point. I hope that it will provide better opportunities.

As I said, activity could resume, so, in the short term, there might be less of an economic impact on fishers. However, we are trying to protect the species, and that is where, ultimately, the damage would be done.

Again, that is where the on-going dialogue that we have with our different stakeholders is important. We want to take forward that collaboration, monitor the effect of the closure, and see—to touch on Dr Allan’s point—what other mitigations there might be in the future and how we take that forward. That is the conversation that we want to have after this period of the closure is finished, so that we can assess its effectiveness and how we can move forward from there.

I will be happy to provide that further information.

Again, that is an approach that we are committed to taking forward through our future fisheries management strategy. The basis on which we took the decision about the Clyde closure that is in front of us was, ultimately, to meet our policy objective. We asked for further advice on the area in order to give the best protection to spawning cod where they were most likely to be spawning. I come back to the point about getting the right balance between meeting our policy objectives, the environmental considerations and the socioeconomic considerations; however, ultimately, the policy objective is about protecting spawning cod—which is what we have done through the closure.

I am not saying that at all. I reiterate that we have not provided compensation in relation to other closures that we have introduced, where we have prevented similar activity from taking place. We have reduced the overall size of the closure, and it is for a short period, until 30 April.