Chamber and committees

I do not want people to be scared or to have that fear about the process. That is very much not where we want to be. As I said, we want to have the gold standard of co-management. We want to engage with the people who are impacted by such decisions and with all the various interests that are represented. That is absolutely critical for us. That is why, as I said, we are keen to address the points and learn the lessons from this process, in particular. We aim to achieve that gold standard of co-management.

Yes, I can. Again, that touches on some of the difficult and complex decisions that we will have to take in the future, as we will have to balance those interests, too.

That is part of the extra advice and information that we sought from Dr Needle in relation to looking again at the closure to find out whether we are closing off the correct areas and prohibiting the right fishing measures in that closure.

First, it is important to bear in mind that all resources are finite and Governments must make decisions on how best to allocate them. We also need to bear in mind the expansive area that Marine Scotland must look after, monitor and evaluate. It collects data, and provides analysis and advice, on a wide range of ecosystems and fisheries across Scotland’s seas, which cover 470,000 km².

We would like to undertake research on a lot of different areas, but we have to ensure that we get the balance of resources right. A host of work could be undertaken in the Clyde. However, if we decided to undertake it, we would have to consider what to deprioritise and how to resource that work.

Again, that is something that we must consider as part of the decision-making process. If we were to prioritise that area, we would need to consider what other area to deprioritise.

I return to the point that Allan Gibb made. We know that there are gaps in some of the scientific evidence. However, in terms of our policy objective, the evidence is strong on the point about disturbance.

I am not sure that I understand the question.

I was looking at the areas where cod are most likely to spawn. I am reliant on the evidence that I receive from people such as Dr Needle in that regard. That is why we reached our conclusion and, ultimately, ended up reducing the overall area by 28 per cent.

Yes. We have already committed to collaborating with stakeholders and coming together after the closure this year to assess its effectiveness and to see how we can move forward.

As I said, we based the decision on the best scientific evidence that we had, which suggested that any disturbance within 10m of the sea bed would have an impact on spawning cod. It would be appropriate to bring in Dr Coby Needle to explain that point from the scientific perspective.

Again, it was our further reflection on what we had received through the consultation and on the different correspondence that we had received about the exemptions. As I have said, when the initial SSI was laid, it was intended that those exemptions would roll over to 2022 and 2023, and we reflected further on that. Of course, the Bute house agreement is part of that, but representations were made by other organisations about the ultimate impact on spawning cod of not removing the exemptions. That is why we decided to look again and to take that further advice. The position that we have ended up in on the back of that is the right one, given the revision of the closed area while, ultimately, achieving the policy objective, which is to protect spawning cod.