Chamber and committees

I have covered a lot of these comments in my previous remarks. I understand where Mercedes Villalba is coming from in relation to some of her points. However, I re-emphasise the point that agreeing to the motion to annul the instrument that is before the committee today would remove all protections.

I recognise members’ points about the process. As I have said previously, we absolutely want to ensure that we learn lessons from this.

Of course, we would not want to do that, but that is essentially what the committee would allow to happen if the SSI were annulled. If more work was to be done, that would take time, during which the protection would not be in place. That would be during spawning time, which is a short window.

I have covered the other issues in my previous remarks, so I draw to a close in highlighting that aspect to the committee.

The decision is based on the best available scientific evidence. In the time that was available, it would not have been possible to conduct all the scientific research to fill the gaps that have been identified while ensuring that the SSI was in place to provide protections for the spawning period. We have based the decision on the best available scientific evidence and research.

I think that the ultimate consequences of not basing decisions on the best possible evidence would be that you could take the wrong decisions. If we do not take the precautionary approach, we could end up doing more harm than good to the stock.

I missed the first part of your question. Was it about the methodology?

Are you talking about the methodology on which we have based these decisions and the views of other bodies in relation to that?

We have published all the evidence and information on which we based our decision, and it is all publicly available on our website.

This has predominantly been a risk-based approach that has been based on the evidence and science that we have. That comes back to what Dr Needle and Allan Gibb said about the science around the impact of disturbance, on which we have, ultimately, based the policy decision. Dr Needle might want to say more about that.

Yes.

I do not agree with that assertion at all. If members look back to the results from the consultations that we held between September and October and between October and November, they will see that there were strong representations in them, and the overwhelming majority wanted the exemptions to be removed in their entirety. It is important that we take all those views into consideration, but I go back to what I said earlier. I believe that the position that we have reached meets the policy objective and strengthens the objective of protecting spawning cod by removing potential disturbance to the areas in which we believe the cod are spawning, while balancing that with the socioeconomic impacts.

I highlight what I said at the beginning of the meeting. The whole process has been far from ideal, and I have apologised for that, but it is important for me, in this role and position, to listen in order to ensure that we balance the objectives. I believe that we have, ultimately, ended up making the right decision with the revised closure area that we have proposed.

I am not saying that that is okay—that is why we undertake impact assessments of what the overall impact will be—but it is consistent with measures that we have introduced in other closures, which is why compensation has not been considered.

I can probably answer for the activities that we are undertaking now and that we are looking to undertake. The policy objective that we are pursuing is the protection of spawning cod and, ultimately, boosting the numbers of cod in the Clyde. That is the objective that we are pursuing.