Chamber and committees

I am sorry, but I do not really understand what point you are trying to get to.

If the instrument were to be annulled, we would not have the closure in place, and the protections for spawning cod that have been in place since 14 February would be removed.

We could see an increase in activity by creelers, and in relation to nephrops and scallops as a result of the reopening of the area.

As Allan Gibb alluded, the committee has probably been able, through this discussion, to see the sheer range of views and the competing and complex issues that we have to balance when we take such decisions. What Allan has just set out about moving forward and about where that step change is needed is critical. Today, we are looking at one difficult area, and there will be more to come in the various other measures that we are looking to introduce. Getting the foundations for such decisions right will be critical.

I will reiterate some of what I have said throughout the meeting. The committee has heard from a cross-section of stakeholders and has heard a diverse range of views. I have already talked about the complexity of the issue; the evidence that you have heard outlines that.

It is a difficult situation to find a solution to; in this case, it is impossible to find one that would make everyone equally happy. As the cabinet secretary who is responsible for fisheries management and protection, it is my job—as I outlined in response to Jim Fairlie’s question—to take on board and try, no matter how well-intentioned they are, to balance all the competing interests.

Rachael Hamilton talked about some of the comments that I made in response to Jackson Carlaw’s parliamentary question last week. In that response, I said:

“Responsible fisheries management means ensuring that we get the right balance between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2020; c 60.]

In this case, we have done that by increasing protections for spawning cod while also ensuring that fishing can continue to take place in surrounding areas.

The committee has also heard a variety of scientific opinions about what constitutes protection. However, on the advice of Dr Needle, who is the chief fisheries adviser for Scotland, we are applying the precautionary approach and minimising disturbance of the sea bed during the spawning period in the known spawning area. That is the fundamental objective and it is important that we not lose sight of it.

As I said in my opening comments and have said throughout the meeting, the process that led up to the SSI being laid before the committee was by no means ideal, but I firmly stand by the closure decision and believe that we are doing the right thing to contribute to protection of spawning cod.

I have outlined the next steps that Marine Scotland will take. Allan Gibb also talked about monitoring and compliance. We will meet stakeholders after the closure ends this year to hear their thoughts on how it has worked. As we also said, we will look to learn lessons on how the processes can be improved. However, ensuring that the closure was in place from 14 February until the end of April was the right decision and was our number 1 priority.

I hope that Rachael Hamilton will consider not moving her motion and, failing that, that the committee will not support it.

The closure is for 2022 and 2023. I do not want to prejudge the meeting that will take place. We will, of course, consider any views that come out of that meeting.

It is. In my role, it is critical to recognise that there are a lot of things to balance. People’s livelihoods are on the line and we need to balance the socioeconomic impact with the environmental impact. We want to strike the right balance. I would not be doing my job if I did not listen to representations or take them on board throughout the decision-making process.

Ultimately, that is why we have ended up where we are on the SSI. The process by which we have reached this point has not been ideal. Only through further reflection and trying to work with stakeholders, whether fisheries interests or environmental interests, have we reached the current position, which I believe has struck the right balance between the socioeconomic impact and the policy objective of protecting spawning cod.

You will have seen from the evidence that you have taken that there is nothing by any means easy about reaching such decisions. However, I believe that we have taken the right one with the SSI that is in front of you.

I go back to what Allan Gibb said about lessons that we are looking to learn and making sure that we hear all the different interests and perspectives so that we can understand people’s positions and find a way forward. That is a positive action that we can take away from the current process.

I reiterate Dr Needle’s point that, as we move forward, it is really important that we take that collaborative approach with the industry and with academia.

I think that Allan Gibb wants to come in on that point.