Chamber and committees

We have figures in there from 2021, not just from 2018.

I know that there is a discrepancy between what we outlined in the BRIA and the number of vessels that some stakeholders say have actually been impacted. I am keen to look at that, to see why there is such a divergence of views. It might be helpful if I hand over to Allan Gibb to talk about how that information was collected and how it fed into the BRIA process.

I recognise the impact of the policy change. I have already talked about the process and how we want to learn lessons from it to ensure that we are not in the same position in future. I have also apologised for the process that has led us to where we are in this instance.

Comparing the impact of the order to the impact of Covid is not a fair comparison. We have not offered compensatory measures or payments for similar closures elsewhere, whether it be the North Sea cod avoidance plan or the Inner Sound MPA. The closure is also short term. I recognise the impact that it might have, but vessels can go elsewhere and I know that some do so regularly. Reducing the overall area by 28 per cent means that we have enabled more activity to take place than would normally be the case under the closure.

Again, I understand the impact that the closure might have on some fishers but, as I say, it is a short-term measure. I know that many will move. I realise that that is not necessarily the case for everyone who will be impacted by the closure, but, by achieving the policy directive, we will open up more opportunities after the period of closure has ended.

We do not know what the overall impact of that will be. As I say, I hope that the period of closure will have a positive effect, but it is not possible for us to map out what that might look like.

I hope that it will provide more fishing opportunities beyond the point of the closure.

I do not know the answer to that. I will ask Allan Gibb.

That is vital and critical to our ability to move forward. The meeting that we had to talk about the closed area was positive, in the sense that environmental stakeholders and fishers were all at the table. We would like more work to be done to bring people together to consider how we can move forward. Environmental protection is absolutely critical, but we must consider the socioeconomic impact of the measures that we take, too. You raise an important point and we are committed to having such dialogue.

As I have set out, ultimately, the policy objective is to protect spawning cod and to try to increase the overall stock. If we did not have the closure in place and activity was to resume, there could be a further impact on the stock, which, so far, has not recovered, despite the closures in previous years. We want to give the stock in the Clyde the best chance that we can to recover. Ultimately, removal of the closure could put that at risk.

I think that we are due to make announcements on the future catching policy in the coming weeks. I would be happier to talk to the committee about that at that point rather than go into further detail today.