Chamber and committees

I will ask Allan Gibb to talk about some of the structures that we have in place for that but, to touch on a point that I mentioned in response to Karen Adam, one of the positive measures has been the ability to get all stakeholders together to discuss the closure and to assess how we can move forward from that. I am keen to do that as we move forward. Allan Gibb can provide more information on some of the other structures.

As I said in a previous response, we have not been looking to do that. That is consistent with other measures that we have taken in other areas where we have prevented activity from taking place, such as with the North Sea cod avoidance plan. It is also consistent with the Inner Sound MPA, where we prevented any activity from taking place. We are not looking to introduce compensation.

I will definitely take a few lessons from the process. It was hard to read and hear the evidence about the lack of trust, because that is something that I am keen to rebuild. Throughout our work with stakeholders and the co-management process that we normally strive to achieve, the approach has not been ideal. There has traditionally been strong collaboration with our different stakeholders. Those are the lessons that I will take away from the process.

There were a number of different impacts that meant that we were very constrained in the time that we had in which to deal with the matter, which is why we have ended up in this situation. We hope to meet with stakeholders after the closure so that we can assess the impact of that. From that, I hope to foster greater collaboration and make sure that we learn the lessons from this process, so that we are not in a similar situation again. I will definitely take that away, and I look forward to increased and further collaboration with our stakeholders.

That is not true. As I said, a variety of different factors have fed into our change in position and have ultimately led to the SSI that is before the committee today. Through listening to all those different points of view, and through going over the science and the evidence that are available, we have reached the best outcome, which is achieving the policy objective of giving enhanced protection to spawning cod while trying to balance those other interests.

I do not know that information off the top of my head, but, if there is information that I can provide to the committee, I will be sure to do that.

I recognise that the measure comes on the back of a really challenging time for people. The loss of EU markets has had a stark impact, including in relation to labour issues. I met you and some of your constituents to talk about those very issues.

We have talked through the process of how we reached the decision and the financial information that is taken into account when looking at decisions such as this. Undoubtedly, this has been a particularly difficult time for the industry because of some of the other issues that you outlined.

We have to try to manage that as best we can. I am dependent on the advice that I receive, which includes advice from the likes of Dr Needle. I also speak to people and listen to different representations. Ultimately, we try to take the best decision that will meet the policy objective, and will protect and, I hope, increase the cod stock biomass. However, we must also recognise that there are socioeconomic consequences to that, so we must balance those aspects as best we can.

I think that we have achieved that with the SSI that is in front of the committee today, by reducing the closure area and allowing more activity to take place, while ultimately protecting the spawning cod.

Do you mean activity within the closed area?

All activity was prevented because of the issue of disturbance, which I talked about.

I do not agree with that.

Allan Gibb would like to come in.