Chamber and committees

Well, I rest my case.

Thank you for allowing me to explain my reasons for lodging the motion to annul the instrument.

The Firth of Clyde closure is an expected yearly event that fishermen have supported since its initial implementation to ensure sustainability. Fishermen have supported that for their livelihoods and to encourage sustainability of cod and other fish in their fishing areas so that that tradition can continue. This year is different, with there being no exemptions for any fishermen, which means that those who would normally continue to have some income now have none.

Last week, Elaine Whyte of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association told the committee how removal of the exemptions is detrimental to the fishermen who are proud to call the Firth of Clyde their home waters. She said that fishermen are having to find other sources of income because they simply have no alternative. According to other witnesses, the Scottish Government did not follow the business and regulatory impact assessment guidance for policy officials.

Last Thursday, in response to my colleague Jackson Carlaw MSP, the cabinet secretary said that she had listened to the industry, but it appears that the reality of the situation is different to what was said in the chamber.

The committee will be aware that fishermen are struggling to find any source of income, and they were told bluntly by the cabinet secretary that there would be no financial help or compensation from the Scottish Government. Again, to quote a witness, a seemingly “knee-jerk reaction” without consultation or evidence concluded that there was no need for compensation.

At a time when living costs are rising, we cannot afford to abandon our fishing communities as the Government is doing. The removal of the exemptions will result in reduced income for vessel crews and will have a knock-on effect on the livelihoods of families and the coastal communities that some people in this room represent.

I urge members to think about the evidence that we have heard and to imagine themselves in the position of the fishermen who will be left without work for 11 weeks or be forced to work in unsafe surroundings and conditions or, which would be even worse, not be able to move elsewhere. The truth is that the Scottish Government did not consult the fishermen properly. Elspeth Macdonald from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation suggested that, given the outcome, the consultation document misled the industry and effectively gave it a false sense of security without providing any real opportunity to argue against the removal of the exemptions.

The committee heard that stakeholders had insufficient warning about changes to proposals, and that there was a lack of stakeholder engagement in advance of the announcement of the removal of existing exemptions. Furthermore, stakeholders said that there was a lack of collaborative working from the Scottish Government and, worryingly, they did not have equal access to the information that others had access to.

I suggest that that was not a level playing field. Consultation responses were published only at the end of January 2022, after two orders had been made. That shows a serious lack of transparency in the decision-making process. The committee should be worried about what we have heard today and from witnesses in the past. I have been motivated to seek annulment of the order because bad regulation cannot be the cornerstone of the Scottish Parliament.

The Bute house agreement has been raised as a concern. The committee has a duty to hold the SNP-Green collaboration to account. We cannot allow this badly executed process, which is clearly detrimental to Clyde fishermen, to impact on socioeconomic, environmental, safety and proportionality considerations. Ultimately, each of us should heed our witnesses’ warnings of the Scottish Government’s decision-making process.

As was said by Simon Macdonald at committee:

“If you want to hear from a conservationist, ask a fisherman, because their livelihood and their future as well as their family’s future depend on ... conservation”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 2 March 2022; c 5.]

The Scottish Government has failed to do that.

I will finish by quoting the words of Elaine Whyte, because they perfectly summarise my decision to lodge a motion to annul.

“We are moving to managing fisheries by campaigning as opposed to by data, science and process, which sets a very worrying precedent.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 2 March 2022; c 9.]

Colleagues should consider supporting my motion to annul the order. Thank you.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity, convener. I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary had to say. I believe even more that my arguments for annulling the order are justified, because neither the cabinet secretary nor Marine Scotland has justified the Scottish Government’s actions. The process is utterly botched. There is a complete lack of evidence. There is a lack of engagement, fishermen are fearful and questions need to be asked about the intent of the Bute house agreement, which seems to be behind what has happened and the devastating impact to the fishermen on the Clyde.

I move,

That the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee recommends that the Sea Fish (Prohibition on Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) (No. 2) Order 2022 (SSI 2022/35) be annulled.

Given the lack of evidence on the distribution of spawning cod in the Clyde, I cannot understand why more resource was not provided on the issue. I understand that the CFA’s study was developmental and exploratory. Cabinet secretary, why did you make the decision on the basis of a complete and utter lack of evidence?

We have received evidence that says that the business and regulatory impact assessment did not follow the correct processes that are described in the Scottish Government’s online BRIA toolkit. The BRIA should be

“transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted”,

but it was not, was it, cabinet secretary?

You took the figure from 2018 rather than the figure from 2020, which was significantly reduced, given the reduction in the number of vessels due to the Covid pandemic.

Okay. The evidence suggests that the number of fishing vessels that were considered to be impacted was much smaller than the number that you put in the evidence paper.

To develop that, will you say why were you not able to differentiate between management measures for different gear activities to protect spawning cod?

Thank you.

I would like some clarification of the 28 per cent area. Was that area previously closed?