Chamber and committees

But there is no evidence that that is the case.

We will move on to look at the impact of closure.

I am interested to hear how many cod fishermen there are in the Clyde.

Should fishermen be considered in a different way from oil workers or farmers when they are trying to do their best for the just transition?

Before you answer that, cabinet secretary, I ask that we try to stick to the cod box issue, which is what we are discussing today, rather than spreading things a little bit wider, given the time constraints.

That opens up some questions about what additional science-based evidence was introduced between order number 1 and order number 2.

Jim Fairlie would like to ask a final and very short question, and then we will need to move on.

Okay. Cabinet secretary, I thank you and your officials for staying with us for this extended period. We really appreciate it. As you can understand, there are a lot of questions to be asked.

Agenda item 2 relates to motion S6M-03543, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, which asks the committee to agree to recommend that the instrument be annulled.

I invite Rachael Hamilton to set out her reasons for lodging the motion. The cabinet secretary will have an opportunity to comment and can bring in her officials as necessary. We will debate the motion formally at item 3.

As no member of the committee wishes to ask Rachael Hamilton any questions, I turn to the cabinet secretary.

As the cabinet secretary has admitted, the process has been flawed from the start, and I believe that it is still flawed at the finish. The unprecedented numbers of responses about the first order that was laid, and the subsequent very short timescale before the second order was laid, are of concern, and there is a lack of transparency over what factors contributed to the orders being changed. We have heard of concerns about scientific evidence, data collection and monitoring, a lack of appreciation of the impact of the closures on socioeconomic aspects and environmental safety, and proportionality. One fisherman suggested that the comment about a short-term economic impact on local fishers showed an “almost flippant attitude”.

I have concerns that, given the new Bute house agreement, this will not be the last order of this type that we see in front of us. On that basis, there needs to be some recognition that, along with other sectors, whether that is oil and gas, transport or farming, a transition to a more sustainable way of fishing needs to be compensated for or supported in some way. There is a complete lack of appreciation of the impact on fishers as they try to do the best thing, which is to create sustainable fisheries. On that basis, I will support the motion to annul.

On that point, I presume that, if the instrument was to be annulled, the Government would need to lay another instrument. Are you suggesting that, if the instrument was to be annulled, you would walk away from protecting cod altogether?