Chamber and committees

That was for phase 1 of the small vessel replacement programme.

Okay—they are both entirely capital. I was going to ask where that sits in relation to road equivalent tariff funding but, as those are capital budgets, that would not apply.

On a technical and process point, you have identified areas in which you can invest more or in which you need to increase capital spending. How does that process happen? How are the individual projects identified, and what are the timescales for that?

Would some projects be reprofiled to allow the movement of additional capital to other projects that are facing difficulties?

Before I ask about the financial impact, I have a question about the evidence that was used in relation to the previous order. When was that research conducted?

Do you recognise how frustrating it will be for fishers whose businesses are being put on pause without there necessarily being relevant evidence for doing that? You have made a commitment to look at more ways of collecting data, but, at the moment, that is not in place. Do you understand how frustrating that will be?

As you will be aware, the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation has expressed its disappointment at the lack of exemptions. In future years, if you will not look to provide any financial support, are you more likely to consider exemptions, if you can, particularly if the scientific data improves?

Rachael’s and Rhoda’s points covered most of what I intended to say. There is a lack of data—-and a lack of data that we can have a huge amount of confidence in. There is a lack of exemptions and, generally, a lack of trust in those organisations and individuals who will be most impacted by the order. There is too much reliance on some of the anecdotal evidence, which has been highlighted. Putting people’s lives on hold, even for a short period, without supporting information—or information that we can have confidence in—is not the right approach. I will vote for the annulment, and I hope that others will, too.

That would certainly be interesting. In a previous role, I used to have meetings with fishermen. There was always great frustration with the scientific evidence, mainly because they did not agree with it. They were seeing decent stock numbers at a time when ICES was saying that those areas were under threat. However, we cannot show that with the data, as it relates to the most likely places for cod to spawn. That is what we know. Unless new monitoring ways come in, the data will not necessarily change.

On the financial impact of the closures, the then responsible minister’s response said that the Scottish Government was

“not considering any additional financial support schemes ... related to this closure”—

not even for vessels that cannot fish in other areas. Obviously, that has financial implications. What are the reasons behind that decision?

However, do you recognise that there are implications and that alternatives may not be available as they are in other areas where there are closures?