Seòmar agus comataidhean

If we want to ensure that the decisions that are taken are led by science, we need to put in the resource.

I think that we all agree that this has been a botched process and that how it has been handled does no credit to Marine Scotland or the Scottish Government. Fishermen’s livelihoods—which are not about one individual—are at risk. We have all heard the evidence. We have also heard that, in the past 20 years, the cod stocks have not recovered. There is therefore an imbalance in the understanding of how the new approach will make any difference. I have to say that I am finding this issue extremely difficult.

We have heard about the lack of historical data on and observation of Clyde cod. However, the Clyde box has been in place for 20 years now. Given that we seem to have got to this position today because of a lack of evidence and support, what has been happening for the past 20 years?

We have heard about the socioeconomic impacts of the closure. Is the Scottish Government going to offer any compensation to the individuals who have been unable to fish during the closure? It is a short-term measure, as you said, but people’s livelihoods are on the line.

We have heard about the decisions being based on the best available science, but we have also heard that there is a lack of historical data, including there being no egg count. The written and oral evidence has highlighted the lack of scientific evidence on which to base the removal of exemptions, as well as on other aspects, including the assertion of where spawning occurs and the lack of dedicated monitoring programmes to assess effectiveness. That all leads me to ask whether Marine Scotland is sufficiently resourced to provide the robust scientific evidence that we need for inshore fisheries management.

In the evidence session and in responses to the call for views, we have heard concerns about the decision-making process in that decisions have been made without consultation or without much warning and have been inconsistent with policy commitments. Elaine Whyte mentioned trust, which I am interested in the panel’s views on. What impact has the order had on trust in decision making and collaboration between the Government and industry on fisheries management? How might fisheries co-management across Scotland be impacted as a consequence of the order’s handling?

When we took evidence from Public Health Scotland, we heard that it was difficult to comment on the possible costs for health boards because the bill provides little detail on what the good food nation plans should include. The answer is probably similar to the one that you gave about the situation of local authorities, but could you explain why the financial memorandum does not anticipate any additional cost or activity on the part of health boards? How will the good food nation plans interact with existing national health service plans?

Thank you.

A lot of my questions have just been answered.

What would the response be to concerns that, if the human rights bill is delayed, there could be a gap of years without the right to food being enshrined in legislation?

Is there any way in which the right to food can be strengthened without being fully enshrined in the bill?