Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay—thank you. Does anyone else want to come in?

No, thank you very much, Michelle. We will look at the last couple of issues that you have raised as we go through the process.

Welcome to the committee, Bally.

I know very little about fishing. The sum total of my fishing knowledge comes from a day out on a hand-dived scallop boat. I therefore come to this from a different perspective. It would seem, anecdotally, that a 3-mile limit worked because there were more fish in the past. What is the science behind the basis of the 3-mile limit? If a 3-mile limit were set up, what is the science that tells us the level that we are trying to return the fish stocks to?

I appreciate that this is a difficult question session for you, Bally. Has there been scientific research into the matter, or is your evidence anecdotal? Is your position that we should close the area off for 10 years to see what happens? What would happen during that period? You have already talked about what happens to the communities that are reliant on fish at the moment. In those 10 years—or whatever period—of closure, you want the fish stocks to increase. What level would the fish stocks recover to? Would you start fishing all over again after that? You would already have displaced other fishing boats out of the system.

I am trying to consider the matter from the point of view of fairness. How do you ensure that what your petition is calling for is fair for everyone in the system?

Following on from Jenni Minto’s question, is the type of gear that is used in inshore fisheries your biggest issue? You do not specifically mention gear in your petition.

I agree that we should close the petition at this stage. The evidence that Bally Philp gave us was tremendous and very detailed, but we have heard only from that petitioner. There will be other people in the fishing community who will want to give as much evidence as he has given. We need to be mindful of the fact that the Government is doing its review, so I think that we should close the petition now and include the issues in the broader picture that we look at later in the parliamentary session.

I am mindful of Jenni Minto’s point that other people are currently in the same waters and that there will have to be some balance.

One point that I want to get on record, which we can see in our briefing paper, is the sheer scale of the issue—97 million sharks are killed for 16,000 to 17,000 tonnes of fins, which is horrendous.

The cabinet secretary mentioned shark fin soup in tins. Do we import tins of shark fin soup, and where do they come from?

I will follow on from what the minister has just said. The convener asked whether there is anywhere where you see the powers being used, but I am looking at the letter that the UK Government sent to you. It says:

“We have been clear that we do not presently intend to amend the GM regulatory regime in Scotland to remove categories of products which are currently regulated as GMOs. The views of stakeholders in Scotland will be central to decision-making in this devolved area of responsibility”.

That concerns me greatly. Does the UK Government intend to go beyond the Scottish Government to speak to stakeholders first, before it comes to the Scottish Government? Also, the word “presently” concerns me. It indicates to me that what the UK Government is actually saying is that it may, at some point, decide to go beyond the Scottish Government’s devolved powers so that it can make decisions at Westminster. Is that your interpretation of that letter?

I will leave it there.