Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a question about how you managed to keep them all thinking in the same way, but that might be a question for another day.

So, you think that the three devolved nations should have a much bigger say in all of those negotiations. Is that what you are saying?

I was interested in what Elaine Whyte was talking about earlier. It is a hugely complex thing to deal with fishing. I know from a farming point of view that a hill farmer has no relation to an arable farmer on the east coast, and the relationships seem to be 10 times more complicated in fishing. It would appear from Elaine’s evidence—Elaine might wish to come in on this—that there needs to be a much tighter agreement with the devolved Administrations to decide what is happening in their waters. Is that a fair assessment?

That relates to my next question. The Scottish Government determines what the TAC should be, and the matter is then passed back to the UK secretary of state. I assume that a decision that was made by the Scottish Government would always be adhered to.

In the earlier session, we heard evidence from Professor Harrison, who has concerns about the secretary of state having powers to determine fishing opportunities for the whole of the UK. Can you clarify what powers the secretary of state will have in relation to fishing opportunities for stocks that are exclusively within Scottish waters? How will the matter be dealt with in the draft JFS?

You might remember that I was self-isolating when you were before the committee talking about the Clyde box closure at a previous meeting. I missed quite a bit of the evidence that was given. Earlier on, we were talking about engagement with communities and how that must be localised. As, I think, you said, I also do not see how the JFS relates to the point that has been made about the Clyde cod box. You fully accepted that bits of the process went completely wrong. You have taken responsibility for that and you will move on from it.

However, my understanding is that you engaged with and took evidence from relevant communities and changed your position during that process. Does that not answer Rachael Hamilton’s question? You were already in the process of engaging with people. You got it wrong, and you accept that, but you were engaging with them anyway. Is that fair?

I direct this question to Professor Harrison. On international obligations and the JFS, you said in your submission to the committee:

“if no international obligation exists, it would appear that the Secretary of State cannot act unilaterally and the consent of the devolved administrations may be needed for the determining a fishing opportunity insofar as the determination falls within the competence of a devolved administration.”

Do you have concerns about that? Can you expand on what your concerns are?

Okay, but I am going to challenge you on that. We have just heard from the health secretary evidence that this week has been the hardest week in hospitals because of the pressures of Covid. It is now early March, and we are talking about testing being phased out by April. Are you confident that we can relax the testing regime by the end of April, given the current numbers?

I am definitely one of the more cautious ones. I want to see a continuation of testing, as I want to ensure that we know where the virus is.

That takes me on to a technical question for Jason Leitch. On a number of occasions, Mr Swinney has talked about waste water testing. Will you explain that, please?

Okay. I accept your science. However, with my cautious approach, I would much rather still see people testing on a regular basis.