Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. That is the point that I was making.

Let me rephrase the question. I am looking for the balance between the mitigations that we have to take in order to save the cod and the socioeconomic impacts that we are being told about by the fishing community. Should we just let the cod be fished out of existence, or do we actually want to save it?

I am working very remotely and using a phone, which is quite tricky.

There are, undoubtedly, huge pressures on the fishing community right now, and, as Dr Allan just mentioned, Brexit is one of the biggest of those pressures. Through the earlier questioning, we have already established that the right thing to do, from an ecological point of view and to ensure that we do not take out a top predator, is to try to save cod. That being the case, we must take action to do so.

I do not know whether you were included in this, cabinet secretary, but, this week or last, all committee members were tagged in a Twitter thread in which competing interests in the cod box issue were—I will be polite—talking to each other. They were being less than polite; they were like ferrets in a sack. As far as I can see, that is because they simply cannot agree on anything. Maybe I am missing something, because I am not in a coastal community—I do not know. However, there seems to be a huge divergence of opinion on what the right way to go is to protect individual species and individual industries. How does the Government manage all those competing factions? Some folk want there to be no fishing, and other folk want their sector to be protected but are not too worried about other sectors. How can the Government be the guy in the middle and find the solutions to make sure that all interests are protected?

On your earlier point about the science with regard to disturbance of the sea bed, it is my understanding that it is not aggregations that are causing the problem, as they were done away with a long time ago. Last week, I ask Professor Heath about the sensitivity of cod and whether any disturbance would lead to fewer young cod being hatched, and I was told that only two eggs needed to be hatched out of the million or so that a female lays. Just to reiterate the point that you made, cabinet secretary, I would imagine that any disturbance of a sensitive animal, whether it be a bird, a fish or whatever, during its spawning or breeding period would reduce the numbers of available youngsters that could go on and thrive. Is that a fair assessment?

Are you saying that there would be unintended consequences for what would be available in the cod box if we allowed the cod to be fished out and it disappeared?

Can everybody hear me?

Can I follow up on my question, please?

Convener, I am absolutely talking about the cod box. I am talking about the pressure that families are feeling across the industry. They do not care where the problem comes from; they just know that they have a problem. I am very much thinking of those people who have an interest in the cod box—that was the basis of my question.

My question has been answered already.

I am trying to gather all my thoughts here. Alex Rowley talked about preparedness. We were absolutely caught short on PPE and all the rest of it. Does this bill allow for that level of preparedness to be put in place at a time when we are not in an emergency? Should we have that level of preparedness in statute in order to be ready if something else comes along?