Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would be great to hear a bit more about selectivity and the technology that you have been looking at, as well as the future catching policy. We were challenged at the round table with stakeholders to develop smarter policy—you might have picked that up, too—and it is clear from what you have been saying that this SSI does not sit alone and that other things are happening. It would be good to hear about those things, because we have heard some people talking about Swedish mesh, or something, being used in a trawl net, others saying that that is not happening, and others talking all the other things that are happening. It would be good to know what is already happening in this space and what you intend to bring in.

If the order were annulled after a recommendation today, could something be brought back at the beginning of the next parliamentary session? Also, could we treat this as a one-year initiative and bring an order back, while, in the meantime, looking for something better that could start in the new session?

Yes, there was a lot. You have help, though.

It feels as though there is now a focus on creelers, but we know that cod stocks have declined from around 1,000 tonnes in the mid-1980s to 20 tonnes in 2019. That is an alarm bell ringing there and it is connected to bycatch from the nephrops trawl.

Okay, but I still think that if you trawl with a net on a regular basis you will be covering a lot more space and therefore have much more bycatch than you will from pots sitting on the ground.

This morning’s discussion has been very useful. I am aware that if the order were to be annulled, that would mean that, for a period of time, there would be no restriction in place to protect the Clyde cod. However, I am leaning towards voting for the motion, because, as we heard during the stakeholder evidence session two weeks ago, the restrictions that have been in place for years have not protected that unique species of cod. The order promises more of the same for three years.

It was good to hear the detail of the various bits and pieces of what is being proposed, supposedly in the name of science—despite the fact that we already have perfectly good scientific evidence that clearly shows that the Clyde cod is in decline and will continue to be in decline should the measures remain in place.

The evidence that has been collected by Professor Mike Heath and his team at the University of Strathclyde has been peer reviewed and independently modelled, and it should be the basis of Government decisions that are made on the issue. The evidence clearly shows that mortality is the principal issue behind Clyde cod’s decline, and the most likely reason for that mortality, the evidence says, is that the cod is appearing as bycatch in the nephrops trawl fishery. To put it more bluntly, trawlers are killing off the species.

If we want to properly protect Clyde cod and give it a chance of regenerating, common sense dictates that we need better controls over trawling in the Firth of Clyde. If we vote for the motion today, I would like the Government to come back before disillusion—I mean dissolution; I hope that it is not disillusioned—with a proposal for a one-year protection measure. I appreciate that the timescales would be tight, but the Government needs to carry the can for the situation, given that it brought the order before us at the last minute. There is food for thought here: we have been talking about the order only a few weeks before the time when the closures would come in. It would be far better if we were having these conversations in September, October or November.

One damaging year would be significantly better than three damaging years. Even if the order cannot be brought back in time for dissolution, one year of no restrictions would be vastly better than three years of restrictions that do not work anyway. Given our discussion of there being a legal requirement for the Government to act on the matter, I trust that there is an impetus to continue the work.

A year should provide enough time for fishers, officials, scientists and other organisations to get together to work out a better way of protecting Clyde cod. There are plenty of options for the working group to consider. The extreme scenario would involve banning all trawls in the Firth of Clyde during the spawning season. More amenable options could include the creation of static gear reserves during the spawning season, as that would greatly reduce bycatch, or a requirement for trawlers to use adaptation. We heard about that, but I did not feel confident that the Government’s marine directorate has an understanding of what gear is being used, such as the Swedish grid. By getting everyone around the table, the Government can work out what the impacts on Clyde cod will be for each measure, and it can balance them against the socioeconomic impact of restricting fishing in the Firth of Clyde. I am inclined at this point to support the call to recommend that the order be annulled.

I will continue the questioning about the targeted scientific programme. It is good to hear that the programme could still take place even without the SSI.

In 2024, the Government committed to an enhanced science plan for the Clyde to improve scientific observations, and we now have the TSP. Why, after repeated scientific initiatives, are you not in a position to consider alternative approaches? When will that position change? Given what has been said this morning, it feels as though you are not confident that you are seeing the whole picture, but everything points to the problem being the significant amount of bycatch from a nephrops trawl resulting in a high fish mortality rate. An alarm is being raised about that high fishing mortality, which is expected to remove around 80 per cent of the biomass each year.

You are putting something in place, but it seems to me that we already have the data, as we heard in evidence from the scientists at the round-table session. You now say that we must have more scientific evidence from creelers and look at their bycatch, yet alarm bells are being sounded about an emergency situation because of the massive reduction in biomass.

Can you tell me a little about the 2024 science? What did you do and what data was gathered? What has changed, and what was not delivered that means that we need the TSP? That would be a helpful start.

But all the evidence that we have had suggests that the bycatch from nephrops trawlers is the problem that is ringing the alarm bells. It feels to me as though this SSI is saying, “Oh, but let’s look over here, at creelers.” I was talking about trawlers in another session and the conversation always ends up going back to creelers. I hear your point. You want to look at the creeler bycatch, but, from the data, it looks as though it is going to be a small amount. You are busy putting time and effort into looking at the bycatch from creel fishing while this alarm bell is ringing and saying, “This is the problem.” Yes, there will be future catching policies and other things that will come in, and there is a bigger context and picture, but you could do this TSP without having this SSI in place.

Let me think this through a little bit. I should say that I thank the Shetland Fishermen’s Association for educating me on the different gears with its wonderful annual handbook that shows you all the pictures. To my mind, if you have a big net moving across the surface of the sea, you will have a lot more juvenile cod bycatch than you will if you just have a pot sitting quietly on the seabed.

I heard what you said to my colleague about not being able to bring back another SSI immediately. However, as I understand it, our legal obligations will require whoever is in post after the election to address the problem urgently and find a better solution. The bycatch from a nephrops trawl is the issue that has been held up brightly in our evidence sessions and in the letters that we receive. I want to clarify that the Government’s legal constraints mean that something will have to be done, starting on 10 or 11 May, to address the bycatch issue. If the SSI is annulled, we cannot just drop the issue—we have to do something.