Seòmar agus comataidhean

When you reduced the closure area to make it smaller, on what basis was the decision made to allow all fishing to take place in the area that falls outside the present closure area but which was part of the original area?

I have a final question for the cabinet secretary. Do you agree in principle that research that is conducted using public funds should be made publicly available?

I have a quick follow-up question for Dr Needle. You have mentioned today, and you have written to us about, scientific literature on the spawning behaviour of cod—specifically on movement up to 10m from the sea bed—which has affected the decision. Can you share with the committee the specific papers that you were referring to, please?

Last week, we heard from Elaine Whyte of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. When I asked her about the report, she said that those four reports were “nothing to do with” the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. She also said:

“we have nothing to do with the science. We just let the others use our vessels.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 2 March 2022; c 18.]

If it is not the responsibility of the CFA, the Government or Marine Scotland science, whose responsibility is it to publish those findings and make them publicly available? Is it the responsibility of the University of St Andrews?

Are you able to share with the committee exactly where the spawning cod were found? The consultation document says that they were found “in the closed area”. From what you have seen in the study, are you able to give us a specific location?

You could always follow that up afterwards.

So, rather than allow—

Dr Needle, you are nodding.

I am not sure how everything works, but I will say what I think.

The closure has not been introduced fairly. I would like the Government to go away, rethink it and bring it back, if that is an option. If we need to annul the order for that to happen, on balance I support that.

I am concerned about the evidence base. I am supportive of a precautionary approach, but that needs to be balanced with economic factors and livelihoods. The Government has not got the balance right on that.

During the meeting, I have been looking at the research papers that were cited, and I cannot even see that thing about 5m to 10m above the sea bed; it seems to be based on tidal activity rather than fishing. I just do not feel that, on the whole, the approach is right. I therefore support the motion to annul.

It was published in February 2019.