Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know that the issue has been covered before, but I want to go back to spawning disturbance. Will you highlight again, cabinet secretary, what Clyde-specific evidence supports the spawning disturbance rationale, which is being used to remove exemptions for creels? If there is none, why retain that prohibition?

The point that I am driving at is that you are not looking for a particular outcome at the end of the three years; this is all being driven by the underpinning science programme. There will not be an outcome at the end of the three years, but the science programme will define what happens as we move forward. Does that make sense?

10:00

I just want to come back on that, and I hope that you can help me pick this up. We have quite a lot of papers in front of us from experts who are questioning the SSI a lot, and the points that they are making fall in with other things that we have been hearing from various stakeholders. My understanding is that the cod stock that we are talking about is not particularly significant in terms of other cod stocks. Is that your understanding, too?

I am not suggesting that that is exactly my view—I am just questioning the position. We have a sustainable fishing industry in the area, which is very important; we have measures that have been in place for nearly two decades now but that have not really worked at all; and we have a lot of people questioning the order in front of us. I just want to understand, finally, why we are persisting with this.

Okay.

When I came in this morning, I was slightly joking when I said that I had only a 30-second speech. It has got slightly longer over the course of the morning. I will read through what I have got and I hope that it will make sense of why I will move the motion to recommend that the order be annulled.

I lodged the motion to recommend that the Parliament annul the order after reflection and a round-table discussion that we had with many stakeholders. Even following this morning’s evidence session, I do not believe that the Government has made a sufficiently strong or balanced case for proceeding in the way proposed. It seems to almost everyone that there is a misalignment between what is being proposed and the reality on the ground.

Like many, I support sustainable fisheries: healthy stock and healthy coastal communities must go together, and I want our fishing communities to thrive. However, it feels as though the question that the fishermen, the local community and environmental groups are asking us is not whether we are acting, but whether we are acting in the right way and on the right evidence. After so many years of the cod box being in place, I can see why those involved are asking that.

The committee heard a wide range of views from scientists, industry representatives and local stakeholders. That evidence was not settled, but there was credible concern about the precision of the data, about how well the measures match actual stock behaviour and about the real-world impacts on those who make their living at sea. The consultation responses reflected that same picture: there was support for protecting stocks but no clear consensus that the current approach is the correct or proportionate one. Many respondents questioned the design, the timing and the likely effectiveness of the closure and asked for a more collaborative and adaptive approach. That is why the Government should pause and think again, and that is why I have lodged the motion recommending annulment.

During the debate, Rhoda Grant mentioned guarantees for the committee should anything change or new measures be imposed, if the order goes through successfully. I would make the strong argument that the best possible way to develop that argument, given the massive uncertainty that we are seeing across the board from key stakeholders, is to ask the Government to pause now, reflect and move forward afresh. After 20 years or so, that seems a fair thing to do.

I find it telling that, in the past few weeks, members of the committee have found ourselves in two similar situations with two instruments: the SSI on producer organisations in agriculture and this order. While the instruments are very different, in both cases we are effectively being told that we must put them through because of the impacts if we do not. I cannot, in all good faith, continue to sit and vote for things that are widely questioned just because there is a consequence of the Government’s making. It is not for me to defend the Government. Although it brings risks, perhaps if we recommend annulment, that will be the kick-start that brings certain change for the better.

I cannot suggest what should happen, but surely the Government needs to bring the key groups—fishers, scientists, conservation bodies and local communities—around the table again to agree a forward plan that is transparent, evidence led and workable on the ground. Better co-design will lead to better compliance and, I hope, to better outcomes. No one is saying that that will be easy—I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said about that today—but everything is possible with the right approach.

If others were to feel that they could support the motion, I would make a strong plea that a year-on-year situation cannot be left as a fight between differing parties campaigning for radical measures or changes, or as a fight for the use of the Clyde as a media example.

People’s livelihoods depend on the area, and communities can be radically changed by the proposals. Any discussions must be balanced and fair for those who live and work in the area. I am aware that the Clyde Fishermen’s Association is ready, and has always been, to work with the Government and all partners in a fair and open way.

Annulling the order not about stopping progress; it is about getting the policy right and moving forward. With that, I urge others to join me in voting for the motion.

I move,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Sea Fish (Prohibition on Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2026 (SSI 2026/10) be annulled.

We are moving on to questions about socioeconomic impacts. As much as I love all the various stakeholders who appear in front of the committee, there is always something compelling about hearing evidence from people who perhaps do not always join in with the parliamentary process. The two fishermen who represented the Clyde Fishermen’s Association the week before last were important in that regard.

The business and regulatory impact assessment suggests that creel vessels may lose up to 26 per cent of their annual profits and nephrops trawlers may lose up to 49 per cent. What assessment has the Government made of that impact? How do you consider those losses to be proportionate?

In this case, you have considered all that and said, “What we are doing is proportionate.” However, many members around this table are frustrated because the policy is not proportionate or balanced—that is definitely the view that has been expressed in the consultation responses. There were two fishermen sitting in this room who were upset about what has happened to their communities in the past 20 years. They might have felt differently if they thought that there had been an outcome from the closure, but they do not think that; they feel that their communities have been harmed by the closure, and they are now facing a three-year extension to it.

Nobody really knows what is happening with the closure. Some groups are saying, “Maybe we should do it, because what will happen if environmental non-governmental organisations come in and try to blow this up into something bigger?” I am not suggesting that the ENGOs would do that, but those groups are scared about things getting even worse if they were to do so. Others are saying, “Look, don’t go ahead with this—it’s madness. We don’t know what we’re doing.”

Despite all that, and despite all the consultation responses—which I am sure that you have read—do you still think that the closure is a proportionate response?

Beatrice Wishart touched on the fact that biannual closures might be better than the three-year period that is proposed in the SSI. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that you are saying that you have suggested a three-year period because that three years’ worth of data is worth having. Beyond the need for that data, is there any evidence that demonstrates why a three-year period is necessary?

But not with the order in front of us.