Seòmar agus comataidhean

People who usually urge us to take conservation measures are contacting us with concerns about the science behind the closure. Everyone wants to make sure that every stock of fish is healthy, but the trouble is that you are asking people to forgo a quarter of their annual income on the basis of science that they do not really trust, which makes the proposition difficult.

The committee also faces a motion to annul the order, which we will have to make a decision on. It seems to me that a vague indication that the Government might look at things in a couple of years’ time will not be satisfactory to the people who are coming to us about this issue. Is there a way to look at things again, to ensure that those less harmful methods of fishing can be allowed? Those who cannot move out of the area will have no alternative but to shut up shop for three months. Is there a way to come back with a new instrument or a guarantee that, next year, something quite different might come before the committee? We are making decisions about people’s livelihoods without convincing science.

I want to really push you on the issue. If evidence came to the fore, before you were due to renew or change the instrument, would you introduce a new order?

We should perhaps write to the Scottish Government to ask what discussions it has had with the Danish Government on fisheries. I understand that we do not fish for sand eel at all, but I think that the species is important to the Danish fishery. It would be good to understand what discussions were held with the Danish and whether there are any implications for international negotiations on fisheries.

I will press you a wee bit in relation to juvenile cod being discarded by the prawn fishery trawling industry. The evidence that we have received suggests that the closure approach is wrong and that most juvenile cod are caught by trawling. What evidence do you have that that is not the case and that the gear that is used allows cod to escape? It seems that the policy is not based on scientific evidence as such and that creelers and divers, which have very little impact, as we know, are being caught up in the closures. That probably is not having the impact that we are looking for.

Can you give the committee any assurance that you will look at the matter again and in a shorter timescale?

So, drawing down any support, even in tier 1 and tier 2, could be subject to compliance with the code of practice; therefore, it is prescriptive.

Which would be the code of practice. We are going round in circles. The code of practice is important.

The policy memorandum states:

“The recommendations in the Code of Practice are expected to underpin good agricultural and environmental practice, as set out in conditions for area-based support for farmers.”

That is the crucial bit. People have to comply with the code of practice to get area-based support. It might not be said that everyone must do everything to the letter in the code of practice, but they will have to follow the code of practice as it pertains to their land to access area-based payments. That means that it is crucial that people understand what is contained in the code of practice and that they agree that it is practicable, otherwise they will not get their area-based payments. That is big.

Amendment 168 would ensure that any changes to the muirburn season were properly scrutinised. I assume that the powers to change the muirburn season will be used in response to the impacts of climate change on nesting birds. It is right that such changes should be made, but it is also right that proposed changes should be laid before Parliament and consulted on widely.

Many members have tried to adjust the muirburn season in the bill. I have sympathy for Kate Forbes’s amendment 102, as we have heard that birds are already nesting by the end of March. Other members have sought to add flexibility to the season. I have some sympathy with that, given the impact of climate change, but I am concerned that, without robust scrutiny, such flexibilities could be abused. I believe that it would be better to deal with changes to the season under the code rather than in the bill. Therefore, my amendment 168 seeks to ensure that changes to the muirburn season will be properly scrutinised.

Will the minister take an intervention?