Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have another question for Jane Salmonson. We have talked in the past about the convening power of your fund and the Scottish Government to bring others to the table in Scotland at times such as this. Could you say a bit more about whether there is scope in this emergency for that to happen and to get the most out of the sums of money that you are distributing in terms of bringing others into the conversation?

To build on a question that Mark Ruskell asked, this morning we had a conversation with the consul general of Ukraine, who made a very impressive contribution. One thing that came through loud and clear was the pressure on the consulate to provide information at a time when the UK’s policy on the matters that you have described has changed and continues to change.

Looking back, post-Brexit, we provided information to people in communities in Scotland, who realised that although the Scottish Government could not sort out the problems that the UK Government was responsible for, it could provide information. In our earlier session, we asked whether there was anything that could be done to provide a single point of contact for information, particularly for the community of Ukrainians in Scotland. Would the Government be able to work with that community and its consulate to find ways to do that?

My question is for Coby Needle, I think. It was said earlier that the monitoring of the areas and of cod stocks will continue, certainly in the coming weeks. However, will you say a bit more about how, in the longer term, we will measure the effectiveness of the interventions and the impact on cod stocks more generally?

The drift of some of the questioning has suggested that to respond to representations made to the Government is an unscientific act. How do you respond to those accusations? I am asking for your view, but you seemed to indicate that to respond to representations is reasonable for a Government to do.

I appreciate that you have to maintain your independence, but, given the amount of data that one would think would be gathered, at least anecdotally, through the fishing industry, how will you co-operate with fishers to gather information in the future?

I have a question for Mr Gibb and Dr Needle about the impact that the precautionary principle could have on the industry and environment. I ask them to say a bit more, not so much about the reasoning behind the use of the precautionary principle, but what the scenarios might be if it were not applied and every decision waited for evidence that might never come. Will they give an indication of their thinking about what would happen if the precautionary principle were not applied?

I appreciate that, as Dr Needle says, it is for others to decide whether we seek to save the species, but he hinted at consequences. We have not talked very much today about the ecosystem or biodiversity. Can you say anything about any modelling that has been done of the impacts on the wider ecosystem in the Firth of Clyde were there not to be spawning cod there?

I am content to hear about a model for the west of Scotland, if you want to speak about that.

We have heard about the financial impacts of the closures, and I do not doubt that those are real.

Many of us around the table represent fishing communities and we are familiar with the biggest issues that people in those communities bring to us. Those are around the financial impacts on businesses, families and individuals that have been caused by difficulties in accessing European markets and in finding a workforce for fishing and fish processing. Where do some of the issues that we have been talking about fit into the Government’s response to the realities of Scotland being dragged out of the European Union?

No, can I ask if it is entirely parliamentary—