Seòmar agus comataidhean

Your friends probably have dogs, and some people that you know may have boarding kennels. Obviously, we are not at this stage yet, but, if the Government suggests that regulation might happen and there is a consultation on it, what would you say you are doing that is different from what boarding kennels do? Is what you do better or worse than what some boarding kennels provide for the welfare of the dogs?

Thank you for your opening remarks, minister. I have a question about the consultation. Two Scottish businesses gave some feedback and only three businesses in total responded. I cannot find the link to the consultation responses. Will you talk us through the two Scottish businesses that expressed no objection to the proposals and what they set out, if you have that information?

There will always be some bad eggs who operate in a way or keep their dogs in a certain state that George and Daniel would not be happy with.

The committee has been looking at this issue for a while now, and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report said that it

“did not observe any negative contacts between handlers and greyhounds at the racetrack”

and

“saw no aggression between dogs or other outcomes indicative of poor welfare.”

You have said that that is your experience, but, for various groups to be concerned about this issue, something must need to be improved. That is what I want to explore. The experience that you are sharing with us is positive, and I am so pleased to hear it, as I am a dog lover, too, but can you explain why the public and some welfare organisations might think otherwise?

My final question is on the public perception that there is bad practice or that people such as yourselves are not keeping your animals in good condition. What more needs to be done to ensure that the general public are aware that the conditions are good and the dogs are happy?

Okay. To develop the point, I suppose the question is, what conditions are set? You mentioned the other board—I am sorry; I am getting confused with my acronyms. Are there criteria? For example, horse racing is regulated, so there will be certain conditions or whatever it might be. You go to a person who is an assured breeder, let us say—they might not be; I do not know. That is the question that I am trying to ask. You know that the dogs are coming from good stock. If you did not buy them from good stock, they would not be what you were looking for. When you are buying these pups, are you looking for good welfare standards?

Even if you are buying online, you have a relationship with those people, and you know that the dogs are coming from a good home. How do you know?

In Scotland, a licence is needed for a boarding kennel, and I believe that the local authority looks at the welfare standards for that. What would be your view if the Scottish Government was minded to extend that boarding kennel legislation to greyhound kennels? How would the extension of that regulation for kennel management and standards affect anything that relates to the rest of the United Kingdom? Do you think, as the GBGB does, that welfare standards for kennelling should apply across the United Kingdom, so that there is a seamless approach? Would there be any disadvantage to Scotland bringing in its own regulation?

It is supplementary to Rhoda Grant’s question. I believe that she is trying to meet the Scottish Government halfway, cabinet secretary. That is within your gift—the Scottish Government has already demonstrated that it can make changes, as it has done so previously.

To go back to the previous Clyde cod box closures, the consultation results showed that the vast majority of responses supported the previous situation, but the concluded consultation was reopened and altered because two campaign groups complained. We have been in the same situation previously and changes were made.

We have heard evidence today that we can debate shortly; I will not go into that now. However, it is important to acknowledge that, if it is possible, changes should, and can, be made, because the evidence that you have given today is not compelling whatsoever.

On the BRIA, 61.7 per cent of people supported the reintroduction of some or all exemptions to the seasonal closure. I do not think that the Scottish Government has recognised or even spoken about that.

I understand that the cabinet secretary is sympathetic and wants to support spawning cod but, as I described, we are now 20 years on and we have had plenty of opportunity to make changes and learn lessons. We have to be absolutely clear that cod numbers have not recovered. Many of my colleagues have commented on the need to examine alternative solutions to the issue rather than continuing with this failed policy.

I will press the motion.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity, convener. The evidence session has been useful for all committee members. I feel as if we are back in a mini highly protected marine areas nightmare here, with confusion and resentment and the possible devastation of the livelihoods of local fishermen in the Clyde. We are repeating many of the arguments that we made last year.

Last year, I was reassured that the Government would learn lessons, but it seems as though its position today is unyielding, and I do not believe that there has been any reflection on what happened at that time. I will summarise the arguments and concerns that some of my colleagues have expressed today. Whichever party we represent and whatever action we want to see, each and every one of us is concerned to protect spawning cod in one way or another.

First, I ask the Scottish Government why, despite—as others have said—no additional monitoring or science having taken place in the area, it has chosen to reinstate the Clyde cod box. I do not believe that that question has been sufficiently answered.

The Clyde Fishermen’s Association has said that no additional science or monitoring has been conducted in the area and that there has been only a partial BRIA; a full assessment has not been conducted. Again, I ask why, with regard to learning lessons from last time.

In January, as has been said, the Scottish Government announced that

“measures to protect spawning cod in the Firth of Clyde will continue”.

That was much to the disappointment of half of the respondents to the consultation, who supported an exemption. My colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston has explored where the Government sits with regard to specific exemptions.

We have also heard today that stocks of cod have recovered in Scotland. The Scottish Government and Allan Gibb have acknowledged that. I am not going to repeat the areas that have been discussed, but, after last year’s debacle, why was the work that was promised in 2024 not carried out earlier? It seems extraordinary.

One of the main issues that we have heard about today is the lack of reliable data. The cabinet secretary said that the Government is using the best scientific evidence available, but that is not good enough—is it, cabinet secretary?—because the best scientific evidence is not available. There is insufficient data on cod stocks in the Clyde to acknowledge the effectiveness of the closures.

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, there has been a change in the west coast total allowable catch, with an increase in cod allocation, and a change in the formal classification of Clyde cod to the north west stocks as opposed to the sub-stock of the Irish Sea, which only makes the closure of the cod stocks less justifiable in the eyes of fishermen. Dr Coby Needle said that the situation is unclear and that there is no evidence to support treating Clyde cod separately, so I would like some clarification on that.

Mairi Gougeon admitted that Atlantic cod stocks were recovering in January and that further evidence gathering cannot be carried out due to the cuts in the marine budget, which we heard about. The latest marine funding and marine budgets were worth a combined £99.9 million in 2023-24, and that was cut to £93 million. A lot of my colleagues have been asking how the resource and capacity of Marine Scotland will play out due to that.

The committee’s adviser, Professor Paul Fernandes, said that more scientific evaluation needs to be carried out, which was mentioned by colleagues. Professor Fernandes also said that seasonal closures are not effective.That particular statement might be cherry picking, but he said:

“If they want to give cod the best chance to recover, the evidence suggests that they are targeting the wrong thing (closure).”

The 2005 ICES study is damning. It found that the Clyde cod box had no effect on cod stocks. Elaine Whyte, the secretary of the CFA, said that the CFA

“was not convinced there was enough scientific data on the cod stocks to justify the closure.”

She added that

“survey data was inadequate, and data on cod catches was being gathered from compliance officers boarding boats to check catches, rather than scientifically. It was also often collected from boats that were nowhere near the cod closure area.”

Jamie Halcro Johnston covered the financial aspect sufficiently. More than half of respondents to the partial BRIA supported some exemptions to the ban. It is important that the livelihoods of fishermen are supported.

The cabinet secretary commented that 11 weeks is a long time, and the committee is concerned that the cumulative pressures and the resulting financial pressure would mean that fishermen would leave the market. That is anecdotal, but I am going to operate a tit-for-tat tactic, because all three of you mentioned anecdotal evidence—it was not clear evidence. We are in a situation in which we cannot rely on what the Government is saying. The partial BRIA that I discussed earlier does not reflect the financial impact that is felt by local fishermen. A lot of fishermen do not feel that it is a viable option for them to simply fish somewhere else.

Even the increased time and resource that have been spent on this issue by civil servants and the organisations that represent fishermen has been disproportionate. We find ourselves in a repeat of what happened before: there is a lack of peer-reviewed data to support the closure, fishermen cannot fish anywhere and there is almost a nirvana of displacement. A ban has been in place for 20 years, and the Government and Marine Scotland still cannot give us proper information about why we should agree to the order.

The cabinet secretary described the approach to protecting spawning cod as pragmatic and evidence based. It is absolutely not. She talked about the challenges of the socioeconomic impact. It is absolutely devastating. Even if the closure is for 11 weeks, it will be devastating.

I urge members to vote for the annulment on the basis that the advice from the Government is unclear and that the committee lacks an understanding, based on the information provided, of why the Scottish Government is taking this measure to close off livelihoods for fishermen in the Clyde.

I move,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Sea Fish (Prohibition on Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2024 be annulled.