³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes, I am happy to provide more information. As I have mentioned, Gillian Martin, when she was in post as Minister for Energy and the Environment, set out some more information to the committee. We have an additional three strands of work that we are looking to take forward in relation to the evidence gathering and monitoring. We have committed to resourcing that and taking that work forward.

You are absolutely right. There are a couple of different forums. The FMAC is important in ensuring that we have that engagement with our fishers across the board. There are a number of sub-groups of that—I mentioned the inshore fisheries sub-group and some of the work that it is looking to take forward. That is a really important forum for engagement across the piece.

I also point to the three strands of work that I alluded to. It has been important to ensure that we engage in relation to that, particularly with the CFA. I appreciate the constructive way in which the CFA has come forward. It very much wants to work with us, because it is in all our best interests to ensure that we are working on the same basis and that we involve the CFA in that process. It is important that we take forward that work with the CFA. We are having discussions with the CFA about how it could potentially be involved in the strand of work on having a science presence on marine protection vessels. After the meeting that the minister had, there have been follow-up discussions with officials, because the issue that you raise is an important one.

Coby Needle wants to come in with more information on a specific point.

I am not sure what the process for that would be. I would have to take further advice. Again, we are basing the order on the best available scientific advice. I understand that there are different views and that people are not necessarily content with this position, but we have to base the order on the best information that is available at this point.

I appreciate your pushing me, exactly because of the important points that you have raised. We are dealing with people’s livelihoods and I recognise the impact. This is a short-term closure and, ultimately, we are doing it for the protection of the stock.

I fully appreciate the strength of feeling that the instrument has elicited, as I highlighted in my opening remarks. I would like to make a few points of clarification, because we have broadly set out the key arguments and why we have introduced the order.

Rhoda Grant made a point about bycatch, but that is not necessarily the issue. We want the maximum protection for spawning cod, and in that regard it is the disturbance of the sea bed that is predominantly the issue, given the number of creels and the disturbance that they can cause. I just wanted to clarify that.

On Rachael Hamilton’s comments, I do not know whether the member was referring to the partial BRIA that was published with the consultation, but a full BRIA was published with the instrument. I would have thought that that would be available to the committee. Also, enhanced monitoring has been put in place since the previous period of closure, as I touched on in my comments.

I have set out our position. I appreciate the impact on fishers, but, ultimately, this measure is about the protection of the stock and ensuring that we have maximum protection for spawning cod.

Do you mean in relation to the plan itself?

That point is separate from the regulations that we are considering today, but I am more than happy to have a separate discussion with you on the matter. First of all, we want to ensure that our consultation on the plan is as broad and as far reaching as possible, which is why we have produced a variety of materials to make it as accessible as possible. Indeed, the consultation’s accessibility and its being as inclusive as possible were key themes that arose from the committee’s scrutiny of it.

We have commissioned Nourish Scotland to hold workshops for us—I think that it is holding them across the country—to enable stronger engagement. If the committee has not seen it already, I am happy to provide that information, if that would be helpful.

I do not think that we are talking at cross purposes in relation to what we are trying to achieve. We have set this out as we have exactly because we want to achieve what you have talked about and to recognise the broad level of experience that can exist. It is not that those things are mutually exclusive; we just need to ensure that we take those matters into consideration. As I say, the instrument also mirrors what is in the act, which is why we have framed it in that way.

I acknowledge the committee’s interest and the points that have been raised by its members today. This is in all our best interests, and we all share the same aim in what we want to achieve through the 2022 act and the plans that we have produced, as well as what we hope the Scottish food commission can help us to achieve. I welcome the interventions that have been made today.

Motion agreed to,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Scottish Food Commission (Appointment) Regulations 2024 be approved.

I will comment briefly on that before I turn to Allan Gibb, who will be able to provide a bit more detail on that and some of the changes that we are seeing as a result of the issues that you raised.

There are other measures in place and other changes that have been developed in an attempt to protect spawning cod as much as possible, which Allan Gibb will be able to talk about. I am referring to changes to the size of mesh panels and to the engine sizes of vessels to ensure that we minimise disturbance as much as possible and that we do not catch what we should not catch.

Allan Gibb wants to respond.