³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Again, we set that out previously. I understand that there is an impact for that short period but, again, we do not implement such measures when we have other closures, nor when it comes to our marine protected area. That is why we have not offered compensation, as we have not previously. We have not changed the position this time round.

Yes. As we have stated, we appreciate and recognise that. Some fishers can move elsewhere during the period of the closure, which is short term, but that is not the same for everyone across the board, and there is an impact. However, for the reasons that I set out, we do not intend to change our position.

Again, I appreciate your point. We discussed that at length in relation to the previous order, which provided for the closure over the past couple of years. As I have highlighted, although some people can move elsewhere, I know that that is not possible for everyone. However, we have not changed our position this time round.

I absolutely do, as I intimated in my opening comments. I know that the issue has elicited strong feeling, as it did last time round. The work that we have agreed to take forward is therefore important.

As I also set out in my opening remarks, this is about the balance that we have to strike between taking environmental measures to protect spawning cod and the economic impact of doing so. None of these decisions is at all easy to make but, ultimately, in making them, we are trying to encourage the restoration of the stock through protecting those spawning cod as much as possible.

I hope that, given the other work that we have set out, and through continuing to engage with the likes of the CFA as we take things forward, we can continually improve our evidence base. However, as things stand, we base our decisions on the best available scientific evidence.

I will not prejudge a position that could be taken in a couple of years, but, as with anything, we have to continue monitoring and looking at that. The position this time round might not be the same in a couple of years, but we need to see what emerges during the closures over the next couple of years.

Such decisions will always be really challenging—there is no getting round that. I know that some people would like exemptions to be in place, as there were before we brought in the order that came before the committee previously. Given the impact that closure has on people’s businesses, none of these decisions are taken lightly. I talked about the balance that we have to try to achieve between the environment and the economy. We need to get all of that right. However, when you are telling people to stop fishing in a particular area and that impacts on their business, there is no getting round the fact that that is a really difficult decision for us, as well as being difficult for them financially.

That is why we are continuing engagement with the likes of the CFA. We want that to be part of the process and the work that we are taking forward. I hope that we can continue to work together in that vein and provide more of an evidence base.

Allan Gibb will want to come in on specific issues in relation to that in a moment.

To go back to a point that Allan made previously, when we look at the different methods of fishing in isolation, we see that they might not have much impact, and the impact of the different fishing methods is very different, but the issue is the collective nature and what that means in relation to creeling. We have talked about what varying numbers of creels could look like and the hauling that is involved, which could cause disturbance on the sea bed. That goes back to the decision that we have taken.

Allan, are there specific points that you want to come in on?

I absolutely appreciate the points that you and others have made today. Again, these are not decisions that we take lightly. We use the best available scientific evidence, as I have outlined. I want to highlight that, if the instrument is annulled today, there will be no protection in place at all.

Although I appreciate the points that have been made, I point to what I said about the strands of work that we will have under way that will continue to build the evidence base and monitoring. I repeat that, if the instrument is annulled today, we will not have in place any protections for spawning cod—those will come to an end.

The work that we have set out is a key step in that regard. As I said in response to Jamie Halcro Johnston, the position taken in this order might not be the same as it would be the next time that we introduce an instrument, because there might be more evidence or monitoring to draw from by that time, which could result in changes. I cannot prejudge that, but that is why I point to the work that we have set out as the key step in helping us to develop that wider picture.

You raise an important point. I go back to the point that Coby Needle made earlier about how engagement with fishers has already altered some of the plans that we had. You are absolutely right that they are the experts in the areas where they fish, which they know really well. That is why we want to continue to work with them.

I go back to Allan Gibb’s earlier point about all the measures in totality. How well the recovery is going is due to all the measures that we have implemented across the piece, including those to reduce bycatch and to protect the spawning areas. Those have all been critical to enabling the recovery.