���˿���

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.

The Scottish Government’s supporting evidence and analysis report was critical of a number of the previous CAP schemes. For example, the greening and less favoured areas support scheme was found not to deliver as effectively as possible on the stated objectives. How will the new payment scheme address those issues?

I want to get some clarity on what Andrew Crawley said. Part 2 of the bill includes various sections, but the section that he talked about—section 13—is about eligibility criteria, payment entitlements, amount, conditions, enforcement and administration in relation to support. Those are technical things, but the fact remains that part 2 in total is subject to the negative procedure. Cabinet secretary, are you saying that you would be open to amendments that separate the sections of part 2, which would allow some technical amendments to be subject to the negative procedure and others to be subject to the affirmative procedure, based on the committee’s recommendations?

Looking at it from the other point of view, stakeholders have expressed concerns about why the code of practice is there at all and what it actually means. How will the Parliament scrutinise its direct or indirect benefits and its impact on climate change targets? The Government sets the rules. If farmers are being told to comply with conditions set by the Government, and if they are unable to access funding if they do not comply, surely all the power is held by the Government, even if the direct or indirect impact of the code of practice is being scrutinised to see whether it is working.

I will go back to amendment 16, if you do not mind. Obviously, it is a very practical amendment. The Scottish Government often co-designs schemes with practitioners. I am very happy to support the amendment, and I do not see why the Scottish Government should not consider that, on the basis of the experience and knowledge that practitioners have.

As was articulated by Edward Mountain, the bill should remain focused on the remit of red grouse shooting. Part 1B currently includes only red grouse. However, the bill empowers the Scottish ministers to add further birds to the section 16AA licensing regime, if they think that it is appropriate to do so, via secondary legislation. The consultation preceding the bill did not signal an intention to regulate other species, so that broad enabling power is likely to come as a surprise to rural stakeholders without grouse interests, as that change could have a significant downstream consequence for the sector more broadly.

The bill’s policy memorandum says:

“The purpose of the ... scheme is to address the on-going issue of wildlife crime, and in particular the persecution of raptors, on managed grouse moors.”

The committee agrees with that. The policy memorandum continues:

“It will do this by enabling a licence to be modified, suspended or revoked, where there is robust evidence of raptor persecution or another relevant wildlife crime related to grouse moor management”.

What else would you like me to do, convener?

That is it. Thank you.

Minister, section 7 confers a significant enabling power. The bill is about creating a licensing scheme to tackle raptor persecution on grouse moors specifically. As Edward Mountain said, the enabling power means that, in the future, country sports that involve released game birds could be targeted. What would be the trigger for the enabling power being used, and what would be the threshold for monitoring raptor persecution in other country sports?