Official Report 804KB pdf
Conservation of Salmon (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/368)
Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2025 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Please ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent.
I inform committee members that Colin Beattie has resigned his membership of the committee. We thank him for his contribution to the committee’s scrutiny work. We will have a new member next week.
I welcome Jackie Baillie, who will take part in agenda items 1 and 2.
Our first item of business is consideration of a negative Scottish statutory instrument: the Conservation of Salmon (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. I welcome, remotely, Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and I welcome, in person, her officials: Antje Branding, marine environment, and Dr John Armstrong and Dr Stuart Middlemas, science evidence, data and digital, from the marine directorate.
I ask the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
Good morning, convener and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 2024 salmon regulations and outline their vital importance to the protection and conservation of that iconic species.
First and foremost, I want to make it clear that the regulations are designed to sustainably manage the exploitation of salmon. They allow anglers to pursue their hobby and enable fishery owners to earn an income from selling fishing permits.
The regulations are key to delivering the wild salmon strategy. Scottish rivers have healthy populations of wild salmon. Wild salmon management is evidence based, and the environmental and socioeconomic benefits that arise from wild salmon are maximised. Using the best available data, marine directorate scientists have identified, as they have in previous years since 2016, the river systems in which salmon are most at risk and in need of protection through mandatory catch and release.
I realise that some people see that as a deterrent for anglers and are worried that the income from selling fishing permits might decrease, but the opposite is the case. The majority of anglers in Scotland have long recognised that the health of our salmon stocks is more fragile than ever, which is why many areas already operate a voluntary catch-and-release regime, such as has been practised on the River Dee for the past 30 years. More recently, there was a unanimous vote for the introduction of the same approach on the River Tweed.
Overall, the rate of catch and release of wild salmon practised in Scotland has steadily increased in past years, and it was at 96 per cent in 2023. That reflects the forward-thinking nature of those who enjoy fishing for salmon.
However, the wild salmon strategy and the associated implementation plan do not focus on anglers alone; they also aim to tackle the wide range of pressures in rivers and at the coast over which we have some control. The delivery of the wild salmon strategy depends critically on actions taken at national and local levels by the Government and by fishery managers and anglers.
The conservation regulations and associated gradings use the best available evidence and data. In the case of the River Endrick, catches have declined in recent years, and the proposed mandatory catch and release is required to support the recovery of stocks in the river. We cannot allocate gradings to rivers that do not reflect the data that we have on salmon, and it would set quite a dangerous precedent not to provide the salmon in the River Endrick special area of conservation with the protection that they need.
I believe that the regulations are a much-needed contribution to our collective efforts to reverse the fortunes of wild salmon, which is a magnificent species that is iconic for Scotland. It is therefore our duty to conserve our wild populations for future generations.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. I think that I speak for the committee when I say that we have a strong desire to do everything possible to protect what we regard as an iconic species. However, there is an annual debate about the regulations and, although we know that they are in place to protect salmon, there are always arguments about how data is collected and analysed. Are you comfortable that, unlike maybe five or six years ago, when there were real concerns about the methodology, we are getting the modelling and the data collection right to ensure that the river gradings are accurate?
Yes, I believe that we are using the best available data, but we, of course, always consider improvements that could be made. I am sure that officials can give a bit more detail on the methodology that is used. Primarily, we use all the data that is provided to us through the statutory catch return forms. Some of the methodology that we are using will be peer reviewed, too.
We are open to receiving information from the fisheries themselves. In fact, I think that, for a couple of the rivers that had been assessed, their assessment was changed on the back of further information that we received. Therefore, we have that dialogue and we consider carefully the further information that we get.
I will hand over to officials, who will be able to say a bit more about the methodology that is used, if the committee would find that helpful.
Part of the methodology that we use is being peer reviewed at the moment, and we are waiting for the outcome of that. The methodology has been scrutinised by lots of people and is based on international standard methods, but it is tailored to Scottish needs and Scottish data. It is used by groups such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea working group on North Atlantic salmon, which has accepted that this is the method that Scotland uses. It is not the case that there has been no scrutiny—the methodology has been scrutinised a lot more than most things that go to and have been through peer review.
As the cabinet secretary said, it is true that methods can always be improved, but we must use the best available methods and the best available science. We are doing that, but that is not to say that we are not working in the background to update the methods.
We want to keep the methods stable when it comes to feedback from the committee and anglers. We do not want to change the methods every year, so it might look like nothing is changing and we are not working on them, but the idea is to develop them to a certain stage and then consult and bring in changes at one time. That means that there are no big changes year on year that make it difficult to plan for fisheries.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a quick question. If the motion to annul the regulations was agreed to, what would the effect be?
I would be concerned if the motion to annul was agreed to, primarily because that would mean that the regulations that were passed in 2023 would apply. Some of the changes that we are introducing through the regulations that are before the committee—12 river systems will fall one grade and nine of those will be subject to mandatory catch and release, while four will rise one grade and three of those will no longer have mandatory catch and release—would not apply, because we would rely on the regulations that were passed in 2023. Ultimately, if the motion to annul was agreed to, rod-caught fish would be killed in some of those rivers. Given the precarious state of the species, I would be seriously concerned about that if the committee agreed to the motion to annul.
Is there any evidence that there is widespread killing of fish, or is it taken that, no matter the grading of the river, anglers are as conscious as anybody of the precarious position that salmon are in? Is catch and release not the adopted practice now, whatever the status of the river?
Absolutely. What you said is right. I alluded to that in my opening comments and mentioned some of the rivers that have practised catch and release for a long time anyway. However, we need the regulations in place, given the evidence and data that we have and the assessments that we have undertaken that show that the status of the populations has changed in some areas. It is not just about some rivers going down a level; others are moving up, which means that mandatory catch and release would not be in place for some rivers.
I believe that anglers genuinely want to do the right thing for the species, and it is in everybody’s best interests that that happens. That is why it is important that the committee does not agree to the motion to annul. We need to work on the best available evidence and data, which is what has been put forward and is why we are amending the previous regulations in the way that we are today.
Nearly half of the respondents to the consultation on the changes are concerned about how data is collected. What proportion of data do you receive back from owners of the different beats? What proportion actually submit returns? When they do not submit returns, what do you do about that lack of data?
I ask officials to comment on some of those points, because they have more of the detailed information.
Primarily, we use catch returns. We send out more than 2,000 forms a year. If we do not get an initial response, we follow those up with reminder letters. We get a return rate of more than 90 per cent. That rate has been fairly stable. I think that it is 93 per cent. I can find the exact figure and let the committee know, but it is certainly 92 or 93 per cent.
A lot of the people who do not get back to us tend to be in areas that we have not heard from for a number of years and where we believe that there are no significant fisheries, but it is difficult to chase them too much.
You write to every fishery on every river to ask them for their returns, and you then chase them up and get 90 per cent back eventually—is that correct?
We have a database of all active fisheries, which are written to every year. We note some fisheries as dormant, but we check to make sure that they are still dormant. Not all fisheries are active; not all fisheries fish. Some fisheries have never fished—the fishing has perhaps not been particularly good—and some do not fish on conservation grounds, but we check on all dormant fisheries periodically and we write to the fisheries to get a return every year.
09:30
Just to be clear, you get a 90 per cent return for the fisheries that you believe fish, not for all fisheries.
We get back 90 per cent of the forms that we send out.
Yes, but you do not send forms to every fishery, because you do not send forms to those that you believe are dormant.
We check the dormancy status. I would need to double check the exact procedure, because it has changed over the years, but we do check the dormancy of fisheries.
How often do you do that?
I believe that it used to be done every few years, but, again, I will need to come back to you on that, because that is not done by my department. I am sorry not to answer the question, but I am struggling to remember. Rather than give you false information, we can provide the answer for you later.
That would be useful. Thank you.
Cabinet secretary, the submission from Fisheries Management Scotland says:
“The River Annan is one of only two rivers in Schedule 1 in which there is not a set period in the early part of the year (during the annual close time) in which fishing by rod and line is permitted.”
I know that it is important to support the conservation of wild salmon, but the Fisheries Management Scotland submission says:
“If the instrument is annulled, this would mean that the fishery on the River Annan would not be permitted to operate between 25 February and 31 March. This would have a significant impact on the local economy.”
We know that it is important to conserve wild salmon—we have heard a lot about that in recent months—but I am interested in what the wider impact on the local economy would be if the instrument was annulled.
You have touched on a really important point, particularly in relation to the River Annan. You are absolutely right about what Fisheries Management Scotland has said. If the motion to annul was passed, there would be a big economic impact, particularly on that area, because it would mean that the early season would be unlawful, which would have a significant impact. That is another vital reason why the regulations need to proceed. I hope that the motion to annul is not supported today.
My understanding is that some of the fishermen and fisherwomen—fisherpeople—fish only on the River Annan, which means that they would not be able to catch and release at all, anywhere, if the motion was annulled—is that correct?
It would make the early season unlawful, so it would not be able to take place. I do not know whether there is any further information on the specifics of the economic impact that you mentioned in your first question, but the business and regulatory impact assessment, which has been published as part of the regulations, picks up on some of that.
If the regulations were not to go ahead, I would be concerned about the impact on the Annan, as well as about the wider issues of wild salmon conservation.
One of the difficulties is that the regulations are in two parts. If we do not like the part that sets the categories of the rivers and we annul the regulations, we will be, by default, rejecting what appears to be a move that we would welcome—amending the annual closure times—and that would have an impact on the River Annan. It is rather difficult to look at those points and consider annulling the instrument, because that could have unintended consequences for something that the committee would, on the face of it, support.
I will ask one more question before I bring in Jackie Baillie. In the past, there were concerns about the methodology and the data that was collected. Data is only as good as the people who provide it to us. One of the commitments from a few years back—I think that it was when the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee dealt with the issue—was to have more fish counters on our rivers, because that would take away some of the uncertainty over fishing effort by looking at how many people have been fishing the river, and the model could consider whether salmon had entered a river, whether that had to do with a dry summer or exceptionally high tides, and so on. A range of things affect fish coming to a river.
Has there been an increase in the number of fish counters? That would mean that some of the uncertainty over fishing effort and so on could be removed and we would know the actual number of fish that were entering a river.
I am sure that officials can provide more detail on that. When it comes to wild salmon conservation, a number of pieces of work are under way. I mentioned in my opening comments the wild salmon strategy and its implementation. Over the past few years, we have invested nearly £5 million in actions as part of that strategy, including those relating to the counter network.
Would anyone else like to take on that question?
I will start, and others can help.
Through work with partners in the local trust network and the Atlantic Salmon Trust, two counters have been put in the River Laxford, in north-west Scotland, and the River Deveron, in the Grampian area. Information from those was used last year in the conservation regulations for those rivers, but we are also studying the results from those counters to apply them elsewhere. We are starting to get more information from a wider number of areas. There are also discussions on a counter to go in the Western Isles, and funding has been provided to local groups for other counters, including one to go in the North Esk.
The purchase and operation of fish counters is very costly, time consuming and resource consuming. The marine fund Scotland provided funding last year for fish counters to be installed—the district salmon fishery boards, angling trusts and angling associations were given counters.
At the same time, we are funding pilots to explore the use of artificial intelligence so that the data can be automatically assessed and used in our assessment methodologies. We have seen a lot of innovation in that area, which will help to achieve more automation in the future and ensure that we have a widespread counter network that is fit for purpose. That will underpin not just the conservation regulations but all our efforts on salmon conservation.
Good morning, and thank you for your helpful remarks. There is no doubt in my mind that salmon is an iconic species and one that we want to protect. I had not seen the regulations before, because I am pretty new to the committee, but I had an email ping in about them while Dr Middlemas was speaking.
As has been touched on, there seem to be some issues with how we collect and utilise the data. For clarity, I ask you to explain what the promise is. If we agree to the regulations today, how do we improve the data collection and ensure the right outcomes for our rivers with respect to closed periods and so on?
You raise a really important point. As we have said, we work on the best available data. Of course, wherever we can improve it, we would like to do so. You have just heard about the investment that is taking place in the counter network. Dr Middlemas touched on the fact that part of the methodology that we use will be peer reviewed, but he also pointed out that the methodology and the way that we use the data that we have hold up internationally. We look forward to the outcome of the peer review process, and, where there are recommendations for areas of improvement, we will consider them.
Good morning to you, cabinet secretary and your officials. Dr Middlemas talked about change that is being developed in the background. Perhaps the counters are part of that, but I go back to Tim Eagle’s question, which I liked: what is the promise here? Can you explain the work that is happening in the background? I understand that it is about rolling all of this out in a package in the future to ensure that we do not have to come back to the issue.
Essentially, there are two parts to the process, when we break it down. It is very complicated—there is a lot of mathematical modelling—but, simply put, it is all about how many fish we have and how many we need. Those questions are difficult to answer, but we are working on both of them. The counters give us information on how many fish we have, which is very useful, and we can use the relationship between catches and counters to get an idea of how many fish we have in areas without rivers. We are working on that.
We are working with the new information from the new counters, but we are also working to incorporate information on effort. Traditionally, Scotland did not collect information on fishing effort—say, the number of rod days that we have. We started to collect that information in 2019, and we are now working on incorporating it, because it is easy for people to understand that fishing effort will affect rod catch. We want to incorporate that into the assessments, and we are working with the data. Unfortunately, it takes time to collect it and to have enough to put it into a useable format, but that is what we are working on, as far as that side of things is concerned.
As for the number of fish that we need, we hope to be able to do that work as near as possible on a river-by-river basis once we have information from enough years. We started to collect river-based information in 2011. I will not bore people with the mathematics, stock recruitment relationships and all those things, but we need to have a long time series before we can use that information to say, “This is the number that we need” and compare it with the number that we have. As I said, we are hoping to do that work river by river. Instead of knowing the numbers for some rivers and having to extrapolate them for others, we will have them for most rivers. Again, though, that takes time. We need to have the data and the time series, and they are being developed.
I hope that, when we have all of that as a package, we will be able to take the step forward. The information that we have will be better and it will be based on the best use of local information. That is not to say that we are not making the best use of local information at the moment; it is just that we are not yet able to turn it into something that can be used for the conservation regulations without further work. That is where we are aiming to get to.
You said that getting information on effort and information on a river-by-river basis will take time. Are we talking about a few years?
I hope that we will be able to report on progress towards getting that done in a year or maybe two. We might not have the answer then, but we should be able to report on progress and tell you what we have done and what the prognosis is over the next couple of years.
Things are changing with salmon. It is not just the numbers that are decreasing; the salmon are getting smaller, and smaller salmon have fewer eggs. As a result, it is important to understand changes in the size of the fish, and a process is in place to get better information on how size is changing with time. That is an important component of the assessment. Moreover, it will be an on-going process. We will not just reach an end point; we need to carry on counting fish and looking at the changes.
Thank you.
I guess that the problem with data is that you can constantly keep collecting it and not doing things. Of the recommendations in the salmon interactions working group report, which is on interactions between wild and farmed salmon, I think that only one has been completed. Dr Middlemas talked about a period of two years, which is quite a long time. Is there any way of speeding things up? We want the species to recover and we want better management of it. My worry is that we will delay and delay while we get more and more data and that we will not actually push forward.
09:45
It is really difficult. With data collection, we are dependent on people going out fishing to get information back every year. If something is data dependent, it is really difficult to speed it up. If it is people and manpower dependent, that might be possible, but there are lots of other calls and priorities.
We could not speed up the data collection. For example, we do not have five years’ worth of effort data yet, and it might turn out that we need six or seven years’ worth. I guess that what I am saying is that we can continually review that—we can see what we can do now and what we can do next year, and so on. We are not saying, “We need 10 years’ worth of data, so we won’t do anything until we get that.” We continually review and see what can be done at each point.
Maybe I picked you up wrongly.
We have had some interaction with people who are not sure how the information that they feed back to you guys is being utilised when it comes to the regulations. The talk of fish counters sounds promising, but we probably need to roll out more of them. Ultimately, all of this has to feed into the protection of the species so that we see more fish. How do we do that? How do we get that done on the ground?
The fish counters are a good example. With the work that was done on the Deveron and the Laxford, we were able to feed that information directly into the regulations. The people on the ground could see that having the fish counter made a direct impact and that the information fed directly into the assessments.
I have another question, which is really for the cabinet secretary. Where does protection of wild salmon come on your list of priorities? I ask that in the light of Tim Eagle’s point that only one of 42 recommendations from a report that has been in place for some time has been completed. I am looking at correspondence that we had in 2020, in which stakeholders expressed disappointment in the progress. Are you confident that we are making enough progress? Is the issue a high enough priority? Are we putting enough effort and resources into protecting our wild salmon?
Yes, it is a high priority, but we cannot look at that piece of work in isolation. I have touched on the wild salmon strategy and the implementation plan for that. If it would be helpful for the committee, I am happy to write with further information on progress on those. We know that our wild salmon face a number of pressures, and it is important that we take action against each of those. This is not a case of doing one piece of work; it is about trying to take action across the piece where it is within our power to do so.
Tim Eagle touched on an important point on the salmon interactions working group report. In relation to the key focus of that, a few recommendations have been taken forward. We have identified SEPA as the key regulator and have implemented the SEPA sea lice framework. We cannot overestimate just how much work was involved in developing that framework and in its implementation. I am happy to provide the committee with more information on the work that is on-going and what has already been undertaken, to ensure that the committee has the most up-to-date information.
Ariane Burgess has a brief supplementary question.
It follows on from your bigger-picture question about protecting wild salmon, convener.
I thank the cabinet secretary for mentioning the wild salmon strategy and implementation plan—it would be good to see that information. In her opening statement, she said that the instrument is designed to regulate the “exploitation” of wild salmon. Do we need to reflect on that? If we want to protect wild salmon, maybe we need to change our language and talk about things that are designed to regenerate wild salmon rather than protect them from exploitation.
Language is important. Sitting on this committee, I notice that we talk a lot about exploiting Scotland’s nature—wild salmon and other animals. However, we should perhaps move towards talking about regeneration in the way that we are now talking about regenerative agriculture. That would be a good shift and it would help us to understand that what we are trying to do is regenerate a species rather than protect what little is left.
I completely appreciate your point. I point out that that word is being used specifically in relation to the regulations, but I acknowledge the point that you make. The issue is not about exploitation; it is about how we ensure that the species recovers. That is exactly where we want to be. Salmon is an iconic Scottish species, and we want to enhance it and reverse some of the trends that we have seen so that the populations grow. That is the ultimate goal, and that work is broadly covered by what we are trying to achieve across the wild salmon strategy. We know that no single issue is causing the decline in populations. The issue is multifaceted, which means that we need a broader approach.
As I said, I will provide the committee with further information. I hope that you will find it helpful, as it will allow you to see the action that we are taking across a number of areas to address the pressures where they exist.
I invite Jackie Baillie to ask her questions.
Thank you, convener. I have a number of questions about the Endrick Water. Cabinet secretary, do you know yet how many riparian owners there are on the Endrick?
I will ask officials to comment specifically on that. I know that we have had correspondence on that point previously. We have been aware of 18 fisheries on the Endrick, and we have asked the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association to provide us with further information if that information was not correct. We have not received that yet, so I do not know whether the position has changed.
I can provide a little bit of background. The Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association is concerned with the fishery owners, not the riparian owners. The fact that someone owns the ground does not mean that they own the fishing rights. We are aware of 18 fishery owners. That is an increase on the number that we gave the last time we discussed the issue with the committee, following the receipt of information from the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association. We have also approached Registers of Scotland, but it said that we would not necessarily get what we were looking for by going through its process.
The suggestion is, therefore, that the information on the number of owners—whether we call them owners or fisheries—is incomplete.
We have updated the figures with the information that we have from, I think, 2017-18—
It was 2017.
That is as complete a record as we have at the moment. It uses all the information that was provided by the locals.
Absolutely—they are the ones who know. However, eight years have passed and there has been no update or attempt to complete that data set.
How many returns have you received from those fisheries? What enforcement action, if any, have you taken against those that do not return catch data?
We have a note of whether the fisheries are active. There are a number of active fisheries, and it is not just the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association that provides us with catch returns. We provided you with that information in a letter from the cabinet secretary.
Not all the fisheries provide catch returns.
Many of them are not active fisheries.
But there are some active fisheries. I understand what you said to my colleague earlier about a series of letters. Is any enforcement action taken if active fisheries do not provide returns?
We get a lot of zero returns for the River Endrick, but no enforcement action has been taken at the end of that process.
I will provide further clarification. The marine directorate critically depends on local collaboration with fisheries, district salmon fishery boards, trusts and angling associations, as we rely on them to provide a lot of information to us. The Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association employs bailiffs, who will have quite a lot of information about where fishing and poaching take place. We would welcome any further data from the association that shows that areas that fisheries have indicated to us as dormant are, in fact, active. The association has the best information to hand, as the marine directorate cannot have the oversight and the detailed knowledge. We do not have bailiffs on the ground who monitor all angling activity, which is why the engagement with angling associations, boards and trusts is so important. They help us with the information so that our records can be kept up to date to adequately reflect what is going on on the ground.
The Government has been trying to do that for years, convener.
Do you have any further questions?
No, thank you.
The discussion has raised a point: if there is a lack of robust evidence or data relating to a river, what action will you take before making a decision? What is the default position if you come to the conclusion that there is not robust or significant evidence on which to base a decision?
Officials may want to come in with more information, but it is important to reflect on the process that we follow and what we have set out. As we have said throughout the evidence session, we base our decisions on the best available science and the information that we have, and we then go to consultation. As Dr Antje Branding mentioned, we also regularly engage with fisheries boards and trusts. We rely on the information that we receive from them and we also act on it. As I said earlier, on the back of some information that we received, classifications were changed in two recent cases in which there were concerns about the data.
Officials have met the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association and there have been requests for further information. As far as I am aware, the information has not been received. I want to be clear about the process and show that we engage and listen where possible.
In practice, who decides whether the data that has been received is sufficient and robust enough for a classification to be based on it? My question is not about what happens then. I know that, as you have said, you will make an effort to make contact. At what point does someone decide whether the data is sufficient to base a decision on it?
The
Under the conservation regulations, the default is no retention of fish. Because it is a conservation measure, the default is to protect the fish. If there is insufficient information on a river, it will be treated in the same way as a river that has been graded as having poor conservation status—grade 3—and there will be no retention. The requirement is for sufficient information to allow retention. That is how it should be looked at, rather than thinking that the information is being used to prevent retention.
That is really helpful. Thank you.
As members have no further questions, we move to the formal consideration of the motion. I invite Jackie Baillie to speak to and move motion S6M-16130.
10:00
I am grateful to you, convener, and to the committee for affording me time to speak to the Conservation of Salmon (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. I do so with a heavy heart, because I believe that everyone around the table shares a desire to conserve and—dare I say it?—regenerate salmon stocks in Scottish rivers. I believe that that also applies to the cabinet secretary and to the anglers in my constituency. However, we must do that on the basis of accurate data.
Those of you who know me will appreciate that this is not my specialist subject, but it is not the first time that I have had to raise concerns from my local community about such regulations. In this context, I have been contacted by the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, an organisation in my constituency that I believe is approaching its centenary, which means that it is safe to say that those anglers know the local rivers well.
My first such outing on the subject was back in 2017, and I came before the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee—of which this committee’s convener was a member—in March 2018. The story now is remarkably similar, so today feels a little like groundhog day. The data has not improved in eight years. I will be absolutely clear: the problem is not with the methodology but with the data that is gathered and used as the basis for the regulations.
The cabinet secretary promised to make the best use of information and data, but we have been providing local information since 2016-17 and that does not appear to have been taken on board. In 2017, the issue was the lack of data and evidence on which similar regulations were based. If we roll forward eight years, we find ourselves here with a new set of regulations but the same problems with a lack of data.
The members of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association are not shy and have been in dialogue with the Government for a long time, so to suggest that they are not providing information is slightly remiss. I say at the outset that the association has no desire to stop the provisions that relate to the Annan salmon fishery district, nor does it wish to criticise, object to or endorse proposals for any other rivers or their catchment areas, because we do not know the details of those. However, I note that 46 per cent of respondents to the consultation had concerns about the data used by the marine directorate.
The association’s concerns relate specifically to the Endrick Water special area of conservation, which is linked to the adjoining Loch Lomond catchment area. Those concerns were first raised in 2016. Meetings with marine directorate officials followed, and there have been letters to the cabinet secretary over the years. Most recently, the association emailed officials about the regulations, which resulted in a meeting in October 2024. The cabinet secretary is aware that I wrote to her in November and December 2024 to outline those concerns, in the hope that they would be listened to and that the regulations would be amended before publication.
I take a moment to note that the association does not allow salmon to be retained until 1 May and for the whole month of October—which is more than is required by statute—in order to protect spring salmon, fish nearing spawning and late-running fish. This is not about stopping the conservation or regeneration of salmon but is quite the contrary, as the association’s practices demonstrate.
At the heart of the problem is the lack of data. The cabinet secretary rightly talked about best evidence and data, but the best evidence and data in this respect is poor. The association reports the data about salmon catches on the stretches of the Endrick that it owns but, until 2017, the marine directorate did not appear to have much knowledge of fishery owners on other stretches of the Endrick. The association helped by supplying that information, but it is clear from the earlier evidence that the marine directorate does not know all the fisheries that are operating, which means that the data is incomplete.
Unfortunately, very few fishery owners supply catch information, despite there being an existing legislative requirement to do so. It is also clear from the evidence that the committee has just heard that no enforcement action is in place regarding owners who do not supply information. A freedom of information request revealed that, in 2016, only two returns of catch data were submitted by fishery owners and that one of those came from the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association. In 2017, there were three returns, one of which was from the association. There are many more fishery owners on the Endrick, but the marine directorate does not appear to have pursued them for catch data. The association also contests that nil catches were declared. Its water bailiffs have seen and recorded catches from other stretches of the Endrick not in the association’s ownership, where owners have declared nil returns.
All of that information has been shared in great detail with the marine directorate since 2016 right up to now, but it does not appear to have resulted in any substantial change. I am interested in hearing whether there are any plans to put a counter on the Endrick, given the number of times that I have had to appear at this committee, making the case for local data.
In summary, I understand that 99 per cent of the fish recorded on the Endrick are returned, but its poor grading would mean that Loch Lomond itself, the River Fruin and the River Leven, which are classed as moderate, would drop to poor, too. That is the detrimental impact of having flawed data.
I ask the committee to invite the Government to withdraw the regulations. It can resubmit them, removing the change to the Endrick’s grading until it has evidence for that, and it can do so at pace, so as not to affect the provisions in the regulations that members support. It has done so with regulations in other circumstances in a matter of days; it should do the right thing here and withdraw the regulations. However, if it fails to do so, I hope that the committee will support my motion to annul them.
I move,
That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Conservation of Salmon (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 be annulled.
Thank you. Do any members wish to debate the motion?
I want to thank Jackie Baillie for those very thoughtful comments. I do not fully understand this from what we have heard, as we did not get into it in our previous discussion, but is it the case that, if we were to annul the instrument, the Government and the marine directorate could work at pace to do what she is asking for? What has come up in evidence is that data is an issue, enforcement is an issue and action from the marine directorate is an issue, too.
I am concerned about the information that we have received from Fisheries Management Scotland. It is a difficult situation, because I feel that I do not have the information that I need to know whether the marine directorate can take action swiftly enough. My overall sense is that this instrument is working to protect Scotland’s iconic species, and I am therefore minded to vote against its annulment on the basis of our not having enough information.
I thought that what we heard from Jackie Baillie was quite telling. I was not aware of some of that information, and now my mind is whizzing. I would like to hear a response to that, if possible, because I wonder what take the cabinet secretary and her officials have on it.
The last point that was made was particularly interesting. Does the Government have the capacity to withdraw the instrument, and quickly? It is not meant to come into place until 1 March, I think, so is there a possibility of withdrawing it, making a quick change and then resubmitting it? The committee might well have the ability to reconsider it, but the convener will know more about that than I do. I would be very interested in hearing a response on that.
I appreciate the discussion that we have had and the questions that committee members have asked.
As far as withdrawing and resubmitting the instrument is concerned, we would have to look at the basis of that, first of all, and then I would have to take advice to see what the timescales would be. After all, we cannot forget the other part of these regulations, which relates to the Annan. That will come into effect for the early season, which is from 25 February, so I do not think that we would have the time to take the instrument away and resubmit it. Again, the question is, what would be the basis for our doing that and what information would we base that on?
As I have mentioned in my comments to committee members, we are aware of 18 fisheries on the Endrick. We updated what we had on the back of information that I believed we had received from Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association. As for the association having further evidence and feeling that the information that we have is not correct, we have not, as I understand it, received any further information from the association in spite of our asking for it.
I have serious concerns about the motion being annulled today. Much of that concern has been outlined by Fisheries Management Scotland, because such a move will affect a number of rivers. As I have mentioned, 12 rivers are due to be downgraded, but it would also affect the three that would no longer have mandatory catch and release, and there would also be the impact on the Annan and the economic impact of not implementing the instrument.
That is why I urge the committee not to support the motion to annul today. We are working with the best evidence that we have, and it is vital that the regulations proceed.
The cabinet secretary confirmed earlier that, in spite of the regulations, most anglers are now using catch and release as the norm, whether or not they are forced to by legislation. It seems to me that this is not the first time—certainly on this subject, and on other subjects, too—that we have been presented with an instrument for which the data and information do not stack up. We are being told by the Government that, because we are on a tight timescale, we need to accept the instrument. It seems that nothing changes. We, as a committee, need to take a stand to ensure that the evidence and information that we are getting to back up statutory instruments, which are legislation, merit the acceptance of that legislation.
I have a general comment. Colleagues have mentioned that there are two elements to the instrument. That has happened before, when the beef suckler scheme and good environmental status were conflated because the instrument was about compliance. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary acknowledged that the committee will be looking at a lot of SSIs and that, when two issues are put together and there is one issue on which we would like to do something different, that makes it very difficult for us to do our work. I want to put it out there that the cabinet secretary could bear that in mind when she introduces SSIs, because it would make it easier for us to address the issues that we really need to address.
I thank Jackie Baillie for coming to the committee to represent her constituents. Having witnessed electrofishing counting take place on the river right in front of my house, which my father has worked on with the River Irvine angling improvement association, I understand the views of local people who do that work. I also understand acutely that we have a responsibility to the iconic species that is our wild salmon. I understand and appreciate the issues surrounding data, what the correct data is and how we deploy it, and I urge that there be close working between associations, trusts and the Government to ensure that we have the correct information.
At this point in time, I feel that I cannot support a motion to annul, simply because I would be concerned that we would be removing protections for salmon stocks in our rivers. However, I take on board everything that everyone has said and hope that we can get to a position in the near future where this does not have to be a perennial issue that comes to the committee. I would have concerns that associations up and down the country would take issue with some of the data at some point and we could end up doing this all the time, with different associations making representations every year.
My slight problem is that, although I agree with Elena Whitham that there is a danger if we annul, I, like Rhoda Grant, do not like to be put in a position where I feel that things are being compromised. That worries me. I am hearing that the people on the ground are saying that they have submitted data but Marine Scotland is saying that it has not received that data. That feels odd. What is going on? I go back to my earlier question about the promise. You are probably right, cabinet secretary, that you do not have time to bring the instrument back, but, if I do not vote to annul it today, what guarantee is there that we will not be in the same situation next year?
I thank committee members for the points that they have raised.
There are a number of issues bound up in this. We have talked about the data and about working from the best evidence that we have. As Dr Middlemas outlined, some of that takes more time to build up and develop. This is not necessarily about resources that we can easily put in place to fix things; it requires time and constant improvements to the methodology and how we assess that evidence.
We have to look at the bigger picture and the wider context of the work that we have talked about today—the wild salmon strategy and the implementation plan. I have already said that I am happy to write to the committee and provide more information on that, so that you can see—
10:15
I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but I do not think that you are addressing Mr Eagle’s point. It was about how we stop a situation in which the committee is faced with making a decision when we agree with 99 per cent of the regulations but are not, on the basis of evidence that we have heard from constituents, comfortable with how one part of them will affect one area. I think that the question was about how we address that in the future. It was not about the broader, general approach, but about how we address those anomalies.
Some of those issues are picked up only through scrutiny of the instruments. The issue here is one fishery, but a number of river systems are covered by the regulations, and it makes sense for us to bring them together in the round. We might be in a position where another fishery contests the data that we have put forward, but, as I have outlined, where such issues arise, we try to address them at an early stage. Indeed, that information and the work that we are doing have already resulted in the gradings of two river systems being changed.
Can we say categorically that everyone will be happy with the assessment of a river system? Of course not, and there is no saying that we will not end up in such a position again. That is why the work that we are doing on the data and the peer review work that is being undertaken on the methodology are important. Given that work, and given what Dr Middlemas has outlined to the committee today, I am confident—as much as I can be—that the methodology stands up to international scrutiny and is in line with how this activity is carried out elsewhere. It is really important to bear that in mind.
As committee members have pointed out, we have to do what we can to protect this iconic species for Scotland. That is exactly what the regulations set out to do, which is why it is vital that they are approved by the Parliament.
For the record, we are not talking about one river or one fishery. The Government admits that 46 per cent of respondents to the SSI had concerns about the data. I think that people might have given up trying to get improvements because this has been an on-going issue, but I would just highlight that nearly half of the respondents had concerns.
We have listened to those concerns, and we have shown that we have responded to them. Can we solve all problems that have been identified for all rivers? Potentially not, but, as we have highlighted, we have changed assessments where we have had that information or where the methodology or the data that we have received has been queried. That shows that we do listen and that we do respond.
I feel that the committee might find this quite difficult. Can I just get this on the record, cabinet secretary? We have heard at length the evidence that Jackie Baillie has provided, some of which came via FOIs. Do you dispute Jackie Baillie’s contribution and the evidence that she has given today? Perhaps “dispute” is a bit hard—do you recognise the issue that Jackie Baillie’s constituents have raised? That is my first question.
Secondly, it is understood that the regulations need to come into force on 24 February to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, as there could be if we annulled the regulations, with rivers such as the Annan being put at detriment. If the committee were minded to annul the regulations, would there, in practice, be time for you and your officials to go away, revisit the issues that Jackie Baillie has brought up and amend the instrument, and for the committee to consider it in time for it to be actioned by 24 February?
On your second point, I think that there is no way that I could commit to that without getting legal advice or seeing what resource and so on would be required. Also, what would be the basis for doing that? If the instrument were to be annulled, would the basis of the information and my advice from officials change? I do not believe so. We could just end up in a similar position. I am concerned about the timescales; they are increasingly tight, and I would be concerned that we would not be able to do this in time.
I am sorry, convener, but can you remind me of your first question? Oh yes—it was about Jackie Baillie and the concerns of her constituents. Jackie Baillie has written to me on behalf of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, and I, of course, take that correspondence seriously, just as I take all the correspondence that I receive seriously and consider the points that are raised before issuing any response. I know that officials have engaged directly with the association, too, which I think shows that we are engaging and listening.
On that point, cabinet secretary, I go back to the convener’s point about the timeframe for changes. Jackie Baillie has written to you. Would there be the option of further engagement following the passing of the regulations, perhaps during the spring or summer, with the bodies that have responded, including the one that Rhoda Grant mentioned, and with Jackie Baillie’s constituents, to ensure that, by this time next year, we are all absolutely on the same page about how data comes into the marine directorate and to ensure that nothing gets lost? Would you commit to ensuring that such engagement happens in the next year?
There is engagement. As I have already outlined, officials have engaged with the angling association, and they engage with fisheries boards and trusts. I again highlight the fact that we have taken direct action in response to some of the information that we have received.
The regulations will not change the basis of the information or advice that I receive. We will still have to work with the available methodology and with the data and information that we get. That might improve in the coming years if we get more information from fisheries boards and trusts than we receive already and if that gives us a more complete picture, but there might not be a radical change from where we are at the moment.
I give an assurance that we will undertake engagement. The discussions that take place are part and parcel of our work anyway, as I am sure officials would agree.
I have one final question before I ask Jackie Baillie to come back in. The committee has concerns, and I feel as though I am almost being held to ransom here, because we have to make a decision. This is not the first time that the committee has been in the position of being told that we have to do something with an SSI, or that there is a cliff edge, or that there will be a disaster, while we still have concerns about some parts of the instrument in question.
Is there any potential for you to continue looking at the evidence provided by the constituent whom Jackie Bailie represents and to lodge an amendment to the SSI if the data suggests a different grading from the current one? The committee could consider that later, without adverse implications for the Annan or other rivers. Is that a possibility?
We have sought further information. Unfortunately, at this stage, I cannot categorically commit to lodging an amendment to the instrument, because we have not had those discussions. We are all bound by the timescales for the scrutiny of statutory instruments and, in this case, we are dealing with a negative instrument. I cannot categorically say that I will lodge an amendment to the instrument, as that would depend on considering any further information that was received and my having to seek further advice on it.
I think that the committee would find it helpful to have a more detailed explanation of how the marine directorate will address some of the issues that we have heard about today before we, inevitably, end up considering a very similar SSI this time next year. That would be helpful.
As members have no further comments, I invite Jackie Baillie to wind up.
Who knew that salmon protection and conservation could be so interesting?
We did.
It has been a great debate. I say as a matter of record that I am always happy to engage with the cabinet secretary at any point, but it is fair to say that my constituents have been engaging since 2016 and they feel that nothing has really changed, that it is groundhog day and that they keep coming back to talk about the same thing.
For the record, it is not the methodology that matters—I entirely accept what the cabinet secretary has said about its being benchmarked against others. The reality is that it is the input data that matters. That is the issue before us, and we have been trying for more than eight years to get some sense in terms of the data that is processed using the methodology.
I also want to say a little bit about the legislative process, because I am always very much of the view that where there is a will there is always a way. This Parliament has introduced regulations from scratch in days—I point you to the regulations on cremations and burials, which affected my constituents directly. We have gone through stages 1, 2 and 3 of primary legislation in a day, dealing with bills whose actual evolution has taken less than a week. Taking the convener’s lead, I would suggest that you could amend the subordinate legislation; indeed, you could resubmit it tomorrow, having removed the contentious provisions and leaving in the provisions related to the Annan and other rivers. It is that easy. Therefore, I invite the committee to consider carefully what option it wishes to encourage the Government to follow.
Neither I nor others with an interest in Loch Lomond can speak to what is going on in other rivers, but, as Rhoda Grant has highlighted, 46 per cent of those consulted raised issues about the data. We cannot keep going on like this, year after year, having the same conversations, just because the data has not improved. We are not doing salmon conservation—or regeneration, for that matter—any good if we continue to lack the evidence to act.
Thank you. Do you wish to press or withdraw the motion?
I intend to press it, convener.
The question is, that motion S6M-16130 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Ariane Burgess (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Tim Eagle (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)
Emma Roddick (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Elena Whitham (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Beatrice Wishart (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on our deliberations on this negative instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes consideration of the instrument. I suspend the meeting until 10:40 to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
10:27 Meeting suspended.Air ais
AttendanceAir adhart
Budget Scrutiny 2025-26