Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, convener. When I attended the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny session in September, I set out my priorities for my portfolio. I am pleased to come back today to outline how the 2025-26 Scottish budget, which was presented to the Parliament in December, will help to deliver on those priorities within the wider context of the Government’s priorities.

I believe that this is a budget for delivery. It directly addresses the issues that people are concerned about. It is a budget for hope that builds on the positive change that we are delivering for Scotland by helping to create more jobs and putting more money in people’s pockets. The budget will also protect and build on the substantial investment that the Government has already delivered for the people of Scotland.

The budget focuses resource across the four key priorities that are set out in the programme for government: eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency, and ensuring high-quality and sustainable public services. However, the budget is also set against the continued and unprecedented challenges for public finances. The Government has been clear that the extent of those challenges will not be addressed in a single year. The UK autumn budget was a step in the right direction, but although the additional funding that has been received is welcome, the block grant position represents just a 1 per cent real-terms increase in resource. Although there is a 7 per cent real-terms increase for capital, the projected gap between forecast funding and planned spending is growing.

Despite that challenge, the budget will invest more than £1 billion in 2025-26 in the rural affairs, land reform and islands portfolio. In investing more than £660 million in support for agriculture, it will continue to provide Scotland’s farmers, crofters and land managers with the most generous package of direct support in the UK. While the UK Government has removed its ring-fenced support for agriculture, we have continued to apply that to the funding received in the block grant.

The budget returns £20 million to the RALRI budget as additional funding to support transformation and reform in Scotland’s farming and food production industry, as was pledged to the sector, and it commits to returning the remaining deferred funding in 2026-27.

More than £150 million in funding is committed to ensuring that our land and forests will help to tackle climate change, protect nature and support green jobs, skills and businesses.

We also want to support our island communities to be resilient and successful. More than £9 million will go directly to where it is most needed to help us to meet the ambitions that are outlined in our national islands plan.

In addition, we will continue to target our marine budget towards our responsibilities for the integrated management of Scotland’s seas.

My priorities are clear. The budget that is allocated to my portfolio will continue to make a vital difference to our coastal, rural and island economies. I look forward to discussing some of those issues with the committee today.

Yes, I would be happy to, convener. First of all, though, I want to address your initial comments. If you are basing them on some of the information that has been provided by the Scottish Parliament information centre on the budget, I have to say that I disagree with the figures as they have been presented. I should point out that, if you are making comparisons with other portfolios, the figures do not take account of in-year transfers and changes to the portfolio budget as a result of our switching from resource to capital funding. Moreover, they do not take into consideration our capital funding or the climate package funding of £150 million, some of which will be direct funding to the portfolio.

It is really important for those things to be taken into account. Yes, resource overall has decreased by 2.6 per cent in real terms, but, when we combine that with the 19.7 per cent real-terms increase in capital, we will see a real-terms increase on last year’s budget of 0.3 per cent, which equates to a 2.7 per cent increase in cash terms. It is important that I clarify that, first and foremost.

There is no doubt that difficult choices have still had to be made right across Government. With regard to the agriculture budget, which you mentioned, and particularly the request for multiyear settlements, we were seriously concerned about the decisions taken by the UK Government, such as the removal of ring fencing and, indeed, the Barnettising of the funding coming to Scotland, which takes no account of our overall land size. Previously, we received around 17 per cent of the overall budget, so we had serious concerns about what that would mean for us.

I appreciate that calls have been made for multiyear funding. The Government would very much like to give that multiyear certainty and clarity, but that is not what we have been given; instead, we have just been given an annual settlement. Of course, there is a spending review coming up, and, if that were to result in more multiyear certainty, I would look to provide the same as soon as we were in a position to do so.

As I have highlighted in my comments—and, indeed, as the First Minister has said in his own statements on ring fencing—the funding from the UK Government has been passed on in full to agriculture. We have, of course, provided additional funding, too. I should also highlight that it was the £620.7 million that was baselined into the budget for the coming year.

I absolutely appreciate that call from stakeholders, which I hear regularly during my engagement with them, but I believe that it would be irresponsible of me to say that we are committing to multiyear funding. I appreciate your suggestion about providing a caveat to that, but I hope that that is what I am trying to set out and to make clear.

During the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, I said that, if we were in a position to offer multiyear funding, we would. As well as helping with Government planning, knowing what funding they have as they plan ahead has wider benefits for the industry, our producers and our stakeholders across the portfolio. Until we have that assurance and we know what funding will be received from the UK Government, I will not be in a position to make that commitment. However, I hope that the position will change.

In preparation for appearing before the committee to discuss the budget, I was preparing for scrutiny in the areas of my overall portfolio responsibility. As I said, there are areas of funding that we transfer to NatureScot, so I just wanted to be clear on that. I am more than happy to follow up with more details for the committee on what that will look like for NatureScot.

Of course, there are impacts across my portfolio. NatureScot delivers a number of important functions, and we work closely with the organisation—I want to be absolutely clear on that. With regard to the absolute detail and how that is being managed for NatureScot, again, I am not able to answer that today. On the funding that is provided from my portfolio for those specific functions, I still fully expect that work to be undertaken and have an impact. I am more than happy to follow up with further information on that for the committee.

I will hand over to Iain Wallace, who will be able to give more information on what the staff reduction looks like. It is more appropriate for him to answer, because it is more of a workforce question.

There have been structural changes and people have transferred between directorates, which has not necessarily changed the work but makes it appear as if there have been bigger changes than there have been.

One key area that the directorate is constantly looking at is how to improve and become more efficient, and it is looking at wider transformation work as well. I have seen some of those initiatives at first hand. In my previous appearance at the committee, when we discussed some of those issues, I used the example of drone technology, which increases our capabilities and can help us in a number of ways.

However, there have also been changes in other areas, such as onshore operations. There has been an overall resource reduction of about 12 per cent but also a 39 per cent increase in the overall number of port inspections, and that is because workloads have been reprioritised.

I will hand over to Iain to give more information specifically about the workforce.