Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the interests of time, I will not say anything other than that it has been recognised that there are differences with the River Tweed.

I am content to work with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3, because Fisheries Management Scotland is keen to ensure that the drafting is correct. I am happy to withdraw amendment 273, to not move the other amendments in the group and to work with the cabinet secretary.

I have concluded.

All the amendments in this group are in my name. I thank Dr Alan Wells from Fisheries Management Scotland for assisting me with them.

As the committee is aware, wild Atlantic salmon are at crisis point across their native range and are now considered to be an endangered species. Amendment 273 would ensure that offences resulting in the killing of salmon and sea trout carried penalties reflecting the species’ conservation importance. I have two alternative approaches. One would cover all the proposed changes in a single amendment, which is amendment 273. In the other, I have lodged separate amendments that relate to individual offences in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003. Those are amendments 272 and 274 to 283. If amendment 273 is agreed to, there will be no need to consider the others.

Fish poaching has one of the highest conviction rates of all wildlife crimes—the rate was 81 per cent in 2023—but the average penalty recorded is only £349. Amendment 273 would increase penalties for fish poaching offences to either the statutory maximum, which is currently £10,000, or, for the most damaging activities, to a maximum fine of £40,000, which is in line with penalties for other wildlife crimes. The amendment would not introduce any new offences and is focused on activities that result in the killing of salmon. It would also allow fines to be imposed on a per-fish basis, which would ensure that penalties were commensurate with the harm caused and might help to deter future offending.

Section 1 of the 2003 act makes it a criminal offence for any person to fish for or take salmon in any inland waters, except by prescribed legal means. Illegal methods of fishing include indiscriminate and highly damaging methods such as gill nets, which are walls of netting that catch fish by their gills, spearing or setting unlicensed traps.

All the amendments would modify offences related to fishing in the 2003 act. Amendment 274 would amend section 2 of the 2003 act, which makes it a criminal offence for any person to fish for or take freshwater fish other than salmon in any inland waters except by prescribed legal means.

Amendment 275 relates to the criminal offence committed by any person who

“uses any explosive substance with intent to take or destroy fish in any waters ... puts any poison or other noxious substance in or near any such waters with intent to take or destroy fish ... or uses any electrical device with intent to stun or destroy salmon or freshwater fish in any such waters”.

All those methods of killing fish are indiscriminate and extremely damaging to the environment if used in the context of fish poaching.

Amendment 276 relates to the criminal offence committed by any person who

“without legal right or written permission ... fishes for or takes salmon in any waters.”

The amendment would not change the current level of fine for fishing without permission unless the act of fishing without permission resulted in wild salmon being taken.

Amendment 277 relates to the situation where two or more persons acting together carry out any act that would constitute a criminal offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the 2003 act. The provision recognises that, where poachers operate as a team, often with a strong commercial drive and sometimes associated with serious and organised crime, the damage that is caused can be significantly greater.

Amendment 278 relates to the criminal offence committed by any person who carries out any act for the purpose of preventing salmon from passing through a fish pass or taking any salmon in its passage through that fish pass.

The provision recognises that any pinch points in the migration of salmon are particularly vulnerable to illegal activity and/or predation, and therefore require specific protection in such circumstances. It also recognises the vital importance of ensuring free passage of migratory fish, so that they can access their spawning grounds unimpeded.

Amendment 279 seeks to update section 19 of the 2003 act, which makes it a criminal offence for any person to buy, sell, expose for sale or be in possession of any salmon roe. Scotland’s conservation gradings are based on ensuring that enough salmon survive to spawn, with the calculations based on egg deposit rates in each river. Any activity that illegally removes eggs from the river will have a direct impact on that river meeting its conservation limit.

Amendment 281 relates to the criminal offence of being in possession of salmon that have been illegally taken, killed or landed. That offence is important, as it does not have to relate to the person who caught and killed the fish. Instead, it is a means of placing criminal liability on persons or organisations that receive such fish, including for commercial purposes.

Amendment 282 is designed to protect juvenile salmon and their freshwater habitats. The original provision relates to poaching, and makes it a criminal offence to take, injure or destroy, or to buy, sell or expose for sale or be in possession of juvenile salmon. It also sets out important protections relating to access to salmon habitat and makes it an offence to place any device or engine for the purpose of obstructing the passage of juvenile salmon; to injure or disturb any salmon spawn; or to disturb any spawning bed or any bank or shallow on which the spawn of salmon may be present. Protecting those important habitats is vital for the protection and restoration of wild salmon populations.

Amendment 283 relates to the criminal offence of intentionally introducing any live fish or live spawn of any fish into inland waters, or being in possession of any live fish or live spawn of any fish with the intention of introducing it into inland waters. Introduction of any fish into Scotland’s rivers should be carefully considered and undertaken only with appropriate authorisation. This important provision would prevent the introduction of non-native species of fish, which have been introduced in the past for angling.

There are also a minority of anglers who use live fish as bait, and such fish are often discarded into the river. They include non-native fish such as minnows, which have a negative impact on native species, including Atlantic salmon.

Finally—you will be pleased to hear, convener—amendment 280 relates to section 38 of the 2003 act, which allows Scottish ministers to make salmon conservation regulations if they consider it necessary or expedient to do so for the conservation of salmon. Currently, it is a criminal offence if any person acts in contravention of, or fails to take any action required of them or to comply with any requirement imposed on them by, regulations made under section 38. Conservation regulations, where used, are an important regulatory measure for the conservation of salmon, and compliance with their requirements is therefore vital.

I know that I have set out a lot of detail in describing the amendments, but I am happy to hear directly from the cabinet secretary on them. I hope that their drafting is acceptable—I know that there are a lot of them, but I am willing to work with the cabinet secretary on them, if necessary.

I move amendment 273.

Yes, absolutely. In my engagement with Fisheries Management Scotland, I have heard feedback that it has engaged with the Tweed Forum folks. The people involved in the rivers that we are managing in the south-west of Scotland and in the south, including the River Tweed, are all very much engaged with one another. Everybody is quite good at working together, as they are all professional.

I will conclude there.

Amendment 273, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 272 and 274 to 283 not moved.

Amendment 284 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Laura Boyce mentioned IT systems. I am a former NHS Dumfries and Galloway nurse. When there was an adverse incident, we entered it in Datix, which has been replaced by InPhase. Would there need to be some kind of tracking mechanism for reports of issues where somebody’s safety has been compromised?

Good morning. Before I ask my substantive questions, I want to follow up on the point about dermal fillers not needing a prescription. Is that because—I raised this with the previous panel—hyaluronic acid is a medical device, rather than a medication? Does that need to change?

Does the financial memorandum accurately reflect what you think might be required in terms of investment, including for the delivery of the transition?

Given the public advice that has been issued about the proposed new process for the regulation of non-surgical procedures, does the financial memorandum cover what might be required in providing wider information to the public about what is coming down the line?

Okay—thanks.

You have kind of already answered this question, Jacqueline. We have heard about fizz and filler parties, and I have seen videos on YouTube. People drink alcohol at them, although you shouldnae really consume alcohol during any procedure. Will the bill help to address that and reduce the ability to have fizz and filler parties?