 Be bمن,amosiai. Mae hyn yn mwy o'r 8 o'ch mewn mwy oeddon y 2016 o'r Rhyw Llyfrgell Cymru i Llyfrgell Cymru. Ieb ddod i'r ystafell yn y Drewch, yr hyn yn effeithio i ddim yn ddod o gyfrifio gyda'r rhan o'r leidiannol ac mae'n adnodd gydydd iaeth yn brosgol iaith. Ond hwn yn y gwaith i'r cymdeitau y cyveithiant sylweddau o beth o dda cael ei glas ar gyd, felly, hynny'n ganwch i'r mewn mwy oeddon. joined today by Elaine Murray MSP, Jackie Baillie MSP and Joan McAlpine MSP for our consideration of subordinate legislation and I welcome them to the meeting. Gened item 1 is subordinate legislation and the first item today is to take evidence on the sub-ledge as listed on the agenda i.e. the conservation of salmon scotland regulations 2016 2016 slash 115 the salmon carcass tagging scotland regulations 2016 2016 slash 116 the tweed regulation salmon carcass tagging order 2016 2016 slash 117 and the tweed regulation salmon conservation order 2016 2016 slash 118 a motion to annul the conservation of salmon scotland regulation 2016 slash 115 has been lodged by alec ferguson and as is the usual practice in such circumstances will have evidence sessions first with the cabinet secretary for rural affairs food and environment to ask questions to answer questions we hope and we'll seek clarification and I welcome Richard Lochhead today with his supporting officials will the current head of performance aquaculture and recreational fisheries and jeff gibbons head of wild fisheries and steward middle mass head of ecology programmed scott scottish government good morning gentlemen i wonder if the cabinet secretary would like to make some opening remarks good morning convener and members of the committee especially given that I understand this is your last meeting of this parliamentary session and it's been good working with you over the the last few years can I just say that I welcome this opportunity this morning to discuss the salmon conservation measures through the conservation of salmon scotland regulations 2016 and the tweed regulation salmon conservation order 2016 as well I want to briefly outline why the government is bringing forward legislation to protect and conserve what is of course an iconic species in this country these measures are designed to manage exploitation of salmon not just because it's a protected species under the habitats directive but because we believe it's the right thing to do salmon it is synonymous with scotland I want scotland to be synonymous with good management of this natural resource and the social economic benefits that can bring be brought for generations to come I think it would be helpful just to remind ourselves of the background to these measures they are a product of significant stakeholder engagement and reflection at the same time the committee will be aware that the genesis for these measures rests with recommendations within the independent wild fishes review which was published in 2014 to progress the introduction of a kill licence the review recommended that this matter be given immediate consideration given the conservation status of wild salmon that recommendations which we did accept led to a consultation early last year on the broad principles behind the introduction of a licensing scheme this was followed by a concerted effort during the summer period to engage with stakeholders through a series of job and events online dialogue to support consultation on the detail of what the proposed schemes would look like finally in autumn we consulted the revised package of measures which currently constitute the measures we are discussing today so it's been a very consultative process over a significant period of time and over a thousand responses have been received it's not necessarily an unprecedented level of responses but does certainly represent the level of personal investment many people have made within the sector so the regulations now form part of a package which taken together firstly prohibits the killing of wild salmon within coastal waters also enables the killing of wild salmon within inland waters to be managed according to the conservation status and introduces a power to agree a conservation plan and finally provides for net caught fish in river and category 1 and 2 areas to be carcass tagged the introduction of a conservation plan demonstrates that we are looking to understand where possible quantify all the various factors that impact on the determination of conservation status this is not about apportioning blame or responsibility but rather to better understand how best to target resources to manage and concern our salmon stocks at a local and national level we are looking to work with local fisheries managers to identify how all these potential impacts can be mitigated all that together does present an opportunity to improve the conservation status of salmon currently my officials are discussing the draft template for a conservation plan with local biologists to ensure that their fit for purpose and deliver in the areas that have been identified that require action it's an important initiative and one I hope everyone looks to engage with and what's hopefully going to be a positive and constructive manner I want to place in record I do recognise there has been a delay in laying the regulations however much of that simply reflects the time we've taken to understand and respond to the concerns and questions raised by anglers and other wild fisheries interests I am however conscious there are some concerns about the robustness of the data used to underpin the assessment of conservation status the assessments use the best available data including data from rod catch and electronic fish counters the method all is used is also in line with that using other countries although of course tailored to the Scottish situation when the regulations were laid we gave a commitment to listen to new evidence and information from local fisheries managers and if necessary to amend the categorisation marine scotland is very willing to work with and support fishing interests to adapt through the implementation of these regulations that we move forward the goal is eventually to be able to categorise on a river by river level but that's not something that can be delivered at the moment we have met and will continue to meet with local biologists to discuss the current process and look at how the data supporting the determination of conservation status can be developed and refined for future years now many angling clubs continue to express concern about the potential impact that mandatory catch and release will have on their clubs which many of which are already facing declining membership numbers to help mitigate the potential impact of these measures where we'll be funding a two-year programme to support angling clubs that need assistance in promoting catch and release as a sustainable and responsible practice my officials are also in discussion with the county state about how they might take a pragmatic view when discussing what can be done to assist angling association tenants who have raised concerns over their financial viability particularly but not exclusively as a result of the measures we are discussing today we're also in discussion with those affected by the prohibition on coastal netting about the financial impact on their businesses as well so i want to place on record my appreciation for the way in which the coastal netsmen and their representative body have engaged with us to date on the measures and the positive manner in which they have looked to work with us i know that much of the dialogue that's taken place has not been easy understandably so but many people in the sector are aware of the basis in which we are moving forward we're also looking to widen our science focus to encompass a broader scottish perspective including more specific work on the economic viability and the practice of ranching and the impact of cultural activities such as half netting as well many coastal netsmen remain optimistic that the prohibition could be lifted in the future and that they can have the opportunity to fish thereafter in a sustainable manner so i'll finish where i began saying that clearly some of these changes in the dialogue around it has not been easy for all involved but i do believe the regulations now strike like balance between conservation of the species for the benefit future generations and the interests of those who fish for salmon today and myself and particularly my colleagues here will do our best to answer any questions as we take evidence on this matter today thank you cabinet secretary i've got people who've indicated the wish to ask questions dave tomson first thank you convener and good morning cabinet secretary and and your team it's a very specific constituency question really cabinet secretary and it's to do with the river loche this will have wider implications than just the loche and other rivers in Lochaber and you mentioned ranching when you were speaking there and they've been developing ranching of salmon for quite some time now in the loche particularly but quite a number of other rivers in in Lochaber where the fish are reared and the the eggs are taken from particular rivers and they're reared and they're put back into these and they clip the fins they can identify them when they catch them and they're doing a lot of scientific work in relation to this which i think will be beneficial in terms of overall scientific approach that you'll you'll be taking to all of this but in order to do what they do they need to kill these fish so it was really to ask you what i mean i don't see anything in the regulations per se that would allow that to happen but in terms of the science and so on can you give me some assurance that you will be working with the river loche people to ensure that the research they've been doing over quite a number of years can continue and they're still able to kill these fish as part of that okay clearly as i said my own remarks there are some specific issues where discussions good constructive discussions have been taking place across the sector to do with these individual circumstances and arrangements that are in place in certain rivers and you mentioned loche and i'm aware of dave tomson's interest in that issue and can give him an assurance that yes ranching is recognised in terms of its importance and the role that's playing at the moment in terms of restocking and i think you've well highlighted how there is a way in which ranch fish can be identified so our intention is for those constructive discussions to continue and hopefully have a positive outcome so they are under way we very much recognise that i know that officials are directly involved in those discussions if you want to get some feedback absolutely we've been in discussion with the loci about the project both in the context of the extent to which it's having a benefit from a commercial and a conservation basis and i think at the moment the focus has been more around a commercial aspect so moving forward any science would need to be interlinked to the conservation status work at going forward and that's quite critical and we're working with them to see how that might take place and those discussions continue at the moment thank you very much can be there okay Jim Hume then Joan McAlpine thank you very much convening the morning to the cabinet secretary etc i do have concerns about some of these orders some of the data that's been used has been worked on regarding road counts that's actually the number of fish that have been caught on on natural rivers whereas of course when you know when it's a dry summer the fish don't run up the rivers and there's plenty of them waiting in the seas i've obviously met with half netters and the likes done by the soulway area so i'd be interested in the the cabinet secretary's views regarding their property rights they've had a they've had a royal charter for many hundred years in discussions with Aileen McLeod she said that they would the government was considering which sort of compensation would be available for them those half netters and the likes to in losing their property rights so that's one issue regarding the tweed regulation just just a couple of issues the tweed commission themselves are concerned about they were wondering why sea trout were not included and it was only salmon they're also obviously wondered why regulation was needed to have agreements between the tweed commission and and ministers themselves why that has to be regulation and why agreement has to be as i say regulated and not just done as an as an agreement between two organisations i'll ask jeff to answer the point about the need for regulations in the tweed in the background to that first of all and i'll come back to you in the half netting we had numerous conversations with the tweed very initial conversations about the cure license approach and the importance to be able to demonstrate to you how we apply the habitats directive and how Scottish government actually applies and meets its requirements on the habitats directive which in part is is a key driver for these regulations so the need to demonstrate that we've made an assessment for the tweed is reflected in in the regulation in the order and is part of the annual assessment so that was the reason why it needs to be in place the tweed are unable to demonstrate that they can that they comply with the habitats directive it's our responsibility to do that from a european perspective equally the the focus for the initial cure license approach was as you know a recommendation around protecting salmon because of the continuing issues of our concerns around the diminishing salmon stocks to to address that and salmon is a protected species and again europe had some concerns that we weren't more clearly able to demonstrate that we're meeting the complements of article six of the habitats directive we the information we've had around salmon which we know others have suggested is not as robust as they were like it's clearly stronger than what we've gotten sea trout so it's actually there is some irony that those who've questioned our robustness of the data on the salmon are equally pushing for a similar measure on sea trout while the data is is probably not as robust as well part of the package of measures that were announced was that we will look towards how we might progress the issue of regulation around sea trout going forward and that's actually an issue that icis and nasco and others are actually considering at the moment and there are a number of difficulties in that but we are part of those discussions and terms of I just want to just assure the committee that's clearly known in scotland can say the data is perfect and doesn't require you know improving over the coming years but we can only work with the data we have but we do know that we have a conservation status issue with salmon in this country and we want to improve the data clearly as we go forward that applies in all areas of fishery science you always constantly have to improve your science and collect more science and now we'll have a more stable way for moving forward the conservation plans will play a role in that and clearly in terms of infractions it's proceedings from Europe and in terms of the world fisheries review it took place in scotland there's a clear conservation problem that we have to act we believe we've got enough data to justify what we're doing and clearly the data we have and we've collected it similar to other countries that have taken similar measures but I just want to assure the committee of course we always want to improve the data as we move forward but if you wait for the perfect data the perfect science it'll be far too late to save the salmon and we don't want to be in that position I don't want to be in that position I'm sure the committee don't want to be in that position but in terms of how we move forward and recognise the cultural importance of half netting and other activities around Scotland we're absolutely determined to work with the sector on each of those individual issues to make sure we're moving forward constructively. Okay and sorry and my first point obviously was regarding the property rights of half netters and the like obviously they're going to lose the right to do what they've been doing for hundreds of years and the minister previously said that they were considering that yourselves were were considering compensation is that still on the table? We have discussions taking place with different parts of the sector on different issues in terms of the half netters we'd want to work with them in the science to move forward which may allow some project to be put together to allow them to continue their activities as opposed to compensation. Okay right thanks. Okay we've got a long list of people so Joan McAlpine, Claudia Beamish, Elaine Murray, Jackie Baillie, Mike Russell, Alec Ferguson, Sarah Boyack and Uncle Tom gobbly and all. Thank you very much and thank you for allowing me to your committee. Cabinet Secretary my question is also about half netters. I've raised the issue in a number of letters to your colleague Dr Eileen McLeod and contributed to the consultation. My issue with the half netters is the heritage, the fact that their culture is important as obviously the preservation of salmon because it only happens on the Solway and it really is very unique and has happened since Viking times. You hinted there that there may be an opportunity going forward for half netters to continue their cultural practice which would mean taking a small amount of salmon. I wondered if you could go into any more detail about that. I know that Joan McAlpine is taking a close interest in the cultural heritage of half netting. I've read her eloquent articles on the media as well as her letters to the Government on the issue. We recognise the cultural heritage of half netting and that's why we are willing to specifically work with the half netters on a scientific-based project that would enable some kind of activity to continue. That will be beneficial in terms of clearly developing science at the same time providing an opportunity for the half netting to continue. That's what we are proposing. Discussions are taking place between the officials and the half netters. The half netters would be perhaps involved in counting the number of fish to help to improve your science? I'll ask the officials to bring up to date with the discussions of what the nature of the scientific project might look like. You were asking to come in here. I've met the half netters a couple of times to discuss the issue for them. The actual activity can continue. The issue for them has been the fact that the inability to take one or two makes the activity not worth their while was the key message for them. Clearly, we've had to balance that alongside the wider approach on conservation and categorisation. Other areas that, similarly, have looked and suggested their cultural heritage plays a role in how you manage this activity. What we're looking to do is to, because we need a wider geographical perspective in trying to determine and improve the science for conservation determination going forward, look at how we might use other activities as part of that process. The fact that we can potentially manage the number that the half netters could kill, but a sufficient number to do some science is what we're currently looking at trying to do. Once we've got more detail, our intention is to go back, but we need to actually detail how that might look first before we approach them. We are conscious also that the season tends to start around about June, so there's a timeframe to fit into that, hopefully, as well. Claudia Beamish Cabinet Secretary and to the officials. Could I just continue on the line of questioning about the half netters? I know that my colleague Elaine Murray will be raising that issue as well. It is very important that these skills are attained from generation to generation, so what you've highlighted in relation to the science is an interesting point and perfectly valid, but the actual skills of the half netting and that process in often dangerous waters in the Solway is something that is a very long tradition, as many of us are aware, and I've met some of them myself as well. Something has been highlighted as well from the half netters about the possibility of a partial exemption. For instance, on the basis that on catch and release they would argue that there is a 10% mortality of salmon and that they argue that there isn't nearly so much, if any, mortality of salmon in their process of fishing, and that possibly, therefore, it could match what the rod anglers are doing, even where they're doing catch and release. That just might be a suggestion, but I don't know if you've got any comment on that, whether you could have been considering that. I'll ask Jessica Macdonald in that point. That was certainly when I met them what they were discussing. When we talked about the level of mortality, or, indeed, acceptable, perhaps levels of mortality under catch and release, I explained that that's also part of the process in terms of the requirements of meeting the habitat directive, the extent to that activity, and how that plays into your determination. Part of the discussion going forward around the conservation plan will be the extent to even allow the activity to take place, maybe having an impact on the categorisation process, which is one of the areas where other parts of Europe have taken more draconian measures in terms of closing rivers, where we've not gone that route at the moment. We've taken a very method-neutral approach within river, basically because it's a fishing right, and how you apply that is very much up to the individual to choose that. Equally, we're not stopping people to undertake any activities about the taking and the getting of the fish, which is the key issue. We want to look at it if we're going to move that forward, recognising the cultural and heritage issues that you've raised and others have raised as well. That's been a similar measure for coastal nets when others as well, the extent to which that's a cultural activity as well. If we can manage that in the context of science for conservation, that's a better way to go than looking at it in the context of whether the 10% or 12% and matricat release is actually a factor that we should play in. We'll look at it in that wider context rather than the impact of allowing the angling activity. Right, thank you. Southland convener, I've got another question. Thank you. I mean, two of my colleagues are here as well today, Jackie Bailey and Elaine Murray, who want to highlight issues from their perspective. I've also been asked by both Dave Thompson and Rhoda Grant, who aren't able to attend. Sorry, I'm so sorry, Dave Thompson. He's not able to attend, he just happened to be sitting next to me. Dave Stewart as well, who aren't able to attend to raise concerns. This is really about the fact that the judgments on the gratings have been done very much, as we understand it, as lay people on an area basis. You have highlighted that this is going to become more detailed, but the concerns are for particular anglers on particular rivers. If I could just quickly highlight just two points to give some evidence on this. Dave Sutherland, in Dave Stewart's constitution in his region, has highlighted that the river Ness, in their view, has been incorrectly graded, a grade 3 river, rather than a grade 2. And that he would argue that the process has been rushed and uses, and I'm quoting botched data, this is his view, and that they stress that they already have, they already return 86% of fish to the river. So they are working on conservation issues in this way. And that they argue that the grade 3 is based on a tributary where the method of measuring female fish spawning is fatally flawed with third-party evidence to back this up. So that's one of the examples. And the other is in the same region, in Highland region, highlighted from a constituent of Rhoda Grant's in Stornoway, Anton Michael or Michelle. And that's about the river Creed. And this has been banned from keeping salmon because the district has failed the test and the fisheries managers have assessed the river Creed in the view of the local group using the mainland test assessing the river Creed individually on its own merit. And they argued that it would definitely have passed but the government won't accept this information and that the instrument again is too blunt. So I do take the point that we have to start somewhere and I do recognise the importance of protecting salmon as a species not only under the EU issue but because it's iconic in Scotland. But I would like to know, is there really the capacity to move towards a more individual river base for judging and how, if we did go forward with this regulation today, how would local groups be involved in a way that some of them feel frustrated that they haven't been listened to yet because the instrument is quite blunt the first time around and I really would be seeking reassurance for local anglers really in quite a considerable amount of Scotland where there are waters. This is not just big estates, this is local angling clubs and people who do it either as a hobby or as an enjoyment but also brings local tourism and economic benefit. So it is very important to a number of colleagues who have constituent concerns. I'll ask colleagues to come in on the second in terms of the capacity and how we'll approach that going forward but clearly whilst we have a lot of support for the categorisation approach clearly there are many concerns expressed on an individual basis when it comes to people's local rivers where they're angling and we will very much rely on the input and data collection from the anglers moving forward as we move towards a river basis as opposed to Fisheries district upon which the catch statistics at the moment are based so we have to start there but we do want to get to the river approach and we want to do that as quickly as possible. Only 18 per cent of the fish caught is retained in the Category 3 rivers at the moment so by definition the vast majority of fish caught are released voluntarily back into the rivers. So that activity clearly is protected because that can continue so we're speaking about 18 per cent is potentially going to have an impact in some situations around the country in terms of the viability of rivers and angling clubs and so on and that's why we're taking other steps to try and address that. So yes local anglers will have to play a crucial role in the data collection and improving the science as we move forward and yes also we want to get to a river basis for the categorisation as quickly as possible as well that's certainly our very determined direction of travel so I don't have colleagues want to come in terms of the capacity of moving there as quickly as we can. Just maybe to explain why we look at districts rather than the river it's that's because how data has been collected on rod catches and when you put your rod catch return you don't necessarily have to see where exactly it's come from you can amalgamate if you've got phishings on two rivers you can amalgamate them into one return provided it's within the same district so at the moment we don't actually have the information to be able to allocate all the catches to individual rivers. Now we've started to do that over the past six to nine months we've started to do that but it's a difficult kind of tangled process but we are committed to doing to spending a lot of time doing that and hopefully for the next year we will to do river by river as much as we can we hope to have it all done but there may be some issues that we can't quite disentangle so that's why it's districts just now and that's why we're moving towards river and we've put the kind of the way to do that in place and the kind of people are working in that moment. I think the other part of the question was about engagement with locals we've met to discuss with local biologists throughout the country to the trust network and through boards we met with them in december to discuss the issues how conservation limits were collected and where we could feed local data in they've sent us information on data they hold some of them have and we're also discussing about setting up working groups on different parts of the process and they've started to feed into that we'll be setting those working groups in at first they will be very focused on how we can get things done for next year because there's reasonably tight deadlines on that so how we can improve the initial process but there will also be discussions wider discussions about how we can improve the general process what other routes we can take going forward. Right thank you and lastly could I just ask if there's been any assessment of what the implications for the protection and conservation of salmon are going forward for the future for per se and for of course the socioeconomic and enjoyment aspects of it has there been any assessment done of what the implications would be of a delay in order to get to have it less broad and more sort of localised that would perhaps bring more people with you who have concerns at the moment? Well clearly two key drivers for acting now and not waiting until we have more information about the river statistics or whatever in the future which we still want to get as quickly as possible so we can adapt the management to that. It's firstly the interaction threats from the EU which is very real and in itself would have an economic impact in Scotland that is taken to the next level and secondly of course the world fishers review sought urgent action in terms of conservation of salmon which is a conservation argument so both these issues impinge on the social economic argument but clearly there are two key drivers it's not easy to get accurate information on a direct economic impact in anglin clubs simply because at the moment only 18% of the fish is retained so while we're getting some information clearly from some anglin clubs that they're very fearful for the future when we explain that only 18% of the fish is actually retained and the other 82% of activity can continue clearly that just changes the terms of the debate sometimes so that's where we are at the moment. Thank you. Thank you. Elaine Murray, Jackie Baillie, Mike Russell. Thank you convener and it's nice to be here at the last meeting of the rural affairs committee since I was actually here at the first meeting of the rural affairs committee. Minister cabinet secretary what I'm hearing from you is these decisions have been made on the basis of pretty dodgy science and I think the issue of the half netters has been well covered by various of my colleagues. It's not just about the half netters in Dumfries and Galloway it's also about angling it's also about fishing tourism as people come to my area for the weekend from the central belt from the north of England and people want maybe to take back with an A salmon not huge numbers of salmon but something some sort of souvenir of their their visit and I'm told by the angling clubs that the level three categorisation is based on inappropriate science that electronic counter has not been applied in the south of Scotland it's been based on rod catch which is dependent on weather indeed on the number of anglers and so some of these angling clubs are struggling actually the fewer salmon being caught because a fewer angler is not not because it's fewer salmon it's all been also been pointed out to me that the river Anon where much of the half netting goes on at the the mouth of the Anon actually has been productive river in three out of the last five years and the science on which this is based is based on a very narrow time frame in fact you know salmon populations are cyclical and so I would to ask you on what basis are you categorising both the river myth and the river Anon as level three because it is very much the experience of people who know the rivers well to say that actually that's an incorrect categorisation for these rivers clearly some of the debate you highlights perfectly legitimately and the concerns being expressed you know are no doubt also legitimate in extent as well are very familiar from fisheries management be it for salmon or be it for other species in our waters because the tourism the fishing activity is dependent on sustainable stocks we don't have the sustainable stocks and we don't address some of these issues we lose the tourism and we lose the fishing activities so we're trying to get to a sustainable position where we can ensure future generations of the same opportunities to enjoy the tourism benefits and other economic benefits and social benefits that current generations have and that's what this is about as we've explained previously we want to move to a river by river basis as quickly as possible but we have to use the data we have at the moment and it's perfectly possible to move there quickly when we get the data so I'm trying to reassure your local anglers that whilst they may not be happy with the basis which we're moving forward at the moment we want to adapt as quickly as possible as we get more accurate information but for the reasons already explained in response to other questions we have to act now. I'll ask all these to come in specifically on the Nithan Anon rivers from a science point of view in terms of the claims that they were not using good data. I think certainly I can say that we're speaking to the local biologists in the Nith data about taking on data they have. I think one of the problems we have from the science side is we can take on data when it's people's feelings about the river that's more difficult to capture but certainly information that they have will be fed into the process. We're in discussions with colleagues from the kind of south-west. The anglers and the communities that depend on that are perfectly well aware that their activities will cease if there are no salmon left. People are intelligent enough to realise that and what I can't understand is why you can't have a more localised approach because everybody believes that you have to conserve salmon but it's actually about getting that balance and allowing localised solutions and this is actually to my mind a blunt instrument to deal with the problem. I can only give Elaine Murray an assurance in others that we are urgently wanting to get to a river by river basis but we have to act now with the data we have now and that's really why we have to move forward. Jackie Baillie. Thank you very much convener and my interest of course is the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association. It's been a fascinating session because what I would characterise this as is the cabinet secretary saying just pass this order we'll worry about the detail later and what he's you know pains to reassure us about is that he will move quickly to looking at the evidence on a river by river basis and I hear that reassurance but I also heard Mr Middlemus give us an idea of the complexity of what would be involved and talk about a year if not more so the speed that the cabinet secretary desires is just not going to happen in practical terms not down to any lack you know of of civil servants efforts but just because the data is complex now you know I wonder then it's not about waiting for the perfect data I accept that but the impact of what you do will happen now and no matter the speed at which you move that impact will still be felt by anglers associations across the country. There is science available to you now and I wonder you know what discussions you've had with Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association because they independently do their science through Glasgow University in the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust. Salmon stocks are in fact growing which is contrary to the assumption being made here so why have they been categorised as the category three? It's not so much a case of asking the committee to pass the legislation and worry about the detail later what we're saying is we have to worry about the state of salmon stocks in Scotland now that's the message clearly from the infraction proceedings from Europe which is a very real threat because we are way behind who we should be in terms of this fisheries management and also we have to worry about the recommendations and the good work that's carried out with the wild fishes review which says we have to act urgently and act now so that's what I'm worrying about in the moment as well as a detail that has to be improved yes it has to be improved as quickly as possible in the future clearly our approach is going to be and I'm speaking to officials about this is where there's evidence for recategorisation of rivers or fisheries districts we have to undertake that as quickly as possible and I just want to give Jackie Bailey and other members of the committee an assurance that you know that's a very real issue for us because we know that there's very specific issues around the country it may even be in relation to specific activities like the half netters that Joanne McAlpine and Jim Pumin others were mentioning or the ranching and the lochy or indeed specific data issues for specific rivers within fisheries district areas so I just want to assure the committee we want to act in those as quickly as possible but we have to act now okay can I come back on that and say in relation to Loch Lomond Angling Association in particular are we talking weeks months years has there been any discussion with them about the data they already have because that has not science you need to wait for that science that's here now well I'll ask officials to come in about the direct conversations with the Loch Lomond Improvement Association but clearly these legislations come in shortly in terms of April if they're passed today by the committee and from there on in we're going to work in on these other issues we're already working on them and we'll bring forward the changes as quickly as we can but in terms of direct conversations with Loch Lomond I know we've been they've both went in will you go first John Loch Lomond in a second but I think it's important to consider in the round what the Government is proposing to do aligned with what other jurisdictions have done so Ireland found themselves in a very similar situation a number of years ago and they got infracted by the EU excuse me and they now have a system where on an annual basis they decide whether rivers are open or closed full stop so the government has taken a position for social economic reasons that they would rather not go down the open closed route because that is very impactful but in relation to catch and release the average cabinet secretary's already talked about the proportion of fish taken in the catch and release areas if you average that out and obviously averages by their nature are up and down on individual circumstances but if you average that out we're talking about 20 fish per district which seems to me to be manageable I had the privilege of attending the recent meeting of the Loch Lomond Anglic Improvement Association and there was a pretty strong friddy in the room around this issue and they weren't slow in making that known I think there's a number of factors for them this is not a measure that doesn't allow them to continue activity and indeed similarly when we went round an issue around the kill license most anglers said they just want to kill one but one times 200,000 anglers who visit scotland's quite a lot of fish but they all felt that it was more a case I think that they were that they didn't like a stash tree approach as opposed to a voluntary approach but when we explained by and large the issues around Europe and demonstrating that we're managing the activity that was that's quite an important part of the process and that was the that was a key point for them for Loch Lomond one of the other issues in common with a lot of the angling clubs is a degree of underreporting in terms of of the stats because of concerns that the more they report the more that increases their payments elsewhere levies go up or other factors and that has come through as part of the discussion we've had a lot of these clubs that actually the stats that have been provided aren't accurate because they're concerned by being accurate they will have other areas of impact so we had to address that with them and that's revealed some additional data it doesn't mean we weren't working on the correct data we're working on the data we're riding with but there are reasons why they are chosen not to be as accurate perhaps as they might have been or that was certainly going forward there is a there is the Loch Lomond Angler Approval Station aren't totally at one in their view around the measure there was a clear split in the room and indeed there was a strong uh uh thoughts around uh managing catch and lease being the right thing to do and very conservation uh minded but what we what I have said to them we've been engagement we had lots of discussions with them we have regular dialogue moment more more information they provide the more we will look at this measure and if there's an opportunity to see sufficient evidence to suggest that there's that a recategorisation is appropriate and we've been open to that but we've had to work with the data we've got so in some instances it's because of underreporting we admit there's not as uh as much um a counter date that we'd like and that's part of the wider scoping exercise that Marine Scotland has conducted about a potential counter network for Scotland um then we can revisit that and we'll revisit it as quickly as that data comes through but equally we've got to make sure that data is can be validated and is appropriate to be able to use for our site but nobody has given me a timescale and I'm genuinely asking you know if the cabinet secretary is saying it's going to be really quick is that weeks is that months is that years because I think Mr Middlemass quite rightly reflected on the complexity of this nobody's given me a timescale well what I said was we'd do it as quickly as possible but clearly the regulations come in shortly and throughout the first year a lot of this work will continue and we'll bring forward proposals on the basis of scientific scientific evidence once we have the scientific evidence can I ask about sorry very quickly as an equality impact assessment being done on these proposals because 40 percent of the members of Loch Lomond Angling Association have protected characteristics so has an equality impact assessment been done on the impact on their members? The issue here as has been said before is that the proposals do not preclude people from undertaking the activity what it precludes them from doing is killing a fish. With respect that wasn't my question my question was has an equality impact assessment been done? Well we almost carried out the equality impact assessment legislation so I have to why the discussion we looked at the impact on clubs whatever special issues and that was built into the Braille as well discussion. It still doesn't answer my question but thank you convener. I want to know about process in this because what concerns me and I'll convener want to say something during the debate more widely about how this has been reached but I just want to be had some information about process. When did somebody decide to recommend to the minister that this was the set of proposals that met the objectives which he had set? When and how? Well clearly and violent minister has been as you know heavily involved in this for a long time now ever since the recommendations came from the wild fishes review and we have a stakeholder reference group and the consultation responses to the initial proposal for the kill license was taken into account so over in the last 18 months two years clearly that's been an ongoing issue so I'm going to tell you what in terms of. I do want to press you a bit further on this. I just want to know how this happened because you know these are a set of proposals which are controversial which some people bitterly resent you know and I just want to know how we have got to this stage you know I want to talk later on about how we can avoid getting to the stage in all of our environmental activity something I've talked about quite often this committee but in this case how did we get here? The short answer is by listening to people but I'll ask officials because I really want to come in here who've been involved with the stakeholder contact over the last two years. Broadly speaking as the cabinet secretary indicated in his opening statement there was a general consultation this time last year on the kill license we took the responses from that consultation exercise and provided advice to ministers which were then published as a statutory notice which indicated the potential introduction of a kill license as a result of the consultation responses from that statutory notice. Ministers reconsidered the position and adopted the basis of the regulation now before you which is not a kill license as such but it's a very much more simplified regime which enables the Government to demonstrate to Europe and to others that they're meeting their international obligations whilst managing the fish stocks. So there's been three sorry there's been now one two three four consultation formal consultation exercises that get us to this point in addition to that we've had dozens of stakeholder meetings. Yes but the stakeholders you know who are saying things about this now are opposed now and were opposed then so something happened and this is not a trick question in any sense whether you or anybody else something happened during this process and you've mentioned Europe which moved from the possibility of a kill license you know which would I think have been supported no matter how reluctantly by some people right through to essentially at forbidding people do something. What are the factors you've mentioned Europe and infraction was that that was a weight of that heavier than the views of the organisation so I just want to get my head round the process a way in which this has swung from where it was to where it is now. No no it's quite the opposite in fact the what we have before us today implements the principle of the kill license and in managing vulnerable stocks but implements it in a way which doesn't have the bureaucracy of the kill license and we the government actually responded to to stakeholders views that what we were proposing in terms of kill license was too bureaucratic and too costly and too it would take up too much time so we listened to that we came back we reflected and we considered how the government could could achieve its policy and its obligations in a simpler way which is what we have before us today. Policy obligations aren't the same thing you know there are obligations from under European directive there are obligations various types and there is the policy now is the policy about ensuring that people can still legitimately undertake their pastime or is the policy to avoid infraction I think one of the key key areas that came out of the consultation for the kill license which was led to where we are now was a general view that we didn't take into account appropriately local initiatives so the extent to which local voluntary measures were having an impact and were managing the conservation status so that was a clear message that was coming through that we didn't take account of that so the move from licensing to the approach we've got now basically is saying we will see whether the local conservation measures which is why the conservation plan is quite important works the extent to which that is able to manage the activity locally and if it doesn't it may well lead us back to the idea that it has to be a licensible activity because we wouldn't be able to does the local measures will the local measures work once the conservation status has been determined or won't it so it was acknowledging concerns about are you charging any cost associated with licensing and most anglers were actually not in support of a licensing activity um there was a there was certainly a presumption by a lot of anglers that but that a license would necessarily mean a certain number of fish you could kill and there was no guarantee about that either so that would have raised a different kind of question and indeed the science by that might have been more difficult but one of the key changes from the discussion we had we had particular lots of discussions in the tweet and elsewhere was how were we appropriately taking account of local measures which were in many areas that they considered to be working quite well and that was one of the fundamental changes that led to the move away from the licensing approach I don't want to presume this other people wish to speak but I do think that listening more to local views on what worked perhaps is a better way forward in terms of solving conservation problems and I think the pressure from Europe at one end and perhaps a reluctance to do that has created circumstances in this and elsewhere where we have a problem which we need to avoid in the future but I'll want to talk about that later. I won't take up a lot of time because we have a debate to come you'll be pleased to know and I have some substantial points I would hope I wish to make on the back of comments that have been made by other members during this Q&A session but I do want to touch on a point that Mike Russell has just raised which is the reasoning behind these proposals and the reasoning for the urgency that appears to be behind these proposals can I just say I think the government was quite right to come away from the kill proposals that were originally the kill licensing regime that was originally put forward I argued at the time it would be almost unworkable extremely bureaucratic and expensive and I think the government was right to try to find other measures but I want to come to the subject of infraction proceedings which I met when I met with the minister last week and by the way can I say that I'm sorry here she's not well and therefore unable to be here today though of course I welcome the cabinet secretary in her place. What I was informed was that infraction proceedings were now live what I my question is quite simple what steps has the Scottish Government taken to go to Europe whoever one goes to because I don't know and point out that we that as a result of criticism under the Habitat Directive that has been aimed at Scotland and the lack of activity what steps have been taken to say we are in the process of putting a robust regime in place that will hopefully improve our salmon conservation record and indeed improve the salmon stocks that that is the aim of all that what steps been taken to go to Europe and say we need a year's delay because the proper science does exist out there we need a year to assimilate it and if we get the proper science we can put forward a proper regime can you tell me specifically what action has been taken to secure a delay before bringing in these proposals? Well clearly this has been an issue that's been rumbling on for many years in terms of the EU's approach to Scotland's lack of adherence to the Habitat Directive and it comes to the conservation of salmon particularly in relation to netting stations and they contacted us and raised the case further in September 2014 so here we are in March 2016 putting through the regulations which we hope will address Europe's concerns and clear a lot of work has taken place over that period of time since the latest letter from the Commission on the Frash proceedings. We think this is now the time to act and that's why we're here with regulations. As I said before the other driver of course is also the Wild Fisheries review which had its own findings and recommendations and call for urgent action over the conservation of salmon. Many of the stakeholders and members of the committee will be even more aware of this than sure I am have been calling for action for a long long time. The Government has been lobbied so hard for many years by many sectors of the Anglin community and others who want action taken so there's been pressure from various directions to take action over some of these issues because quite clearly we want to conserve the salmon as well as the economic impact of Anglin in Scotland. I mean if colleagues want the committee in terms of the current dealings with the commission they may want to do that. Since 2014 when we last had a meeting with EU officials it became apparent that they were not comfortable that we could adequately demonstrate that we were meeting the requirements of the Habitat Directive. Most particularly in relation to netting stations but not only in relation to netting stations Habitat doesn't just apply to coastal netting it applies elsewhere and they were concerned that the explanations as we explained we thought we currently met those requirements were no longer valid and they wanted to see some action to be taken place. Since that point we have kept them in regular contact with them by correspondence and by discussions about the process starting from the original consultation on the kill license following the wild fisheries review through to where we are today so they're fully up to speed as to where we are and they are currently considering our response to their concerns about how we're going to move this forward and we await a response to whether they will suggest that they are content or whether they'll move to seeking a reasoned opinion thereafter. If I could just follow up, convener what I think you just told me is that the real concern here is over netting but that anglers and tourists and others who come to Scotland to fish and take the very occasional fish 20 per district as we've just been told they are the ones that are having to pay an equal price because presumably one needs to be doing something as well to keep the netsman happy. No it's about mixtock fishing it's about netting it needs about anglers and they're very much all mentioned in the correspondence that we've had so no coastal netting in particular that goes back to the as the cabinet secretary said the concerns about our ability to manage the activities of netting stations that are inactive and also when new netting may take place which can do that within river of course and so whenever a new project or plan takes place the extent to which it assesses the impact of that project or plan and therefore where we should continue and as the committee will remember from previous discussions we in Scotland have over 400 recognised inactive or dormant netting stations individuals and I'm not suggesting that the vast majority of those could ever or would ever take place in a commercial capacity but they do have the potential at present to start tomorrow and continue to have an impact on the salmon stocks. I've got quite a few questions because as colleagues have been asking questions I've had more questions that are coming into my mind about the process as Mike Russell has tried to dig out here. Can you just clarify for us what point we are at on the potential infraction proceedings minister? You said there was a meeting in 2014 with European officials and you went back to say obviously we are addressing this issue but what stage are we actually at in terms of infraction proceedings? Well there's been contact between ourselves and the commission in terms of giving comfort over what we're doing in Scotland to meet the obligations under the Habitats Directive in terms of the next stage. I don't know if Jeff you want to come in there? The current stage as I outlined earlier was we have responded to the commission's concerns about our current explanations for how we meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive particularly in relation to article 6. We've reaffirmed where we are in terms of the current discussions around this particular regulation and order and we're waiting for their response and their response can have a move to get to seeking a reason opinion on whether that's appropriate or not or indeed to accept our reply and to close the case which was driving the original approach. I think it's also important perhaps that the authors of the original there were actually four complaints, one of which which have slowly dissipated for one reason or another and it's never entirely clear why they drift away but the authors of the current complaint which has driven the on-going questions about our ability to demonstrate what we're meeting the requirements. I recognise that as a positive step and see that as the right thing that does adequately demonstrate and meet their original concerns. Okay so that there's not an actual deadline of a process that we're involved in at the moment that's still at the negotiation stage between yourselves and European officials? It's in the commission's hand that they're due to come back to us I think within a month's time that we're in their deadline as to whether they would move to a reasoned opinion as part of that process. For the infraction debate? Yeah there's an awareness but there's not a there aren't currently infraction proceedings being taken against us by the commission. Okay so did you say something to clarify that? Yeah I'm trying to get this clarified are the actual infraction proceedings being taken against us and what stage are they at? We're still at the discussion stage is how I understand it from that answer from the official. Move to the point where they've begun the process it's stage one of the infraction process but whether it moves into the point where part two which is where they would seek a reasoned opinion to see whether what we actually comply has we haven't reached that point yet so there's a possibility that it will stop if they are comfortable with the current approach meets the requirements. Thank you for that it's also quite a lot it's it's not an instant process either though there's still even if they weren't happy with what happened today there's still quite a process involved. An incident proposal although they've been quite clear that they the they're concerned that we've we've not met that requirement so it's accelerated over the last last period. Yeah and you have been doing work on that can you tell me what proportion of areas in schedule 2 are special areas of conservation? There's 17 special areas of conservation in Scotland. So what kind of proportion is that in terms of the the different areas you've identified in schedule 2? We've got 109 fishery districts and we have the 17 sacs as part of the assessment process that we did. Yeah I suppose what I'm trying to tease at is you've already got the set of areas that have significant capacity to control and protect salmon through the special areas of conservation. How effective are the measures in those areas of being? Most of not all the SCCs are category 1 which is a good sign in terms of categorisation. So for instance the SPA and the TA will come into more than one category because the SCC parts will be I'll ask for advice on how many are in each category but for instance in the SPA SCC parts category 1. So clearly they're supposed to have signed there in terms of SCCs being part category 1? Yeah I suppose that's the point I'm coming to because colleagues have made the point that in the areas where they've had angling interest, fishing interest coming to them there are concerns about the broad bush nature of well the first statutory instrument we're dealing with today I think they've all been looped together but the first one that we're dealing with one on five this worry that we're covering the entire country with is either a broad brush or a blunt instrument depending where you're coming from but why haven't we taken a more bottom-up approach when we looked at marine conservation which has been hugely controversial the last few months you've at least got local work going on and clear areas that people can focus on a strategy in those areas whereas what we seem to have here is a blanket approach across the whole country with a promise you're going to come back at another point and go local why not do it the other way if special areas of conservation as you say have been hugely successful because they're category 1 shouldn't we be more proportionate in our efforts to pull up those areas that are the areas that are most concerning and do that with the local communities putting measures to actually make that work well to be fair we're not taking a blanket approach to the country we've got categorisation that's the whole purpose of having category 1s 2s and 3s so at the moment where we are is activities can continue clearly in category 1 activities can continue in category 2 and indeed in category 3 albeit you can't retain fish in category 3 so it is very much not a broad brush approach that's the whole purpose of taking a categorisation approach to Scotland because the alternative is to do what some other places have done potentially which is to say there'll be no none of the following activities in any of the country's rivers we're not taking that approach at all we've taken i think a much more proportionate approach by going down the categorisation approach so some rivers are totally fine and others have some restrictions in some activities so to come to that comment that some rivers are absolutely fine can you give us more information on the research that has actually been done because in listening to previous questions by colleagues there is a question mark about the quality of that data and why we haven't put data in place first before we've got this mechanism that you're wanting us to pass today yeah i mean as i said earlier on and i'll cause a comment to talk about the actual detail of the data in house collected but as i said earlier on when we moved on from the kill license issue to where we are now that was broadly welcomed but there are some associations or people who've looked at local circumstances in their local rivers which are part of fisheries district who clearly have expressed concerns and you know quite loudly in some cases and quite rightly members are bringing forward their representations today but that's a million miles from taking a broad brush approach across the country because we've got categorisations and even within category three only 18% of the fish is caught is retained so 82% of the activity that previously happened will continue to happen even though they're category three so i think we just have to get this in a bit of context here but in terms of data collection which led to the categorisations is that for yourself Stuart? Yeah just to go back to the SACs it's worth being in mind that a lot of those are so that the kind of tweed, the spade, the tear or category one it's worth mentioning that the south esk for example is a category two river the bladknock is category three as well so that there are it's not it's not quite all all the SACs are being being looked after so that's they're all in category one there is a kind of mix mix there as well with regards that the data collection it's primarily based on on rod catches is how we take local data in but we base some of the other factors on long-term data collection that we have on the north esk and on the current burn so they're very detailed scientific studies plus some of the kind of information from around around Europe and it's important also to realise that the methodology used is very similar to used in other countries it's not quite the same because there are scotland specific reasons why we want to be a little bit different from some of the things that are done in Norway or Ireland for example but it is in line with international standards and said that we accept that we can improve it and we're working on that and it's it will be a process going going forward so can you there was a couple of questions by colleagues about exactly what would be the support to local angling organisations to carry out that research what will that support actually look like in practice is that financial support going directly to angling organisations but are people talking about any kind of financial support what what we were doing at the moment with kind of local fisheries trust is making sure data that's already available or that they already hold in the right format and then we can add to the methodology to the process but also discussing about how information could be used could be collected in the future so agreeing standard protocols because it's very difficult if people think they're collecting the same bit of information using lots of different methods so we want to standardise how things are collected going forward just to find how does it actually work in terms of the local fishing and angling organisations is there was suggestion about them getting support through this process but it's not been easy to tease out what that support is whether it's to support them for lack of activity for example lack of tourism impact or whether it's financial support to enable them to do their research alongside this research it's not actually clear what the mechanisms are at the local level there's two things essentially happening one is there's 100,000 pounds available over the next two years to work with the angling clubs to promote their activities with the fear there may be some economic offset from the categorisations and secondly as the conservation plans are put together and marine scotland are working and marine science are working with each individual fisheries district that's putting together their conservation plan we have said that clearly as those discussions are taken forward we'll have to see what supports are acquired to make sure that these conservation plans are worked up so that's a kind of work in progress questions no i'm going to ask some questions before anyone else does apologies i thought you were asking that if seara has any more to go thank you cabinet secretary try and put this in some perspective the statistics for salmon fisheries which have been collected in the five years from 2009 to 2014 suggest that a total of some 159,731 salmon where let me see how i'm going to get this right we have to think about salmon angling first of all so the rod and line fishery caught and retained 125,295 salmon and grills the fishery released was 3,344,367 fish with a low estimate mortality rate of 10% for released fish another 34,436 would die and if this figure was added to the already retained catch that would give us a figure of 159,731 fish and you've said that the figures for angling information have been under counted in many cases that's the situation would you agree that that's an accurate figure given that it's Scottish government statistics and a reasonable estimate of 10% that die after the being caught and released it's it's certainly it's it's it's the difference of opinion about what the stats is but it's in acceptable areas around 10 to 12 percent yes but for mortality so the next figure i have is that fixed engine and net cobble fishery in the same period caught and retained 118,366 fish this amounts to some 41,363 fish less than the fish which are caught in the rivers in other words netting actually and we have to assume that it's correctly accounted for is actually a smaller impact on the kill for salmon than the kill on the rivers for anglers so the first thing is do you agree that that figure is correct well i've got no reason to dispute the figures but clearly in terms of the the coastal netting stations the other factor is it's mixed stocks that are being caught which has an overall impact across our rivers so that's a key point in the fraction proceedings well i think that i think that the net's been understand this and that they've been involved in science to try and collect the data and indeed the environmental research institute in Thurso is doing a study at the moment about the pentland firth movement of salmon which is one of the kinds of things that might feed into your review is that the kind of thing which you would use during this year to actually collect the data so that you could review particular parts of the country where salmon stocks in rivers were in good condition yes i mean there's a three-year prohibition on netting but with the ability to review within that three-year window we'd so choose and clearly as you've explained that kind of science is important because of the mixed stocks are being caught and we don't know if a disproportionate number of the fish being caught is from a particularly fragile river which is why it makes stocks in themselves are important to understand then the more information we have about that the better and the more it will enable us to review any particular part of the country well Dave Thompson asks some questions about smolt reintroduction into the river Loughy this has also been successful in the river Karen in west of Ross but when anglers are asked or anglers i mean riparian owners in this case not angling clubs when they're asked about restocking in many other rivers there's a great reluctance because some people say that it's expensive and that it's less than successful now it seems to me that we have to get to the bottom of the question is it more important that anglers have fish to catch rather than what the expense is for putting enough fish into the river for them to be able to catch these are valid questions which are clearly part of evolving fisheries management in the rivers going forward and we're clearly at a landmark point here we were taking this a lot more serious as a country and trying their best to develop better understanding of our salmon stocks which many people have been calling us to do for many decades and now of course in the country we're doing it partly as a result of pressure from others partly because of course we want to do the right thing a huge amount of sympathy for angling clubs because they want to have a fish to catch but these figures suggest that in fact in many parts of the country there is a problem about what happens to fish that are caught and then released and die as well as those that are caught and kept so we need to have some very robust information about that in the next year in order to make a review meaningful for different parts of the country is that the kind of thing that you think is possible well i think it'll be helpful for me to undertake to the committee today that's within 12 months we'll certainly bring a report back to your successor committee to give an update on many of the issues that have been brought to our attention today and as well as the big picture moving towards the river by river approach and some of the bigger issues as well yeah well i've got further sorry you want to say something mr count excuse me sorry i was just going to reflect that this this of course is part of a broader wild fisheries reform programme and the government launched its consultation on a draft wild fisheries bill with associated strategy in February so i think the broader questions that you ask are entirely valid and we now have an opportunity to debate the question of stalking ranching in amongst everything else which collectively with stakeholders we're looking to to develop a both a wild fishery strategy and a data and research strategy in order to encapsulate what it is that we're trying to get at and what what we need to do to fill the gaps to enable us to get there thank you for that i mean it's obvious to me that this is developing science we can't have absolute science proper science is something which develops it isn't something that is clear at this point and then you know it doesn't actually develop thereafter so the question about the science as we know it is a particular problem i'd just like to stick with an example from the river in my constituency and a letter from an angler called Philip Gwyn in September last year and he says that he's a rod fishermen with interests in the river neighbor but has been on the north coast for many years and knows the armadale netting station well the netting station fills an important part of the north coast salmon world and he says i meet with James Mackay proprietor on a regular basis we've just enjoying a record season on the north coast and there is what the river watcher would say was an abundance of salmon we of course electrofisher river and the major burns and our production of juveniles is in a very healthy state the fish row that returned to us are in a very good state so we can consider that the sea life of the salmon has improved that's the testimony of an angler in the river neighbor on the north coast on a grade one river so is your review going to be able to take into account that kind of local evidence from places such as this with a view to then thinking about the status of the moratorium on angling in that area at armadale absolutely yes that's what we we have to do and there's much commendable work taking place across all our rivers in scotland or not all unnecessarily but many rivers in scotland i think we're all familiar from that with from our own constituencies i represent three major rivers in my constituency and likewise the members around the table do as well we all know there's a lot of really good work taking place at local level and the more information we collect as quickly as possible the more we can even if i'm more localized policy can i just turn finally to the question of habitats directive i asked you a question in the seventh of august this last year about the diet of seals and you told me that later in 2015 there would be a report about what seals eat now i understand that the habitats directive is focused upon what humans do to salmon and not what seals do to salmon and the question i have is can we at the same time as pressing our case with regard to the human management of salmon find some way to go to europe and suggest that it is unequal an unequal fight if we are not taking into account the number of salmon which seals eat and i can assure you that there's a very good number of seals in the pentland furth area where waters of the north sea and the atlantic meet that's where you get lots of bird feeding where you get lots of fish feeding and inevitably you get lots of seals feeding so the question about what seals eat is material to the way in which the recovery of salmon in our rivers can work what can you do to help me with the results of that report which was supposedly coming out at the end of 2015 and what we might do with it with regard to europe's writing of the habitats directive regulations okay i was thrilled with trebidation when you said that you'd asked me a question back in august thankfully you told me what my answer was but in terms of studies i'll check which report that question i'll refer to there is i'm told a report being published this year on the diet of our seal populations so that will be available in the coming months and was commissioned by marine scotland there is of course some information out there on the diet seals and some evidence about clearly the small number of seals may take a lot of salmon therefore a cull of the seal population generally would not have much impact in salmon predation but i'll ensure that we write back to the committee about what reports have been commissioned what's what ones are available thank you um claudia bemish final question yeah thank you convener um i'm trying to find a way through here and i'd like to make a suggestion if i've understood it rightly um the um possible infraction proceedings only relate to the sac's and if that is the case could we look to find a way forward which would only put these regulations on to those and would enable the rest of scotland to be more localised in the implementation and to have that done as quickly as possible and would this enable the scotland government to go back to the commission with a robust plan that would delay any any proceedings because it is as i think we've seen today a very blunt instrument and and local rivers really do a lot of them take a very serious interest in conservation as well as the fishing and i appreciate there's the issue of the netters and the half netters as well i know how complex it is but i'm just trying to see at this stage how how we might find a way forward that would accommodate more of the serious concerns i think the the issues of managing salmon sacks and and known salmon sacks are not distinct they're interrelated and the habitat's interest in salmon sacks is not only the management within the sack but potential impacts on the sack from other areas so we have examples of fishery districts that have sacks further upriver so fish swimming through a district we'll have to swim through a district which may have one level of conservation to get to a sack which has another level so as the the cabinet secretary mentioned earlier in relation to mixed up fisheries in relation to coastal nets there's also an issue in some areas about if you're in an angling club downstream of a salmon sack which is category three nobody knows if you're taking a fish which is destined for that category three sack and therefore require further protection of it so it's it's i'm afraid it's not as straightforward as saying we manage sacks in one way and fishery districts in another because they're all they're all interrelated one way or another so just to push that a bit further why could the i appreciate this is complex but the whole issue is complex anyway and we've seen there are very serious concerns could could it not be the case that if there is a river that the salmon's going up that is not part of a sack but leads to a sack that those could be formed as part of the regulations in the interim before so that we don't be so we're not putting people in a position or groups and angling groups and i appreciate that netting stations are mixed stock but so we're we're trying to see a way through that will enable local rivers not to be categorised in their view wrongly and from this evidence today quite possibly wrongly because it's such a blunt instrument yeah i think sorry i'm i'm being a bit no i understand where you're coming from i think what what ministers have said um twofold one is that we are working hard to put work and working hard with local biologists expert groups to put in place a system which should enable us to move to a river basis from next year and and these these regulations would be reviewed on an annual basis so in the for 2017 the clear intention is to move to a river basis and we're working with with local people to do that for the purposes of these regulations we've said that if if individual districts can bring forward additional data and Stuart talked about the veracity of data earlier but if individual districts can bring forward data which could influence the categorisation then we'll look at that data urgently and if necessary the the government have undertaken to to review this this regulation in the next session of parliament yeah and i just want to add that as i said before two drivers for the regulations before is one is the world fish's review which said urgent action had to be taken and infraction proceedings proceedings which yes do place in emphasis on sccs and netting stations but there's two drivers not just one and not passing this today would delay everything for a significant period of time whereas what we're trying to do today is give you an assurance that for that impact where there is an impact we're going to try and review as quickly as possible to get to a river by river basis and the context overall context again is that in the category three rivers only 18 percent of the catch is retained and that's what's affected so 82 percent of the definition of point of order absolutely um sorry the cabinet secretary has just said that not passing this today cabinet secretary has just said that not passing this today would lead to a lengthy delay in its implementation am i not right in saying that not passing this today would actually bring it back to the floor of the full chamber for determination i wonder if i could somebody could guide me on that indeed that's correct it would come to the whole chamber to discuss that thank you thank you thank you i'm intending to take a five minute break just now and then we'll come back for the debate about the motion okay so that we'll reconvene the second item of business today is consideration of motion s4m 15732 asking the committee to annul the conservation of salmon scotland regulations 2016 and brackets 2016 slash 115 should be noted that the Scottish government officials cannot take part in the formal debate all members of parliament who have joined us today are able to participate in the debate at my discretion but i remind them that only members of the committee can vote the motion will be moved with an opportunity for a formal debate which can procedurally last up to 90 minutes in practice most of the issues have been covered in the evidence session with the cabinet secretary so the debate should not last so long and by alex ferguson to speak to and move the motion s4m 15732 that the rural affairs climate change and environment committee recommends that the conservation of salmon scotland regulations 2016 brackets ssi 2016 slash 115 closed brackets be annulled alex ferguson well thank you convener to get your title correct this time around thank you for for inviting me to open the debate i think the last 90 minutes have been extraordinarily interesting and very educational in many respects but let me just begin if i may by repeating the context that mr callan put to us in that session there are 83 fishery districts that will become mandatory catch and release under these proposals 82 percent of the average catch and release rate operate sorry 82 percent of the average catch across that those fishery districts are currently released and so what we are actually talking about at the end of the day as we were told is the life expectancy of 20 fish per affected fishery district and let me just begin by saying and i really do mean this that i am not against salmon conservation measures and i'm not against salmon conservation limits i'm very much aware that they are successfully used in other countries and that the model is by no means a new one even if there are some specific differences to bring in Scottish unique circumstances but what i am very much against and remain against is the way that the government has gone about introducing these proposals i do understand as has been repeated today that the government maintains it is under considerable pressure from the EU and that infraction proceedings are now apparently live although today we've discovered they only actually focus on SACs but i'm not aware that scotland's MEPs for instance have been asked to rally to the call and put a case for a further delay or a deferral of the implementations of these measures as they surely could have been and i'm therefore not i'm afraid persuaded that the government as i was told last week has done everything possible to make that case now clearly and maybe the government doesn't believe that a deferral is anyway desirable but i'd like to set out very briefly why i do and i have to say that everything i've heard this morning has convinced me that a deferral is not just necessary but that it's required now firstly i do not accept that the scientific basis for introducing the categorisation of our rivers as has been the case is accurate enough for the purpose to which it is being put rod and catch returns even taken over a five-year period are not the most reliable of statistics they are unscientific and they are unworthy of forming the basis for these proposed restrictions indeed two of the five years that have been taken into consideration were exceptionally dry as i think the figures i think it was for the nith or the anon that Elaine Murray referred to highlight it and in a dry year you get considerably reduced fishing effort with a consequential lower annual catch which according to the science of rod and catch returns therefore mean that you have a less healthy salmon stock which is not necessarily the case at all and the illogicality of that argument was very well summed up in it in a post i saw on a salmon fishing online forum which suggested in fact i think the wording was no need to worry lads i intend to catch 500 salmon this year and if we all do the same and put that in our returns all will be well now of course that is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion but it does rather sum up how flawed rod and catch returns are as a basis for legislation and my second concern is the timing with which these measures are being introduced now while i do understand their work consulted on for some months until the final proposal of any consultation is published those who make submissions to it would have hoped that those submissions might well be taken into account and acted on and even make a difference to the final outcome that after all is what consultation was supposed to be about and yet and indeed the first consultation on on license to kill had that result changes were made as a result of the consultation but the original proposals that were consulted on the second time around and that were considering today were confirmed by the minister only a very few short weeks ago forcing angling clubs proprietors hotels holiday cottage businesses and the many others who rely to one degree or another on angling to make a living to to have to change their focus change their policies for 2016 face cancelled bookings reduced fees and in some cases a complete lack of inquiries at all for the 2016 season all by all without any compensation at all at my the closest angling club to where i live the newton stewart angling association is already 2000 pounds down on 2016 advanced ticket sales compared to the same stage last year i know the minister has announced 100 000 pounds over two years to help but i've yet to speak to one angling club and i've spoken to several that think this will make any substantial difference to their medium to long-term plans and what about the next one of whom we've spoken quite a lot this morning the the few large commercial netsman that remain and the many smaller marine crofters i would call them that still exist along the solway coastline and elsewhere across the country must surely be due compensation of some sort for this abrupt cessation of their business and yet that does not appear to be the case much has been said about half netting and i'm i'm pleased to hear that exploratory discussions are taking place to try to ensure that that cultural activity and that historic activity may be able to continue i do hope that is the case and we'll await to see that outcome with interest but finally i remain very very concerned that any measures looking at salmon conservation simply have to refer or at least i don't see how they cannot refer to the two main causes as i understand it of salmon decline one has been mentioned by the convener which is seal predation but the other is the impact of sea lice now both of these predators if i can call them that inhabit the marine migratory path of wild salmon nasko which along with the EU have been critical of the scottish government's lack of efforts in regard to salmon conservation are even more damning of the scottish government's lack of action in relation to sea lice which despite the new legislation in 2013 that we scrutinised on this committee sea lice numbers continue to rise they appear to be poorly reported and even more poorly controlled no one doubts that their impact on wild salmon is immense as is the impact of the growing and heavily protected seal population and yet it is Scotland's anglers and netsmen who are being asked to bear the brunt of the government's proposed conservation measures so what i'm asking for through this motion to annul is a delay in the implementation of the government's proposals a day that i think would allow several currently empty boxes to be ticked now firstly the government has already said and we heard it again this morning they have brought together a group of existing biologists to assimilate the science that already exists on the health of salmon populations on a river by river basis across almost all rivers in the country through the work of the many excellent fisheries trust that we have and i have to refute the cabinet secretary's assertion that up to date proper robust science doesn't exist it does it's a question surely of bringing it all together as the government has said it intends to do within the next year and that would allow a proper river by river categorisation and that is proper science that that that as i was told in a meeting with dr McLeod last week as i say hopes to be assimilated within a year so let's delay the implementation for a year until that proper science backs up the measures secondly a year's delay would allow a time for angling associations clubs and the others i've mentioned to adjust and for their clients to similarly adjust because what we're talking about from their perspective is dramatic behaviour change now behaviour change is something we've often talked about on this committee in a variety of of circumstances but i don't think any of us in our wildest dreams expect behaviour change to happen overnight and yet that's what we're asking here and thirdly and i think most importantly a sensible delay would achieve the buy-in of all stakeholders and that is something that is certainly far from universal at this point in time but which i believe is absolutely essential if this policy has to be successful as it surely needs to be without that buy-in saman will continue to be killed even if that's illegally because these proposals are almost unpleasable and that if that is the result then these measures will turn out to be virtually worthless so why don't we harness our MEPs and let's encourage them to earn their apparently meager salaries by making a case on Scotland's behalf for a sensible delay if only for one or two years at the most to ensure that the measures work that they are brought into by all stakeholders and achieve what we all want to see saman populations increasing in a sustainable way for the benefit of principally our environment but also our angling interests alike i do not believe that the current proposals in their current form will achieve that outcome we did we did clarify that this measure will not come to the chamber unless the committee turns it down today i do believe genuinely these are serious measures with a huge impact across scotland i believe they deserve to see the full gamut of our democratic processes behind them and i think that they deserve to be brought back to the chamber so i hope and i would appeal to the committee to back my motion if only for that reason alone so that this process is seen to have the full democratic process behind it and on that basis convener if i may i will move the motion in my name thank you very much i've got several people who wish to speak i'm going to take mike russell jim hum then jackie bailey and then elaine marie thank you convener i um i remember one of the things i remember most vividly but my early days as environment minister was going to stratae point to the salmon netting um station there to see the late simon paterson this would be in july 2007 to tell him as environment minister that the license that he had had for many generations in his family was not going to be renewed i remember it because i went with somebody who the cabinet secretary will remember david dunkley who was her majesties inspector of salmon a man who knew more about salmon than anybody else had forgotten and i remember it too because i believe i shouldn't have done it i believe that the setting of environmental policy by fiat from central government is not the effective way to do it and if this committee doesn't know that after the mpa process and it will never find it out that the reality is that we should negotiate in a painstaking way with those who are the stakeholders as we call them from here the people who actually earn their living by fishing or working the land or doing a range of other such activities the people who are often sustained by a very very long tradition of so doing and we we talk about half netting lightly but half netting not only goes back to viking times but its legislative basis goes back to 1649 in scotland and it also has a place in in scolish history and tradition and in an area i'm particularly interested in the scolish photography i'm sitting here in front of me with a picture from the early 1900s of casting them all casting the right for various positions along the net and somebody i've written on extensively verna kissling took photographs of salmon netting half netting which are a very important record of a traditional communal activity so i think the right way to have approached this and the right way to approach a whole range of things in the environmental sphere particularly is not to move to regulation or legislation until the community the stakeholders those who know from doing the detail of the issue have come to a common mind or a conclusion no matter how difficult that is and it is difficult and it sometimes is almost impossible but it needs to be done because you build the blocks and then on top of those blocks you put the legislation or the regulation and if you do it the other way we get to the type of thing we saw in the mpa's and we get to hear we get to a situation where quite clearly there is an issue a widespread issue of course where people are saying let's do this a different way and the different way is at this stage to have a river based model and we've already talked about that how important that would be and how that would move us the step we need to move so there is a genuine problem here and i am going to back the regulation for one particular reason because we are two weeks into dissolution and if we do nothing now we run the risk and i go back to david dunkley we run the risk of continuing to run down the salmon stocks and the possibility of their recovering but i only i'm going to vote for it if i hear and i hope i will hear from the cabinet secretary and assurance that as soon as possible after the election we're going to move to a river based model and we're going to work hard to get to that model so in actual fact the views and influence of those people who are doing the things for which we are legislating and regulating those are the people who in the end will get what they need to have i don't think that this is a great end to a session when we're struggling with that issue which is a process issue but what it might teach us as the mpa process i hope is taught us and other things are taught us is that there's a better way of doing it and we can learn that also at international i've mentioned at this committee before some of the example of reconciling traditional often called native land use and environmentalism and the necessary work of conservation has been done elsewhere and we should be learning that in government and that as a parliament because that's what will make a difference and will last because we're not talking about change for a a week or a month we're talking about long-term change that can restore the environment we all want to see so with some reluctance i'm going to back this this legislation but i do look for a commitment from the cabinet secretary that this is not the end of the process but in actual fact a brief hiccup in a process that will produce the buy-in that we should be looking for as the basis for environmental change Jim Hulman followed by Jackie Baillie thank you very much convener we've heard today i think a lot of doubts over the actual science we've talked about rod counts the rod counts are obviously counted on only in the rivers and as we've heard from many members here and members not just off this committee but members who have decided to attend today i think i think that's a record a number of MSPs who have actually attended this committee that i can recall so that perhaps shows to me the the concerns of this parliament regarding this legislation rod counts of course only are counted on on rivers if when rivers are dry the fish don't run they stay in the sea and that's where the half netters catch their odd fish or not we've heard that the minister's optimistic that they'll come to some sort of arrangement that the half netters can come of can carry on in some form but that's all in the future at the moment they have an uncertain future i asked about compensation which had been mentioned by the the minister of the environment herself that seems to be off the table now as the as the cabinet secretary didn't said seemed to state that they were not considering that at this moment in time i will be back in Alex Ferguson's motion sorry amendment motion to annull absolutely motion to annull on the basis that this parliament can have the ability to then discuss it fully and i don't buy that we don't have enough time we can easily fit in an extra hour next next Wednesday where we have a whole day on land reform so we could easily fit in a small slot so that the whole parliament could absolutely debate this extremely important matter because it is true as other members said i think it was Elaine Murray that fishing salmon fishing brings a huge amount into rural economies and it's we're actually competing on a global market there's other great salmon rivers in russia and canada which so we want to be seen as somewhere that you can fish and take the very very odd salmon and with having absolutely no effect on the conservation of salmon which of course i fully support thanks so Jackie Baillie followed by Elaine Murray then Sarah Boyack thank you very much convener in my apologies i'm going to have to leave immediately after can i start by saying i support the motion to annull i recognise i don't have a vote in this but i do have a voice it strikes me that we're at a process that is at the 11th hour 59th minute and unpacking how we got here i think is something that that is instructive and i agreed with much of what you know my colleagues previously have said it strikes me in the cabinet secretary by his own admission said you know we've been it pushing to do something for a while now and it strikes me that the threat of EU infraction is the thing that's motivated people after perhaps years of of not taking the appropriate action now i understand we're at the very early stages in relation to the infraction proceedings so there is time i understand that the proceedings relate to sacs and netting stations and not what's going on in local rivers so there perhaps is a tighter set of regulations that could be brought forward so i think we're in danger of because we've been slow to act over many years before of taking panic measures at the last minute at the the closing stages of this parliament and i was always told taking action is one thing taking the right action is even more important i recognise again this is complex but what we seem to have an approach from the government is past this and we'll just worry about the detail later it is by their own admission the complexity that will involve a degree of time being taken to get this right we've waited years we shouldn't rush at this the cabinet secretary said he would rely on the input of local bodies after question for me is why we didn't rely on it before it's disappointing that they haven't taken on both the science the data available to them now in particular the data from glasgoooni and the loch gloman fisheries trust they've not listened to local interests in the consultation and they've not undertaken inequality impact assessment but actually for me this is about loch gloman dangling association they're 116 years old they have something like 700 members there's a low cost activity for working class men predominantly but hopefully for more than that they care passionately about conservation but they're saying that these regulations don't actually do what the government want them to do so if the cabinet secretary isn't prepared to withdraw and bring back a much tighter set of proposals that focus on the issues that are absolutely the subject of the infraction proceedings then I would be in favour of abandoning the order or if there is some way of the whole parliament considering it thank you convener thank you Eileen Murray followed by Sarah Boyack thank you convener and I also will be speaking in favour of Alex Farguson's motion to annull the amendment it is clear from today's evidence that this order is prompted by the threat of EU infraction and not by the science of salmon conservation indeed in proposing this order Scottish ministers obtained a rare achievement in uniting the Dumfrieshire anglers and the Solway netters who are frequently in disagreement however the government has united them in opposition to this order the environment minister was well aware of their concerns as I had forward forwarded every one of them to her and her officials and I had I was advised that their representations would be taken into consideration but unfortunately there is not much evidence that this is the case all the organisations which have contacted me fully support salmon conservation as indeed I do and of course they do because the future of their activities and the anglin clubs depends on the continuation of a healthy population of salmon in our rivers this is not about fishing versus conservation the objections concern the data and the information on which the decisions underpinning this order have been taken the anon common good fund subcommittee of Dumfries and Calaway council administers the operation of poke half and stake net on the north side of the Solway they believe that the legislation will have a devastating effect on all netting activity including anon's traditional fishings which we know are enshrined by royal charter the income of the common good fund will fall and its potential for investment in anon with it the common good also considered the categorisation of the river anon as a level three river is based on inaccurate data and should be reassessed as the river anon has been a productive river for three of the past five years and the council has already for several years implemented conservation measures locally this blunt instrument of an order contrast sharply with the approach taken with respect to the river Eden in Cumbria where an agreement has been reached with the environment agency and natural england on an acceptable level of catch rod angling clubs in Dumfrieshire consider that fishing tourism will be badly affected if this order is passed as potential visitors will prefer to spend their time and money on rivers where they are permitted to keep maybe just one of the salmon in the catch indeed Cumbria tourists will probably celebrate if this order is passed angling clubs already struggling to survive financially may cease to exist the river nith angling association and Dumfries and gallery angling association also like the common good consider that the science behind these proposals is flawed pointing out that there are virtually no fish counters on our rivers recording the number of returning salmon and the categorisation is based purely on the number of rod caught salmon the reason for a perceived decline could be just that there are fewer anglers catching fish or that rather than there are fewer salmon could be about the weather as others have said and the salmon stocks are cyclical anyhow anglers tell me for example that stocks in the river nith currently are high fishing is important to tourism in Dumfrieshire our rivers are one of the region's great assets and losing fishing tourism would have consequences for other tourism businesses and the local economy and one of the unintended consequences as alex gargeson referred to could actually be the stimulation of poaching and i'm sure that's not something that any of us would wish to see i urged the cabinet secretary to reconsider this order which could threaten the future of angling clubs on the river anon and nith and the historic half netting on the soulway and fishing related tourism across the region i hope he might consider retracting this order and reconsidering it but if he will not i will ask the committee to reject the order and allow parliament as a whole to consider and vote on its content thank you Sarah Boyack followed by Graham Day thank you very much convener i have to admit i came into the chamber today having read all the evidence and having listened to colleagues and i was actually deeply disappointed that the answers the cabinet secretary gave to some of our questions this morning because instinctively i do want to support more action and salmon conservation but what we've got in front of us this morning is a kind of work in progress don't worry we're thinking about what we're going to do next we will get around to it later please trust us and we can't give you the details at the moment and this is too important for that kind of approach i know this is our last committee of the session but we need to get this right and we know actually from the minister and his officials answers that where we have salmon conservation measures they do work if they're done properly so we need to have the right strategy in place and the reason i asked about special areas of conservation is because we need that right strategy in place over time we need to monitor it and we need to think about how we prioritise areas where action needs to be taken so i don't think the approach we've got today is appropriate we can't have those kind of shortcuts we need to be looking much more at the rivers and their catching areas and following the lives of salmon that's one of the lessons that we've had if you look at conservation it's not just one point in salmon's lives you've got to follow that whole track and think about the things that will impact on salmon stacks throughout that whole life cycle so that's partly a geographical issue and it's partly an issue of time and that all needs to come together and what we have in front of us that we have a we've got a take it or leave it approach today it's a very blunt approach and i know as a new member of this committee that there has been a lot of evidence presented to committee and you have taken a great deal of work over the last few months but i think the lessons from previous evidence to this committee do need to be learned we have spent the last few months debating marine protection areas and what really came through loud and clear to me is the importance of having a national overview having a national commitment that we all sign up to politically but then having the capacity for ironing out the details between local communities and conservation groups and ensuring that you have a good evidence base now we're never going to get a hundred percent agreement on that and know that having taken evidence that is an impossible place to get to but we do need to have better good information that people can at least debate around and a clear focus and a strategy in the areas involved and i feel what we had with the mpa's for all that there was disagreement was a more transparent and more accountable approach we don't have that today so as i say we've got a challenge because this is a negative instrument and we're at the end of the parliament but i think we i think there are better alternatives that the government could be pushing and i pick up on the point that might rustle made about a river by river approach a priority based approach the comments that my colleague claudia beamish made in her questions stakeholders all need clarity and they need to have to work together to conserve stamina stocks to enable our angling for the future and to enable biodiversity for the future and local management groups are absolutely key to that the points made by jackie bailey about the equality's impact not being properly examined i think is concerning points that both the lane worry and jone mccall pine made about the cultural impact that this will have on half netters and i think we did get some movement today from the cabinet secretary which i welcome but i think we could i think that could be done better the points made by my colleagues rhoda grant and dave stewart in conversation are about conservation and cultural heritage and tourism and conservation measures working together in concert it is difficult i take the point that might rustle made and i get the sense that he's going to tip over in the other side of the balance today i'm not going to support this going through the parliament today i think we need to come back to it in this case i think there are too many unanswered questions not just about our local communities but about the overall approach and whether it's right and i am not convinced by the answers i've had from the cabinet secretary today there is a better way to do this a more proportionate way to do this that will prevent the stocks being run down further that will get our better outcome and i want to just finish on the point about the european fraction proceedings we are at the early stage and i think if we were to debate this in chamber next week or the week after there would be agreement across the parties about wanting to implement european leg regulations because this is about the protection of the environment and about a vital fishing stock we do need to do that every party will be signed up to that the point is doing this in a way that is effective and that's not what we've got here today we've not got good protection for salmon stocks and local biodiversity that will work with our local communities they need to be part of that picture alongside the important conservation movements we have in this country and passing this motion or not saying anything today letting this go through is the wrong approach and it's not good for our salmon stocks for the future so i will be supporting the measure to now so that we have a proper discussion and so that as the parties as we move to weeks of disagreeing with each other we could agree that there's a better way forward that's the sense i've picked up from members across this committee thank you convener Graham Dave followed by Claudia Beamish excuse me thank you convener i respect entirely the concerns which we are articulated by other members today and i understand their motivations but i think it's important that we don't lose sight of the twin drivers for these moves conservation being one and the other one is the infaction threat whether it's immediate or coming down the track nor should we lose sight of the fact that anglers are still going to be able to catch fish they just won't be able to kill fish and that's in order to ensure that we have a real future for the sport with regard to the fishing tourism point i would point out that the river D has been operating a 100% catch in the release scheme for some years it remains an iconic must fish river and it attracts anglers from all over europe and the cabinet secretary is correct when he says that without fishing the anglers tourism will dry up anyway having said that local buying is important and i'm like Mike Russell i would want further assurances around quick and appropriate engagement at a local level going forward but if we get that i too will support the measure and oppose the motion to now we should have taken action long before now we cannot keep putting this off that approach has served us badly with deer we should learn from that and you're always going to have people disagreeing with a planned approach sometimes you have to do the right thing but then be fleet of foot in adapting to circumstances changing and improvements emerging and then if we have that assurance that the government will do that then i will support this thank you convener i'm going to speak in support of Alex Ferguson's motion to annull that was not what i intended to do when i came in to the committee today i was wanting to support this i was trying so hard to support this and i i've had a lot of information from local groups from across scotland uh which i've tried to represent some of saying that um they're concerned about the methodology as as this morning's developed i have really reached a stage where where i'm not able to um to to support this ssi because i think the method if we wait for for a year the methodology that um could be more localised uh and look at more of a river basis which we as i understand it from the cabinet secretary will will be coming forward in the next year anyway i think that will bring the groups on board who are involved and the salmon fishery boards and the district boards and and local anglers and conservation groups and that it will enable everybody to work together for the aim which everybody as i understand it wants which is which is a robust salmon stock per se as an iconic species and also for the future of the enjoyment of fisheries i accept what graham day says that there are iconic rivers where there's catch and release already but i think this is a behaviour change issue and there are some rivers where this is not happening yet and i think if we had delayed for a year that we could put the the thousand pounds of cabinet secretary sorry hundred thousand pounds of cabinet secretary has has mentioned could be offered into part of this behaviour change process and all the way through this committee we've looked at bringing people with us and at behaviour change and and i know that that that this is such a serious issue but i think the stage we're at on infraction with europe as i understand it is is not that far on we're not at the at the point of the letter of formal notice yet and i think that if we were able to if we were able to ask the Scottish government i'm asking the Scottish government to consider withdrawing this today and going back to europe and saying these are our plans this is what the buy-in is we have so many local communities on our side we don't want to lose that and we're at risk of losing that for the future and i think i think there are many arguments that have come through today and if we debated this on the floor of the chamber would come come forward then as well about to prove to europe that we are taking this incredibly seriously so for for the future of of our rural communities and and for our rivers and for the joy that fishing can bring to so many people and the tourism issue i'm going to support Alex Ferguson's motion to anald today so Dave Thompson and Joan McAlpine thank you convener well i've listened with great interest to the debate this morning and i have many salmon rivers on my constituency not just on skylachalsh and lachaber in the west where there's at least a couple of dozen but also the spey and the nests are both in my constituency as well so this is a big issue in the constituency and you know a number of people have expressed concern about processes and so on at this morning's session and i have a lot of sympathy for those concerns and i think that although there has been engagement with local communities and so on maybe some of that engagement could have taken place a bit earlier and it maybe could have been a bit better but i do believe that the government is now engaged i do take the word of the cabinet secretary that there will be rapid action on reclassification and getting down to specific rivers so that if there is an error with the nests as is claimed by mr Sutherland and speaking to Dave Stewart and Rhoda Grant that that can be corrected very quickly indeed or indeed other rivers where the classifications are wrong they can be put right so i i do accept that the government will do this and they'll do it extremely rapidly i was also pleased to get the assurance in relation to the River Loughey and the Ranched Salmon there that the government will be ensuring that this project which has been going on for quite a number of years now and very successfully and is attracting more people to fish on the Loughey than ever before fish are coming back into the Loughey in a way that they haven't done for many many years so it's going to be a hugely beneficial process in terms of tourism and everything else to allow this to continue and i am reassured from the assurances from government that the the ranched fish with the clip fins and so on that something will be done to help us with this situation before the meeting i did discuss this was discussed with john gibb of who runs the Loughey who's the head bailiff and and his view when i asked him when he was asked directly you know would it be better if this order didn't go through in relation to these matters or if he got the assurance would it be a good thing if it went through his advice to me was it would be better if it went through so on the basis of that and and other information that i have i'll be supporting the order today thank you uh john mccall pine yes thank you very much and i don't have a vote as i'm not a member of the committee but i've listened with great interest to the points that have been made and have sympathy with both sides i think it's been a very very interesting debate and i i appreciate the point that sarah boyack made about um let's go to the chamber within the next couple of weeks to debate this and that might be a very interesting exercise but i think realistically i think we probably all know that that's just not going to happen with two weeks left to the parliament in a very very packed parliamentary programme so therefore while that might be um that might be attractive it's simply not going to happen in terms of some of the points that have been made with regard to my interest in in the saw way i think it's important to clarify that in in annan the stake nets and the poke nets the fixed engines that are already there and and whose income has been withdrawn from the common good fund that has just that has happened as a result of action from the english side from the river eden where the authorities there were threatening legal action against the saw way fisherman and the the recent galloway council actually chose not to go to judicial review on that and that's why those that's why there aren't any stake nets there anymore i am very much welcome the news that the scotish government have listened to many of the representations on behalf of the half netters who are in a unique heritage position and i was concerned some of the suggestions perhaps coming from Jim Hume that you know that this was still open to question and then summing up i would appreciate if the cabinet secretary could give us some assurances that that there is going to be some kind of exemption for half netters and they will be able to continue to fish in some way because one of the things that's come out of this debate very strongly is the need for better scientific evidence and if the half netters could contribute to that i think that that would be an imaginative and very welcome development given that half netting is something that's passed from father to son and grandfather to son and goes back such a long way these are the people who really understand the stocks and who really understand the fish and i'm sure they're people who would be in the best position to actually contribute to that scientific evidence so here i'll welcome the movement of the recognition of human ecology as well as the preservation of fish and i would very much welcome just a little bit more clarity from the cabinet secretary in his summing up on the future of half netting on the soul way okay all members asked just have some comments myself i didn't ask before but it's important to know who the complainers are about the situation for the health of the scotish salmon stocks that have led them to go to europe i think we should know who these are and i hope the cabinet secretary can remind us i also think that it would be important to recognize that across the northern hemisphere in alaska in norway in russia and of course in ireland that catch and release is a very big part indeed in some cases a hundred percent part of the sport that takes place where scotland not to move in that direction i think it would be showing that we are behind the curve and that if scotland is going to be seen as a place for people to come to fish then i think we've got to work against the competition in the sense not been able to catch some fish but to be up with the best practice which is happening in alaska norway russia and so on if that's the case i'm very unhappy about the fact that the question of sea lice has been brought into this by the proposer of the uh motion at the moment because both the lachey and the caron are rivers that have been restocked and they're in areas with large amounts of salmon farm fishing there and it is working in terms of the restocking so i think we should be very careful without bringing that issue back into the picture now members are talking about delay any order which is brought forward in the following year would not be a silver bullet it would be another stage along the knowledge path that gives us a picture of what salmon is like in individual rivers and i was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary suggest that data collected during this year will be able to be deployed within the year because the order includes an annual review that being said it's taken alongside the wild fisheries review and the draft bill which has been consulted at the present time the matter of how river catchment areas are managed for all species of fish is a very important part of the surround to this set of orders and it seems to me that the democratisation of the rivers and the river catchments is one of the things which would be a win-win for angling associations to gain because at the present time we've seen a reluctance by riparian owners to restock rivers despite it being a practice in some of the better ones such as the neighbour and if that's the case we need to bring those pressures to bear and they're a part of actually improving the salmon stocks that is not being discussed in this order but it's utterly germane to the picture and the overview which we take about this order at this time so i would like to suggest that while Sarah Boyack can suggest that all parties would be signed up to the habitats directive i don't think that would stop them voting against this order if it came to the floor of the chamber and i don't think that that would alter the way in which the science has got to be taken forward or indeed that the review has got to be taken forward or indeed the action has got to be taken to stabilise the salmon stocks so therefore i'm going to be supporting the motion not the motion to annul but the proposal by the cabinet secretary and i would ask other members to do so because i don't think this is a question of it's got to happen now or it'll never happen it's not also a question of saying that anything can ever be perfect and i think that we've got to recognise that this is a very imperfect situation that can only be taken forward with the best will in the world by a government that's intent in making sure that we do have sustainable salmon stocks and i believe that this government does cabinet secretary do you wish to reply to the thank you very much convener and i've listened closely to the comments and often powerful comments from all parties and members of the committee here today clearly it's inspired some strong views because like many issues relating to our environment that have an economic social impact it's full of challenges and how we plot the best way forward to strike the proper balance and i've endeavoured this morning to explain the context for the conservation regulations and also the extent to which we have engaged heavily with a broad range of stakeholders especially since the publication of Andrew Thins reports the wild fisher's review back and i think it was October 2014 so where we are today is not perhaps as rushed as some people are pointing out but i think it's been a very candid exchange with the committee and as i said before i've listened very closely i do consider the regulation strike the right balance between conservation of the species for the benefit of future generations as well as the interests of those who fish for salmon today and importantly i do believe the way we're suggesting going forward will keep our rivers in Scotland open and as we've discussed previously we have looked at other countries close by such as Ireland where we do not want to end up in terms of where they have had to go on an annual basis choosing which rivers remain open or close and that would bring a lot worse instability than some people are suggesting may happen with these regulations today and i think it's not our interest to avoid that scenario in Scotland the introduction i should also mention of course that the UK Government recently also announced that they're consulting on mandatory catch and release across england as well so these issues these challenges are not unique to scotland they're happening elsewhere in the UK they're happening in other european countries i think the introduction of these measures readily demonstrate that we do have a scheme that we can put in place that will manage exploitation in line with the requirements of the habitats directive as well as meeting our international obligations to nasco as well i also want to reiterate in response to some comments that this is a broad brush approach in scotland as i said before you know let me emphasise that this is the opposite of a broad brush approach because we've specifically unlike the scenarios that happening in other countries have just mentioned taking a categorisation approach where there's three categories of rivers across the country and two of the three categories activities can largely continue as is the third category which has dominated a lot the conversation quite rightly today are those areas where there has to be mandatory catch and release and we're currently around 18 percent of fish is retained so i'm just trying to set the wider context of today's regulations and the impact they will have but notwithstanding that context the committee members have quite rightly highlighted concerns in relation to category three rivers and the needs in the future to go to a river by river basis in that approach and that is something the scotland government certainly supports in light of comments mike russell and other members who've asked for assurances from the government i reiterate that i'll instruct officials and ministers who are dealing with this issue to come back to your successor committee early after the new elections with more details of the way forward and the timetable attached to that and i'll be confident that that should happen before the summer recess no doubt the requirement for further report after the summer recess more work has been carried out in terms of going towards a river by river basis and the the way forward for recategorisation of the rivers who are in category three at the moment who may be able to input more data in accurate science in the times ahead so i hope to give that count today clearly and the assurance that that timetable in the way forward can come back to the committee very soon i just want to make two quick comments that yes the whole principle of a bottom-up approach to these changes that are required as we continue to develop this policy moving forward are absolutely the heart of the scotland government's approach and in terms of taking into account local initiatives and local culture in terms of the the half netting that takes place in the solway which a number of members particularly Joan McAlpine and Jim Hume have mentioned just to again give an assurance that our absolute intention is to find a way for those skills to be retained and for that activity to continue albeit it will have to be through a scientific project and scientific approach so i just want to put in the record that assurance that i believe Joan Hume and Joan McAlpine were looking for it as well but doing nothing is not an option as many members have said we have to ensure we do have a framework in place from here on in that will protect what is an iconic species for scotland and delivers all the benefits that many members have referred to we have listened to and acted upon the concerns that have been relayed to the government about retaining the fundamental principle that any killing of wild salmon a protected species absolutely has to be managed in scotland it has to be sustainable and we can't allow threats to be in place of what are vulnerable stocks we will continue to make improvements to the process i take on board the criticisms and you know these are difficult issues and yes there are pressures from europe in terms of infraction and indeed we have to fulfil the the spirit of the recommendations in the wild fisheries review which we want to support however failure to approve these regulations i do believe would set scotland back significantly and risk our international status in terms of salmon fishing in scotland the infraction proceedings from europe is a real factor as many members have mentioned it is not the only factor conservation is number one priority but it is the legal position that we are aware that this is one of the areas europe is taking seriously in terms of scotlands environmental credentials and the infraction proceedings are real and at any point this year the european authorities could take us to european courts and they'll of course be playing close attention to what's happening at the moment in scotland in terms of protection of salmon and for the record it was a salmon and trout association that the convener wanted me to mention it did make the complaint to european authorities which no doubt have partly led to where we are today so for all these reasons convener i urge the committee to reject the motion for annulment except my assurances which i hope address some of the concerns i've been expressed by members today and allow us to move forward to protect what is the iconic species in scotland or salmon stocks thank you cabinet secretary ask alex Ferguson to wind up to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw the motion thank you convener and i'll be as brief as possible because i think most of the arguments have been made and stated and i don't want to do a great deal of repetition but i would just comment on a couple of points that have been made it is certainly not just jim human germ the calpine that have an interest in half netting claudia beemish elaine marion myself have all spoken about that we all have constituency and regional interests in that activity and i think we would all welcome the fact that you know dialogue is in place to see if some measures can't be put in place to ensure that that cultural activity has continued i'm afraid to don't apologize for bringing sea lice into this debate there are huge numbers of fishermen and anglers in my part of the world who believe that the sea lice behaviour plays an enormous part in the decline of salmon stocks in in or the health of salmon stocks in my part of Scotland in particular alongside acidification seal predation and indeed other measures and i i i don't see how we can not look at these things in the round when we're doing so something we didn't really talk about in earlier questions is the input of voluntary effort into the success of our angling associations our river management the restocking activities that we've spoken about enormous amount of that is done by voluntary input and if and and that's why the buy-in to these measures is so important i believe because if we don't get that buy-in and we lose a lot of that voluntary input then actually encouraging the regeneration of our salmon stocks becomes all the harder and and i i i i really do feel that quite strong and i'm sure we all of us with rural constituencies are aware of the importance of that voluntary input i think as mike russell said earlier on there is an element of putting the cart before the horse here and and i am going to press my amendment and i do so with some sadness because we're all after the same thing here at the end of the day we all want the same outcome and yet we have clearly slightly different views on how best to achieve it i have to say that i think general carpine is wrong in saying that this cannot come back to the chamber if the committee was to back my motion today it would have to come back to the chamber that's the process of this parliament and i do believe there are an awful lot of people out there who have concerns about this these proposals who deserve to see this being agreed by the whole chamber of this parliament if necessary rather than by a majority on this committee it might not change people's minds as the convener suggested but i do believe there is a there are proposals here that could be accepted by the whole chamber i'm not convinced these could be but it is important that the proper parliamentary and democratic process is seen to be done so on on that basis if on if on no other and i believe there are other basis i would ask members to support the motion in my name which i press thank you so the question is that motion s4m 15732 the name of alec ferguson be approved are we all agreed no we are not agreed so will the those who are in favor of the motion please show thank you those who are against the motion please show there are no abstentions so there are four in favor of the motion and five opposed to the motion so therefore the motion falls and we will report this in due course i would thank members for the detail that they've gone into in this discussion and i record the results and that the committee's report will confirm the outcome of the debate thank you we move on to some subordinate legislation and in case any questions these are three items salmon carcass tagging scotland regulations tweed regulations on carcass tagging and the tweed regulations on salmon conservation i wonder and the common agriculture policy direct payments etc scotland amendment order i just in case there's any questions on the salmon or any of the others i will ask members if you have any questions just now sarah boyack which one is it just a brief question of the cat reform one well we'll come to that at any on the salmon ones just now nope you're a fortunate because you've got the cabinet secretary here but you can ask a question i think yes it's a question that came at the meeting i had with farmers from the Lothians last night and it was a plea as much as anything cabinet secretary about timing i'll not comment about the financial effects issue because we'll debate that endlessly later but it was a plea for them about the timing of when guidance is actually delivered their comment was if it comes out in the winter they're already committed by then and guidance that came out in the summer would be immeasurably better for them and also the point they made was that for some of them it's not just an annual decision they're taking they're potentially rotating crops and rotating fields over a four five or six year period so the capacity for that to be taken on board was something that we're very keen to see recorded in our debate today and also that i passed it on to use a comment thank you computer the secretary may or may not wish to reply because he's not here formally to answer this but i'm sure he'd be happy to say yes it's a point to say that's a fair point and we'll meet and i'll certainly take it away and reflect on it good if there are no other comments from members then i asked the committee are we agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments nobody does okay in that case thank you very much for that we move on thank you cabinet secretary and your team we move on to public petitions now fourth item of business today is to consider pe 01547 by ian gordon and the salmon and trout association scotland on the conservation of scottish wild salmon i refer members to the paper invite any comments from members and what action we wish to take anybody wish to comment on this one given the previous interest in wild salmon i'm surprised that we're not having any comments at the moment we've got two items here we've got it's recommended that the committee welcomes the action taken by the Scottish Government to recognise the issues raised by the petition in its regulations and draft national strategy and draft bill and that the committee may wish to close the petition and write to the petitioner to inform him of this decision are we agreed we are agreed thank you very much agenda item fact oh yeah we've got the goose petition yeah that's i was thinking that's what i was coming to so the second petition today is pe 01490 by Patrick Krause on behalf of the Scottish Crofting Federation on the control of wild geese numbers refer members to the paper and invite any comments from members i believe this should remain open the goose problem is far from solved in any part of my constituency and indeed i my office told me on monday afternoon i had a man on from the list more he said that the most useful thing i could do during the election campaign would be to go to this more with a gun and shoot geese there is a very considerable concern that continues i'm slightly concerned by the way in which the crofting Federation seeks to divide crofters and farmers on this issue there is a common interest between crofters and farmers right across my constituency and elsewhere with this issue and we require continued action and i'm afraid the matter is not resolved so far by the Scottish government so i'd like the petition to remain open and i hope the successor committee will take it on board great and ymdeg yeah i completely concur like rossol i think it has to remain open the problems not going away i think closing it would send the wrong message to the government the current one and the next one and to the stakeholders so i would support keeping the petition open thank you sy'n claudio be mesh that simply convenient to say that i agree with the two previous speakers mcdonald there's no doubt in my mind that this petition has to be kept open from the latest submission provided by the Scottish Crofting Federation there's still problems with grey lag and barnacle geese on the use and an old from personal experience that the issue on the island is far from resolved and we're hearing anecdotal evidence at the cross party group on crofting that grey lags are now spreading to inner hebridean islands as mic Russell has just alluded to so the next racket committee must ensure pressure is maintained on the Scottish government to ensure proper funding for goose management programmes and to reiterate the point that was made when this petition first came to this committee if we're not careful it'll soon be crofters that are endangered not the geese thank you are any other comments you agree with the rest of the members yeah well we've got several things we should think about we consider bringing the comments of the petitioner and the information from the parliament of Norway to the attention of the Scottish government and snh so we would agree to do that would we recommend to our successor committee via the legacy report that it may wish to consider examining the outcome of the review of wild geese management wild goose management by snh with a view to deciding what further action if any should be taken on the petition and i believe that we should add to that that there should be proper funding for goose management in the budgets of snh etc have we all agreed about those lines of action we are agreed thank you very much yes oh definitely sorry we have resolved so to do yep we have resolved to keep the petition open and it's part of our legacy to the future so the fifth item in our agenda is consideration of a draft annual report parliamentary year 11th may 2015 23rd march 2016 i remember the draft report any comments yes no it's the annual report it's a short but very succinct document yes there's a reference to the first time that minister had given evidence in a rural location referring to Dumfries i think it should be Dumfries in Galloway because Dumfries itself is a town and it needs rather oddly thank you any other comments with regard to the annual report if there are no further comments on the annual report are we agreed to sign it off yes okay i advise members that the annual report will be published on friday the 11th of march this year so we've come to a point in the meeting when i usually outline what will be happening next week however as i noted earlier this is the committee's final meeting i would like to say huge thank you to everyone who supported the work of the committee which i've had the pleasure of convening for the duration of the session i've been ably supported by my deputies first anabelle ewing and latter lake ream day and i thank them both for stepping into the hot seat when required thank you also to all the members of the committee past and present you've all made an enormous contribution to the work of this very busy committee and i thank you for your dedication and commitment there are two members in particular to whom i would pay tribute as they will also be standing down on behalf of the committee i wish to alex ferguson and dave tomson all the very best for the future alex has been a member of the scottish parliament since 1999 his interest and dedication to rural affairs has been evident throughout his career in this parliament fulfilling party spokesperson roles and as convener of a previous incarnation of this committee as presiding officer he commanded the respect of members from all parties and he's also a dedicated servant of the people he represents and of this parliament we wish him well for the future and he's left us already dave has been a member of parliament since 2007 a member of this committee since april 2014 he's also a member of former convener of the standards procedures and public appointments committee and a tireless advocate for his constituents i thank him for his dedication to the work of this committee and his valuable contributions and wish him a happy retirement i would like to thank the staff who have supported the committee's work from the official report media relations office and broadcasting and security and i'd also like to particularly thank the clerks and the team from spice for their detailed and often arduous work finally i'd like to thank everyone who's engaged with the committee from the stakeholders who regularly challenge us to seek better outcomes for rural scotland and its environment to those who've taken an interest in our work by joining us in the public gallery none more so than during the deer management discussions in 2013 that's right in closing i would like to add on behalf of the committee our best wishes to our successor committee or committees and as previously agreed the committee will now move into private session to consider its work programme and now close the public marr before you do alec ferguson isn't the only one of the original rural affairs committee members to be seeing all this time on the committee but it's time as an msp drawing to an end the convener along with alec jim hue and myself are the only original appointees to survive the joys of committee reshuffles albeit alec did have a brief spell away from the committee when his contribution was greatly missed and like alec rob Gibson has opted to retire as an msp as the deputy convener i want to on behalf of the members past and present thank rob for his enormous contribution to the work of the raki committee rob has brought a detailed knowledge and a great passion to the role of convener and his determination to improve rural scotland is as obvious now as it was back when we first convened in 2011 but more than that i think he's been an incredibly fair and inclusive convener always ensuring that the members whoever they were had the chance to ask the questions and have their say i think the consensus that more often than not we found as a committee around a wide variety of issues is a great deal to the approach that rob's taken to convening it if i'm reelected to parliament and gone to conven a parliamentary committee at some stage in the future i know i'll be a better convener for having served as rob's deputy for the past two and a half years but i do suspect that today sees rob's say cheerio to the raki committee rather than goodbye i have a hunch that our successor committee will be hearing from him in a variety on a variety of subjects not least of all in land reform in the years to come i'm sure we would all wish rob well in his future endeavours the newest member of committee perhaps by i think Sarah might have been a week or two after me but she'd sat on the committee before and i hadn't can i just say that i've known rob for oh 30 more than 30 years and i have to say that although i've always had a respect for him even in his musical incarnation which has been quite frequent i believe my respect for him has been at its greatest over the last 14 months where i have thoroughly enjoyed the experience of being on this committee and very much enjoyed the experience of being a committee chaired by rob Cousin who does it supremely well whose knowledge of this subject is voluminous and although he can get a little techie from time to time in the chair he has guided this committee through some very very choppy waters i'm grateful to him and i'm also grateful to my colleagues for the experience i've had in the last period and if we are spared all of us who are intended to come back i do hope i will be sharing a place on this committee with some of my colleagues in the next session thank you very much anyone else okay thank you folks all i should say is that as we said in the previous debate there you know making decisions are never silver bullets we always have to come back to subjects and it is a matter of process but also a matter of progress and i think that like devolution and the powers that we have it's also not something that is an event but it actually is something which we take forward with the best of our ability at the time we take the decisions and inevitably they're not as perfect as they could be nor as the convening as perfect as it could be but i certainly have enjoyed it and i hope that everyone who comes back has a great time whether they be in this committee or not and those of us who are retiring will not be too far from watching how you get on so thank you very much for all of that in public i now close the public part of the meeting