Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Official Report 645KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Conservation of Salmon (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/56)

Agenda item 3 is an evidence-taking session on a Scottish statutory instrument. I welcome to the meeting Simon Dryden, policy team leader, and Keith Main, policy manager, salmon and recreational fisheries, Marine Scotland; and Dr John Armstrong, director of freshwater fisheries laboratory, Marine Scotland science. Good morning to you all.

I will open by asking about the concerns that were raised in the consultation on the regulations and how they have been addressed.

The consultation ran from October to November last year, and we had representations from 39 individuals, which—for probably all sorts of reasons—was a significantly lower number than we had for last year’s consultation.

The concerns that were raised were actually quite balanced. A number of people expressed concern that individual river gradings were too low—indeed, one or two of those concerns had come to us before. We have written to people to explain that, although the assessment methodology has moved on quite significantly in the 12 months since last time and although we have made some significant changes, our assessment remains that the rivers in question are below their conservation status and that it is not sustainable to allow people to kill and retain salmon. However, fishing continues on those rivers.

Almost exactly the same number of people said to us, “We think you’ve given our river too high a grading.” There might be all sorts of reasons for that; one or two people told me that they were concerned that it gave an impression that the good times were back and there were lots of salmon in the river. Ever since the cabinet secretary launched the consultation in October and throughout our messaging on this, we have made it clear—and will continue to make it clear—that that is not the case and that there is a continuing downward trend in salmon returning to Scottish waters. The decline is actually quite steady at the moment. We are doing all sorts of things to try to address that, and I am sure that Simon Dryden and John Armstrong will talk about them later.

In short, we have made it very clear that within the boundaries of the model that we have developed, we can allow fish to be caught and retained on a greater number of rivers, but proper management arrangements must be in place. Quite a few rivers have gone from grade 3, which is mandatory catch and release, to grade 2, and we have made it clear this year that, with grade 2 rivers, the first line of defence is for catch and release to keep being promoted. Indeed, in grade 1 rivers where we think that exploitation continues to be sustainable, we always encourage people to catch and release as much as possible. In fact, every year more than 90 per cent of all fish caught by anglers are returned to the waters, which is helpful.

A number of individual cases were highlighted in the consultation. We have endeavoured to engage with everybody, and we have had quite an exchange of correspondence with all 39 of those who responded to the consultation, whether they were individual anglers, boards or whatever. We have written to them sometimes two or three times; we have talked to them on the phone; and we have had meetings with one or two of them. Indeed, later this week, we will have a catch-up meeting with the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, with which we engaged last year on a number of issues, and next week we will meet the Forth Rivers Trust. That is part of our on-going engagement to find out people’s concerns with regard to the rivers.

The general message that emerged was that people accepted that we had taken big steps in developing the model this year. Some people still think that we have got things fundamentally wrong and that adult modelling is not the right approach, but we are doing other things around that. However, on the whole, we got a kind of split message this year. It was a bit odd.

You said that you received many fewer submissions this time. Is that an indication of the general acceptance that these things have to be done and that angling can be enjoyed but the fish have to be released afterwards? Has there been a general change in attitudes in that respect?

To be honest, although I would like to think that that is the case, we should bear in mind that more than half the 192 representations that we received last year were from the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association and its members, who mobilised and had a letter-writing campaign. In terms of the pure numbers of people involved, that is where we were with the Loch Lomond assessment. This year, because of the ways in which we have changed the assessment and, for example, recalculated egg targets, people can retain fish in the Loch Lomond fishery. As a result, we have not had that letter-writing campaign; in fact, one or two people have said to us, “Thank you—we agree with what you’ve done”, and have stepped back.

If people think that they are not being forced to put back fish this year, it might simply be a case of their not wanting to stir the pot—they might simply be keeping their heads down. That is part of it, but I hope that we will also get the message across better.

Another part of the equation is that, last season, we successfully conducted national electrofishing surveys that sampled juveniles. Some of the criticism from anglers is that our assessment is based on adult returns, and they want us to take into consideration an assessment of juvenile abundance in rivers. We have made substantive steps towards that—nearly 800 sites were sampled last year. Although that work was driven by local biologists, volunteers took part in the process in a lot of areas. The work had a lot of coverage on social media.

I hope that the work will have a positive outcome. We committed to report the output from the exercise by the end of this month, and we are on track to do that and to share that paper with local biologists.

The methodological changes between the 2018 and 2019 assessments appear to indicate an improvement in the status of salmon in a variety of rivers, when that is not the case. What are the practical implications of the different assessment method—how the egg requirements for each river are calculated and so on?

We have looked at additional data, and the assessment, which looks at the number of eggs required, is now based on Scottish data exclusively. Previously, we brought in data from various countries at the same latitude, but because we can now target our required estimates at Scottish rivers, we can get a more accurate and much narrower band of what is required. It so happens that we require fewer eggs than we thought we needed with the previous information.

That explains the uplift in improvement.

Yes.

However, there is no real change, because it is just a different way of measuring things.

That is correct. If one uses that method retrospectively, one finds that there is a continuing decline in the number of eggs being deposited by salmon generally, so we need to be a bit cautious. It looks as though rivers are in better condition, because of the new method; nevertheless, there is still a downward trend in salmon numbers.

Why is the number of deposited eggs in decline?

The numbers of salmon returning from the sea are continuing to decline and their size is decreasing. Smaller fish have fewer eggs. Those two factors contribute to the decline.

To be parochial for a moment, I notice that the rivers in Ayrshire—with the notable exception of the esteemed River Stinchar—are all grade 2 or worse. Certainly, the people in Ayrshire believe that the position is, to an extent, affected by fish farming further west and north, as the route that the salmon take goes through those fish farms on the way to the rivers. As a farmer, it seems to me that obstacles such as sea lice will, in all probability, reduce fertility, leading to the production of fewer eggs and affecting the fish numbers in rivers. I am essentially making up a proposition as I go along, but does it make sense that that might be one of the factors affecting the numbers of salmon in rivers?

It is possible that sea lice will reduce the condition of adult salmon. A paper that was published recently hinted at that. However, the reduction in condition was quite small, so any impact from higher levels of sea lice on the fecundity of returning fish would probably be relatively small.

Might I suggest that more work should be done on that? As a farmer, I know that things such as lice and ticks on sheep and other land-based livestock take down condition and thereby reduce fertility. There is a lot of veterinary work on that in mammals. I would welcome a further look at that.

I have been having a lot of dialogue with the Ayrshire Rivers Trust, and one of the major issues that it is seeking to contend with is diffuse pollution and sedimentation from farmland. It has been doing a lot of good work on green bank engineering to shore up river banks, on riparian tree planting and on fencing. Just this week, I have been collaborating with it on a bid that it is putting in to Scottish Natural Heritage to try to take advantage of the new biodiversity fund that was launched on 11 February. SNH is promoting bids of between £100,000 and £200,000, which need to be in by 5 April, and the Ayrshire Rivers Trust is going to put forward a bid with our support for work that will seek to progress the already good work that it has done with those three elements—fencing, riparian tree planting and green bank engineering.

That is very helpful. Thank you.

Two years ago, as those of you who were involved at the time will know, a considerable number of very serious concerns were held by local groups, and not just in Loch Lomond. It needs to be recorded in the Official Report that such concerns now appear to be much smaller in number, and the granularity of the science has certainly helped with that. I want to have that recorded.

I would like to ask two quick questions about the changes to the methodology. Two years ago—and, if I recall correctly, last year as well—there were concerns about the development of the egg requirements. I understand that 11 sites are now being assessed in relation to the egg targets. Are there plans to increase that number, partly in view of public confidence, but also in terms of the verification of science throughout Scotland?

Yes. Where we can put in new fish counters, as we hope to, it will give us opportunities to generate stock recruitment relationships, which are used to come up with the egg targets. As things roll forward, we should continually increase the accuracy of the approach.

On the adult assessments, I understand that the updated methods remove the geographical component from the process, with the relationship between catch and salmon numbers being determined by month and flow conditions. Will one of you—whoever is the appropriate person to do so—explain in more detail the benefit to the returning number of the removal of the geographical component? It is not clear to me why the geographical area is not considered along with the month and flow. Does that distort the overall picture, or not? Will you explain that to me and the committee, as laypeople? Well, I am a layperson, for sure.

Geographical area is still considered as a possible factor in the models, but it so happens that, as more information has gone in, it no longer comes out as a significant factor.

For those who will be looking at the Official Report for reassurance, will you explain why it is not regarded as significant?

That is an interesting question. It is probably a statistical issue in that, when you have relatively few data, spurious factors can come out as being significant. As the availability of data increases, you get a more realistic assessment. I do not think that there is any great reason for geographical area not being significant, other than that it does not show any effect that is worth considering.

11:15  

I am sure that that will reassure people who wanted to know the answer to that.

May I butt in? Are you saying, in essence, that the lack of data makes the findings statistically insignificant?

One can look at how a range of factors, such as water flow, altitude and position in the country, influence the efficiency with which anglers catch fish. We are trying to work out which of those factors are important ones that should be retained in an overall model. As we have put more data into the pot, we have found that geographical position is no longer an important factor. That is perfectly reasonable—it is not obvious why it would be easier to catch a fish in the north than it would be in the south, but it so happens that in an earlier model, which involved fewer data, geographical position came out as being significant, probably because the numbers were rather low and it just so happened that there were a couple of high figures in the north.

I expect that the skill of the fishermen is likely to be much more important than anything else.

If that varies around the country, it will come out in the model.

I am trying to get my head round how we have got to this point. I understand that the framework was brought in because of potential infraction proceedings in the European Union because of the conservation status of the salmon. The original driver was to do with the status of the salmon, not the status of angling associations. That is why we have the system in place.

However, it seems very counterintuitive that you are proposing that the river gradings be increased to allow catch and kill at a time when, unfortunately, the conservation status of salmon is declining rather than improving. The approach that you advocate seems to fly in the face of the precautionary principle. Are you not concerned that the EU might look at the matter again and say, “We see that you have a management framework in place, but the decisions that are being made are not precautionary and the conservation status of the species is failing”?

It is important to say that, with the wild sector, we have identified 12 groups of pressures that are impacting salmon, all of which we want to mitigate and address. Focusing on any single one of those groups of pressures, such as exploitation—the pressure from angling—is not the panacea when it comes to resolving the problems of wild salmon.

Let us look at angling specifically. The anglers are catching approximately 10 per cent of the stock, 90 per cent of which, on average, they are releasing. In other words, they are intentionally killing about 1 per cent of the stock. We estimate that, of the 90 per cent that the anglers release, 10 per cent of the fish will die as a result of the angling activity before spawning, even though they have been released. In a grade 1 river where our science suggests that the conservation limits are being met—we want to be science led—a potential 2 per cent impact on the stock is reasonable, especially given the social and economic benefits. On the River Tweed, for example, angling contributes £24 million to the rural economy. I am afraid that I do not know what the split is elsewhere; the Tweed is just a good example.

At the moment, we consider that we have got the balance right when it comes to the impact of angling, taking into account environmental, social and economic considerations, and allowing for retention in rivers where we assess scientifically that there is sufficient stock to allow some retention.

You mentioned a principle in European law that amounts to a test of reasonableness. Has there been any assessment in the past year of the impact of the decisions that were made previously on the grading of rivers? Has moving a river from grade 1 to grade 2 or grade 3 had any impact in terms of the socioeconomic advantages of being able to catch and kill rather than catch and release? Do you follow what I am saying?

I think that I do.

Basically, are there fewer people fishing as a result of a river going from grade 1 to grade 3? Does that stand up in terms of your decisions?

We are not sure whether there are fewer people fishing in rivers. However, at the moment, Scottish Enterprise, with two consultants, is conducting a three-month study to consider the issue. That study is looking at four areas of Scotland, and Scottish Enterprise will share the results of that study with us.

So, when you say that, for economic reasons, it would be reasonable to allow catch-and-kill angling on a certain river rather than catch and return, you do not have an economic basis for that argument, although you might have in three months’ time.

We have not done a study at the moment—absolutely not. As Simon Dryden says, Scottish Enterprise is looking at the issues in relation to some of the rivers on the east coast of Scotland.

This year and, particularly in the past two years, a lot of angling clubs, district salmon fishery boards and individuals have expressed concern through our consultation process that too many rivers have been assessed as grade 3. They have told us that that will have an impact on membership numbers, local businesses, bed-and-breakfasts, caravan sites and all the value-added elements around angling.

I am keen to see what the evidence is on that. To be parochial, I live on the River Teith, which is a salmon river. It is a grade 1 river, but I think that the policy on the river has been not to allow catch-and-kill angling.

Yes.

I still see people angling, I still see the launch of the salmon season being very successful, with distilleries getting involved in sponsoring the activity and so on. It all looks good to me. I am not sure whether even the voluntary restriction that is in place is turning people away.

I accept that we do not have a lot of data on that. In addition to the Scottish Enterprise study that is starting, we have launched the collection of effort data for this season. We hope that, over time, that will show us trends in effort, and we might be able to compare that against the grading of rivers to see whether there is an impact.

Fundamentally, the grading is science driven; as you said at the start of your questioning, it is conservation led. We are not setting the grades in relation to fisheries; we are setting them in relation to the conservation of salmon.

Finlay Carson wants to ask a question on this theme.

I am confused by what you say about the evidence showing that the status of salmon in the rivers is decreasing. This year, we have 43 rivers where the grade has risen and only eight where the grade has fallen. You are saying that that is based on scientific evidence, but you are also saying that it is almost insignificant. I cannot quite marry up the two aspects. In the past, you based most of the conservation efforts on reducing the ability of anglers to catch and kill. However, this year, when the figures still show that there is a reduction in salmon in the rivers, the gradings have gone up. I cannot quite get my head round how, previously, the action that you were taking was all-important but, now, it does not seem to be quite so significant.

I will start, and John Armstrong might want to comment on the science. Essentially, what we are saying is that, if we had used the latest science—our improved egg targets—in 2016 and every subsequent year, there would have been, historically, more rivers in the grade 1 and grade 2 categories.

We could be criticised for being too precautionary in previous seasons. We have given rivers a grade historically that required anglers to catch and release, but subsequent data—better science—has shown that we did not need to do that. For 2016 and subsequent years, we have published the number of rivers that would have been in grades 1 and 2 using the current methodology, so that anglers can see the graph and trend. We want to explain that the issue is not about stocks but about our evaluation or assessment of the stocks getting better and that we need to be science led. Some rivers had to be catch and release previously, but that was too precautionary.

So it is being admitted that basing the grade of a river on catch and release was flawed and that the grade was not scientifically based.

It was the best available science previously. We have always said that. Season on season, we have said that it is the best available science. What we have said this year is that, because we have been changing the methodology year on year, we now feel that we should freeze the methodology until the 2022 season. During that period, we will have our current methodology peer reviewed, which was something that was discussed at the committee last year. If you like, John Armstrong can talk in more detail about the progress that we are already making on that peer review. The catch data input into the model will change, but the methodology will not because we are freezing it so that we will get like for like going forward.

It may be worth emphasising that this is only the fourth year in which we are giving gradings and the regulations apply. As Mr Ruskell said, the measures were brought in largely because of the threat of infraction procedure from the European Union. We introduced a number of measures, such as spring conservation measures under which we changed the closed time for a lot of rivers, which is when people are not allowed to take fish. That was one of the measures that we introduced in 2015-16.

When we introduced the first set of regulations, our modelling was fairly new and broad brush. In the first set of regulations for the 2016 season, we assessed on the basis of fisheries districts. There were about 100 districts, which were, in broad terms, defined in the original Victorian legislation from the 1860s. We have refined that further each year. In the second year, for example, we responded to calls to assess individual rivers; and last year and this year, we have added more rivers to the assessment.

There has also been an awful lot of work on the scientific side to look at what is happening elsewhere, to refine the model and to respond to dialogue that we have had with fisheries trusts and boards, anglers and, indeed, the committee. We want individual rivers to be looked at; instead of using an all-Scotland target for egg deposition, we want to home in on individual rivers. It is all about improving the science. That does not necessarily mean that the science was wrong last year; it just means that it was the best we had available. There has been a lot of work to change the model this year.

I am no scientist, but it seems to me that the egg targets for the majority of rivers in Scotland have halved. The broad arithmetic means that the conservation requirement has changed, so we think that the models can allow some exploitation of fish on rivers. We know that the majority of anglers continue to return fish—more than 90 per cent of the fish that are caught are returned. Catch and release is therefore not something that we have imposed but something that exists and which people understand. River managers and anglers understand the need to engage in that conservation.

We are not pulling the rug out from under the previous science but responding all the time and making the science better. As Simon Dryden said, that means that we were arguably too precautionary last year. We still have a precautionary model, but it has a wee bit more room in it for some rivers and fisheries this year.

I have two questions relating to the 2 per cent figure and I will ask the difficult one first. Does 2 per cent mortality from fishing have any effect on the number of fish that come from the eggs and return to the sea? I can see two issues. If there are fewer young fish, there will be more food per fish, but there will also be fewer fish for predators to predate on. Therefore, I can see one pull and one push. Is it understood whether the 2 per cent mortality is statistically or causally having an effect on the number of fish that leave to sea after the reproductive cycle is complete?

11:30  

When we estimate the egg targets, we take into account all those factors—predation, competition between fish and food availability—to try to see how many eggs we need to fill the system. If we have more eggs, we do not get many more adults. We are not quite full under the methods that are recommended by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. We use maximum sustainable yield, which is just below full. If the level is below the critical filling level, every lost adult, in principle, has an effect on what will go out. If it is over that level, we can put in as many adults as we want, but we cannot get more smolts out of the river.

Just to be clear, if we are looking at grade 1, we are looking at a situation in which the taking out of the 2 per cent is not having an effect. I see a nodding head.

My other question is very simple.

We have only 15 minutes left for the third panellist, so you must be brief.

How variable is the 2 per cent? I presume that that is the figure for the whole of Scotland. How far does the figure move either side of 2 per cent?

Given the general uncertainties, which I think we all understand—the more data we can get, the more precise we can be—variability around 2 per cent would not be a huge concern.

I want to move on to proposals for developing the model in the future. Last March, you agreed to look at the possibility of gathering more details and data on rod effort. Has that work been carried out? Given the season that we had last year, did you apply different rules because of its having been particularly dry, for example? How will that affect the model in the future?

You have talked about the juvenile assessment model. How will it play into future development of the framework and the model?

We introduced recording of effort on rod days for that season. We have sent out our topic sheet on that, and we have sent out and put on our website questions and answers. Everybody is aware of that: we will utilise the results and report back on them. Whether or not data is built into the model will depend on what it is. We need to see it first, and we have begun the process.

The third question, on juvenile assessment, is for John Armstrong to answer.

We have talked about adults and working out how many eggs we think we need in order to fill a system. The juvenile assessment takes another approach. The system and the juveniles are looked at, and how full the system is is worked out. We have a different threshold: we have the number of juveniles that we would expect in an area at a particular altitude and with particular land use around it. We have an image of what an ideal juvenile population looks like, and we collect data to see how close the population is to that ideal.

Once we have that data and the adult data, we can put the two models and the two assessments together and look at how much coherence there is. If we do not have coherence, we need to have a closer look at the system. However, we are getting very close to having the juvenile assessments going with the adult assessments. As Simon Dryden said, we should be in a position over the next month to see how well they mesh together.

The information will obviously include predation. Are there any plans on the horizon in relation to predators on rivers, or for legislation to license control of predators? I am thinking about cormorants, and so on. Do you foresee problems with predator control?

I will talk about piscivorous birds first. We have managed to secure £750,000 of European maritime and fisheries funding for research. This year, for the first time on the River Dee, we have acoustic-tagged three smolts with receivers in order to try to identify predation by birds, in joint work with the River Dee Trust. We have tagged smolts in the past, but if we were to tag pre-smolts, we could reduce the risk that handling and the tag pose in terms of mortality.

We have also just launched a piscivorous bird stomach analysis project. Scottish Natural Heritage has licensed four rivers—the Nith, the Tweed, the Dee and the Spey—and each has been given 36 goosanders and 36 cormorants, which will be killed over two periods and their stomachs analysed to examine their diet. That was done in the 1990s, too, so we will be able to compare the results of those lower numbers of birds with results from higher numbers of birds 20-odd years ago to see whether diet has changed. For example, on the Tweed, eels historically made up quite a lot of the diet, and we think that that has changed. With four regionally dispersed rivers, we will be able to see whether there are differences in diet, because freshwater species differ in rivers across Scotland’s regions. The south of Scotland, for example, tends to have a greater diversity than the north of Scotland.

Once we have the results of the stomach analysis and of this summer’s River Dee acoustic tagging, we hope to do two other pieces of work. One will look for trends in the bird-count data that is supplied annually to Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture for rivers on which a licence is wanted to manage birds through Scottish Natural Heritage.

The second piece of work will spend the bulk of the EMFF money in seasons 2020 and 2021 on experimental field work to establish what we can do to manage better the two protected species that I mentioned, if the evidence shows that we need to. We obviously want to protect both species, but we want an appropriate balance between the species that will ideally be achieved with non-lethal methods.

You say that the measuring process will continue until 2022. How might the expected introduction of beavers impact on salmon numbers, in particular with regard to their ability to reach their spawning areas upstream?

That is a pressure that we will need to look at. I have mentioned 12 groups of pressures; beaver management is in one. There are methods: for example, a pipe can be stuck into beaver dams that would not reduce the level of water sufficiently to upset the beavers, but would allow smolts and salmon to migrate through the dams. John Armstrong might be able to talk about that a bit more. We will look at that research and, if resources allow it, we will work with the sector to implement such measures.

I am sorry to introduce a mundane level of practicality into a discussion as esoteric as this. For a salmon, the pipe would need be three or four inches in diameter, which would rapidly reduce the level of an upstream dam if it were open constantly—which, I presume, would be needed to allow salmon to migrate through it. If it is only a two-inch pipe, salmon would not be able to get through it. How would it work?

The concept is called a beaver deceiver. The entrance to the pipe is some distance upstream of the dam, and as it drains the water, the level goes down. The beaver cannot figure out why that is happening and it tries to repair the damage rather than block the pipe.

You are missing my point. You need a pipe of at least four inches to allow a salmon to swim up through it. You will need a pipe of four or five inches in diameter.

It is a large drainage pipe. In principle we know that salmon—

If that pipe is running full bore from the water above, simple hydraulics tells us that it will empty the dam above it. How does that work, for example, with a six-inch pipe, which would be the optimum size to allow a fish to swim up through it?

That would depend on the height of the entrance to the pipe at the top end, above the bank.

Of course it would.

It is just a concept. You are right to identify that there might be issues with beavers and upstream passage. A working group has looked at the issue. There has not been enough research done to determine how porous dams are to salmon.

Essentially, the salmon will have to jump out of the pipe and back into the pool.

The beaver deceiver is one possible solution, but it has not been fully explored.

I will make the converse point to Mr Scott’s. Do you see any ecological advantages to beavers being in a catchment, through improvement and extension of the range of available wetlands, or to their interaction with regeneration of riparian woodland that can shade particular areas and, given climate change, provide temperature benefits to salmonid species and the wider ecology—or is it all bad?

There is probably a balance. There are definite benefits for some fish species. Trout, for example, would benefit very much from the pools behind beaver dams. As was mentioned earlier, the key issue is how much the dams might interfere with free passage of the spawning fish. That still has to be established.

Would the introduction of beavers into a catchment enhance food species for salmonids and other species that are higher up the food chain?

That is very complicated. Atlantic salmon tend to like fast-flowing waters, and trout like slower waters. Trout tend to out-compete salmon, so the situation might be good for trout and not so good for salmon. It probably varies enormously from place to place, so the issue will clearly need to be considered as the presence of beavers extends.

Mark Ruskell will move on to the theme of riparian land.

I raised a point last year about development of the methodology. There were issues around data collection, particularly in relation to the interests of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association and Fintry, and whether you were even able to identify the owners of the riparian land. It was inferred that that had influenced the data in some way, because you had been unable to get access to the required stretch of river to count eggs. It is a question about who owns Scotland. Do you have greater certainty this year about who owns particular stretches of riparian area, and have you been able to get enough access to satisfy all the pressure groups and stakeholders that you have been able to conduct the most robust science possible?

Yes. I am pleased to report that we have greater assurance. For the River Endrick, we approached 70 potential owners of heritable rights and established 15 new owners, of whom 3 will send in tax returns from now on. They have given us their historical tax returns, but they will also give us tax returns in the future. The other 12 owners were able to confirm that they have dormant fisheries; they do not allow fishing. The historical catches from those 15 owners were not significant, and would not have changed the River Endrick’s grade.

Last year, I said that we did not know who owned the heritable rights for about 21 per cent of the river length. We now assess the figure to be about 7 per cent, which is in line with the national figure. We seek to improve the figure annually. Ideally, we would like an online salmon and sea trout catch repository, so that proprietors could submit catch information online. If we were able to deliver that, that would drive data-quality improvements and allow us to reduce the figure of 7 per cent.

Thank you.

The final question is from Finlay Carson.

It is a simple question. In March last year, I asked whether there was any expectation of a wild fisheries bill. Does Simon Dryden have confidence that such a bill will be introduced in year 3 of this parliamentary session, as has been suggested might be the case?

My understanding is that that is still a candidate bill. I cannot say more than that.

I thank the panel for their time. I will suspend the meeting briefly.

11:45 Meeting suspended.  

11:50 On resuming—  

Agenda item 4 is consideration of two instruments that are subject to negative procedure.

Members have no comments on the Conservation of Salmon (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019, so does the committee agree not to make any recommendations on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/64)

Members will recall that the committee took evidence on the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2019last week from the Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage. Does anyone have any comments?

I would like to let the committee know that I intend to lodge a motion to annul the regulations. In other words, I object to their being laid in the first place, and wish to pursue that objection, because I do not think that the case has been made for reintroducing beavers. Certainly, the harm that they do is becoming more and more apparent.

Obviously if our colleague lodges a motion to annul the instrument we will discuss that at the appropriate time. However, the regulations have nothing to do with the reintroduction of beavers, but are about managing the reintroduction that has already taken place. I see in our briefing note a long list of things that will not have any impact. The few that will, including

“Removing older dams ... Destroying lodges and chamber barrows ... Trapping and relocating beavers”

and

“Lethal control”

are already covered by existing cruelty to wildlife legislation. We will have the debate in due course, but I suspect that when we look at the effect of the regulations, we will see that they are simply systematising the existing situation. Right now, one cannot exercise lethal control of beavers haphazardly, randomly or cruelly, and the regulations merely create a framework within which lethal control can be operated as it is at the moment. I am therefore less than certain that I wish to support John Scott’s proposal.

I am disappointed to hear that there will be an attempt to stop the regulations becoming law. We have waited three years for protection of beavers to come in, and in that time there have been disastrous attempts to manage beaver populations by shooting pregnant animals and kits. Some serious welfare issues have arisen in connection with the matter, and there has been some strong lobbying to prevent the protection from being introduced, which has delayed things even further. I would not want the regulations to be delayed, especially given that we are in the middle of the kit-dependency season and there are—I am sure—interests out there shooting and killing animals as we speak.

I welcome clarification that the committee has had from SNH in the past couple of days on transparency in the proposed licensing regime. Quite frankly, we have a free-for-all at the moment, so I welcome the fact that there will be data based on local authority areas and the activities that will be permitted. The regime cannot be just a free-for-all; things have to be well understood and well controlled, and people must know that anyone who breaches the regime will be committing a wildlife crime.

I add that the data needs to be made available quarterly, given stakeholders’ concern that we will see the continuation of highly inappropriate lethal control, particularly during the kit-dependency season. If the data that SNH has committed to providing were to be made available quarterly, we would be able to assess whether a close season was in operation, which would be in the best interests of animal welfare. That is the missing bit that I want to see. If there is any way of getting more clarity from SNH on that matter, I will take that into consideration when we come to our final debate and—I hope—a successful vote to introduce the protection.

I thank everyone for their comments. We will continue our consideration of the instrument at a future meeting.

That concludes the committee’s public business. At its next meeting on 19 March, the committee will hear from the Scottish Land Commission on its current work programme.

11:56 Meeting continued in private until 12:14.