Official Report 562KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is evidence on the “Wild Fisheries Review: Final Report and Recommendations” by the Scottish Government’s wild fisheries review panel, from the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. Good morning. We also welcome the minister’s officials, who are Willie Cowan and Carole Barker-Munro.
Would you like to make an opening statement, minister?
Yes. Thank you, convener.
Good morning. I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence on the wild fisheries review. I came into post after the independent panel had submitted its report, so I am playing catch-up with the committee, given its long-standing interest in and knowledge of the issue.
The historical perspective is interesting and particularly relevant on this matter. Over the past 50 years, a series of reports have been produced on the governance structures of salmon and freshwater fisheries. Despite the volume of considerations and the degree of consistency in the actions that have been recommended, there has been little in the way of strategic and holistic reform of structures.
We are embarking on a challenging and difficult task. The existing legislation is complex, and views are sometimes polarised and held strongly. Those are reasons enough why others have elected to retain the status quo, but we are doing the right thing in tackling an issue that has been put aside too many times. I plan to consult this spring on broad policy options for a new management structure. That will be followed by further consultation on a draft bill by the end of the parliamentary session. I strongly believe that we can work together, across the sector and across political parties, to design and deliver for Scotland a new wild fisheries management system that is truly fit for purpose in the 21st century.
As the committee has noted in its earlier evidence sessions, the panel’s report is thorough and wide-ranging. It contains more than 50 recommendations for change—that means that, in effect, we are talking about a fundamental redesign of the management framework for wild fisheries.
In that context, I am particularly keen to hear the committee’s views on the report. I have followed your evidence sessions and I acknowledge that considerable detail needs to be worked up in order to map out how any new structure might work. That is inevitable in such a large and complex reform project.
However, in advance of that detail, it is helpful to consider the broad management principles and themes that run through the report and those which should also characterise the management framework for maximising the value of any of Scotland’s natural assets. Scotland’s wild fish resources are undeniably such an asset. We need in place a management framework that seeks to conserve them and to harness their potential to deliver social and economic benefits to the whole country. Decision making based on evidence—which, on occasion, might be incomplete—must be embedded firmly in the framework. The framework must also enable us to account for how we are delivering our obligations and commitments to those in the international community and at home. I hope that we can all agree on that.
I am absolutely clear that we need reform; I am also clear that in progressing change we must not lose the best elements of the current arrangements. You have heard and noted that the sector is characterised by considerable voluntary effort and knowledge at local level, and there are many examples of excellent fisheries management in parts of the country. In taking forward the next stages of the process, I want to ensure that we harness those good elements and bring them into the new management system’s design.
I very much welcome the inquiry and hearing the committee’s thoughts on the review report. Those will be extremely valuable for me as I consider the next steps in the reform process.
How does the Government plan to progress the review’s proposals for a national unit with responsibility for fisheries management?
I will reiterate what I have just said: given that I will be consulting this spring on the broad policy options for a new management structure, I hope that the committee will understand when I say that, in advance of our consultation, I am not able to take a position on the detail around specific recommendations, because we will be consulting on the roles and functions of a national unit. That will be a key part of the consultation.
However, we must ensure that the balance is right between a national strategic overview and local delivery. Crucial to designing any new management framework is the alignment of accountability with responsibility throughout the system.
Has the review established the right balance between national accountability and local empowerment?
The forthcoming consultation will seek views on the respective roles and functions at national and local levels. I am aware that there are a range of views about who should do what. I look forward to exploring that key issue in the months to come.
Good morning, minister. In some parts of the country there has been a history of conflict between netsmen and boards and, at times, between boards and government. Will you bear in mind that we want to get to a place where the new structures that are put in place reduce that conflict?
Thank you for that very helpful question. The national strategy will certainly set out clear roles and responsibilities throughout the system. Some conflicts are not necessarily the result of the structures, so a plan-led approach and clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities may help to reduce such conflicts.
Good morning, minister. A controversial review proposal is that we change from the current levying contributions to a national levy, with the possible reallocation of the levy to national priorities. That could cause concern that the levy from rivers such as the Tweed, where large levies are raised, could go elsewhere. Andrew Thin said that that would not be athator movement of funds. It would be interesting to know what percentage might be moved from one area to another. Also, is there scope for legal challenge by riparian owners to that proposal?
09:45
I am obviously interested in managing a national resource, so it is important to ensure that resources are available for consistent local delivery of the national strategy. It is about having fisheries management organisations of sufficient scale to deliver against those national priorities, and about allocation of the resources available in the system to achieve that. Funding is always a challenging issue, particularly in the current financial climate, but if there is to be an element of distribution it should be on the basis of best value for money and agreed priorities for fisheries management.
Jim Hume asked whether redistribution might lead to a legal challenge. We are talking about a fundamental change to the management structures for wild fisheries and a new legislative framework for that system. A number of district boards cover several rivers, so the principle of pooling resources, prioritising and cross-subsidising, albeit on a smaller scale, is already established.
I thank the minister for that answer, but I am still concerned about what could be seen as centralisation. Ultimate control will be with the minister; it will be interesting to see how big that element of redistribution will be, given the national priorities. Andrew Thin said that it would not be major movement of funds, so there is a slight conflict between what the minister is saying and what he said.
If you have any particular ideas or suggestions, I would be willing to consider them. At the moment, we are looking at the broad principles of a new management structure, so I am keen to hear ideas and opinions from the committee. Willie Cowan may want to add something.
Andrew Thin’s report is predicated on having a national strategy for management of salmon as a protected species for the first time, as well as for management of fisheries in the round and the maximisation of economic, social and environmental benefits of that natural asset. One of the propositions in the report is that, through the national unit, the minister would establish a national strategy supported by a research strategy, and that fisheries management organisations, if they are developed as the report suggests, would outline how their local management initiatives would contribute to the national objectives.
It is within that framework that what happens at local level will be built up into a national programme of work to achieve consistency, to protect species where that is necessary, and to maximise the value of a natural asset for the people of Scotland. The extent to which redistribution will be necessary depends on what the final framework looks like. As the minister said, we will soon be going out to consult on that in more detail.
My question follows on from the issue of redistribution and the impact on successful rivers, because the suggestion is that there is enough money in the system to spread the money elsewhere and target protected stocks in other areas. Do you envisage pump priming from central Government? The Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board expressed concern that, if its money was taken away to somewhere else, that would limit its capacity to restock its fisheries. We have heard the same from other areas, and it has been suggested that boards would have to get more voluntary top-up moneys locally, so I wonder how that will work. Do we have figures that show the financial gap that you estimate exists on the rivers that are vulnerable and are not being properly restocked?
The issue of restocking polarises opinions. Some rivers restock as a matter of course, but advice from various fishery bodies suggests that restocking might not be the best way forward. It is an issue to consider but, in the round, as the minister said, the principle of redistribution or working collectively between boards and rivers already exists. The principle applies between neighbouring boards and neighbouring trusts that have common interests, so it is already established.
The proposition in the review report is that, for various reasons—not least the economies of scale—there should be fewer management organisations and they should look after larger areas. When the detailed propositions come forward, we will need to understand what those areas look like and therefore what resources are available in them. We will then be able to figure out whether there is a need for redistribution at a national level and what that might be.
Do we have figures that underpin what comes in at the moment in different areas? Do we have a sense of what is needed in the areas, whether that is about management issues or other things? Do we know what is missing that needs to be targeted?
The issue now is that there is no national oversight of the management of fisheries. Fishery boards are responsible for managing fisheries in their rivers. The proposition is that we take that up to the strategic level and that we have national oversight of the management of fisheries as a whole.
We are not replacing like with like. We are talking about a complete redesign of the system, and on the back of that we will need to figure out the resources that are available in the system, any other resources that might be necessary and how they can be achieved.
Do you accept that, under the proposal for reallocation of the levy, there might be an argument for compensating rivers that have been negatively impacted on by activity elsewhere, such as netting in a mixed-stock fishery that takes fish that were destined to return to their native rivers?
The issue of managing mixed-stock fisheries has two aspects. In a general sense, it needs to form part of the national strategy, but specifically, the minister is already consulting on the recommendation in the review report of a kill licence. As the name suggests, that is to manage the number of fish that are taken from rivers or coastal fisheries, but the purpose of managing that resource is to ensure that sufficient fish go up the river for it to be restocked to conservation limits.
In effect, the implementation of the kill licence—once the consultation has finished and we have final proposals—will answer the point, because fisheries will be licensed to take fish only when there is an evidenced harvestable surplus. If a net fishery cannot demonstrate that there is a harvestable surplus for the fisheries that it impacts on, licensing it might not be possible.
How would you determine which of the fish that were being taken belonged to the river nearby and which were headed for three or four other rivers? We are talking about harvestable stocks. How will you measure that?
We have work that was undertaken by our science colleagues at Pitlochry to track some fisheries, and we can demonstrate that, in some areas, the taking of fish from certain netting stations can impact on multiple rivers up and down a coast. That is part of the detail that we are working on. As the minister said, none of this is easy, and it has never been done before.
I wonder whether I can draw out the minister on a point that has been made. I understand the desire to have national oversight of wild fisheries management and policy but, as has been hinted at, each river is different and has a life of its own, and one must bring individual river management down to a very local level. I find it difficult to see how this will all work without further insight into the size and shape of the local management organisations. Will you assure us that the eventual structure will still be flexible enough to allow the considerable local input that I believe is necessary for a river-by-river management policy with oversight within the national structure?
I can give you that reassurance. We have said that it is clear to us that we have to retain the best parts of the current arrangements, and that also relates to our local knowledge. As I said, we need to have the right balance between the national strategic overview and local delivery, and we are keen to work with the committee to get that structure right.
Claudia Beamish has a similar question about raising money.
Good morning, minister. As you know, the review proposes that the Government should consider introducing rod licences. What is the Government’s response to that? Has the Government assessed how much the rod licence would raise in relation to the administration costs?
The report states that there is enough money in the system to pay for fisheries management but that restructuring is necessary to maximise value for money. Beyond that, as Claudia Beamish rightly points out, the report recommends consideration of the potential for a rod licence to raise revenue to develop angling opportunities. The committee has heard evidence from others on the issue and their views have differed considerably, as they have on many other issues. I would be extremely interested in hearing the committee’s views on the proposal for a rod licence.
The issuing of rod licences has not been included in the removal of the exemptions for some sporting activities in the proposed land reform bill, on the ground that the funding of fisheries management is being considered by the wild fisheries review. The Government has made no assessment of how much a rod licence would raise, because it has not been Government policy. However, should there be any support for that recommendation from the sector and the committee, we would be happy to investigate it.
As you know, the Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling supports the introduction of rod licences. The committee heard about the importance of the fishing traditions being passed on to the next generation and the need for opportunities to access fishing and information for fisheries. Do you agree that there should be a rod licence only if an angling for all programme is developed in tandem with it? Do you have any comments about involving young people and making access easier for residents and tourists?
Today, we are discussing the broad principles of a new management structure ahead of any consultation. I am keen to hear the committee’s views on the introduction of a rod licence as well as the views of the sector.
You asked about opening up access to angling for our young people, and I am aware of a number of projects that are encouraging more young people to fish and are doing good work—we have the salmon in the classroom project, for instance. The question is how we move such initiatives forward. I am conscious that the wild fisheries review concluded that the third sector probably offers the best route for driving such initiatives and that the Government would be there to catalyse, facilitate and support.
We are managing for a purpose, and we are trying to maximise the socioeconomic benefits that we deliver for the people of Scotland—for the economy, for social cohesion and for access. There is a lot that the sector could do.
10:00
The argument from the wild fisheries review was that it is unlikely—at a time of financial constraint, or perhaps ever—that the Government would have the resource to invest in developing the sport. The review panel also felt that Scotland is underfished. Those two things suggested to the panel that a rod licence might provide the resource both to develop the sport and to ensure that the fishery was more sustainable. If the rod licences did not come about, what resource would the Government bring to the table to achieve the objectives?
I will not comment on the resources.
You can say “none” if the answer is none, which I suspect it is.
I suspect that Mr Swinney would want to speak to me if I pre-committed the Government’s resources.
The proposition is for a fundamental reform of the management system, based on a national strategy. We need to understand what that national strategy would look like, what the structures beneath it would look like, what the split of roles and responsibilities would look like and how changing the structures would alter the amount of resource available in the new fisheries management organisations. Once we have all that in place, we will be able to figure out whether there is a funding gap and, if so, how best it might be addressed. Until we have been through the consultation and the process and until we have brought forward specific proposals for a new management system, it is difficult to estimate what any financial gap might be.
I am not postulating this from my own knowledge—I have very little knowledge. The people who are postulating the idea are those who carried out the wild fisheries review. The review team argued in its report that introducing a rod licence should at least be considered, which I repeat was because the resource would not be available to invest in the sport’s future.
If that is true—the wild fisheries review and the quality of its information have been well received—the issue is crucial. If there is to be no resource to invest in the sport and its development, the sport will not develop or it will develop in a piecemeal way and slowly, because other bodies will pay for it.
The alternative is the major innovation of a rod licence. I have been surprised that there has not been greater resistance to such a licence. We have had little evidence of that. One of the witnesses last week, who said that his organisation was against it, was in favour it—that was probably a rather odd way to put it. In all those circumstances, that is a crucial issue.
In turning to another area, I wish to deepen the point. In all the discussions that we have had about money, the required resource that we are talking about has been elusive. There has been a lot of discussion about moving resource from one place to another and about the potential for resource to be found, but nobody is putting a figure on that. I have heard no figures this morning, and it is almost impossible to find a figure. If there is no figure for that, and if there is no figure for the savings that might be made by using different structures, we will have to determine where we find additional resource. If the resource that we have had so far has not produced the effects that we want, and if additional resource is not likely to be available, where will we get the money?
I am not asking for an answer; I am just pointing out a central conundrum, which I do not think is resolved by the fisheries review—although the review suggests how it could be done. The matter will need to be addressed. Alas, I have some experience of reform that is meant to produce resources—of course, all the reforms that I have been involved in have produced resources—but it is possible that that does not happen. We need to find where the money will come from.
We are keen to work with the committee on that issue ahead of our launching the consultation. We are at a very early stage in our thinking and there will be lots of opportunity for the committee and the sector to influence our thinking ahead of the consultation.
We will have to—if I may use this term—grasp the salmon quite firmly at some stage because, although there has been a review and we have had all the bodies around the table, the number of salmon is falling, there is a conservation issue that is becoming extremely pressing and there is conflict in the system. People will have to take some pain in the process, and sometimes it is better to bring the pain on more quickly than to keep talking about it in the hope that we might not notice it.
I would not want the minister to think that there is no resistance to the introduction of a rod licence, as Mike Russell hinted. I have had quite a lot of local advice—I suspect that the minister has had some of the same emails as I have had—about the possible impact on tourism in particular at some of the more fragile, lesser-known rivers.
In a way, I agree with the rod licence—I thought that there might be more resistance to it—but, as we heard in evidence last week, the rod licence would probably be more welcome if the resource that it freed up was put into improving rivers and fisheries rather than an angling for all programme, which is slightly nebulous at this stage. We do not know the details of that programme, but to my mind it would build up a bureaucratic element that might take up a lot of the resource that was raised.
I simply put it to the minister that it is by no means unanimously felt at this point that a rod licence is a great idea. I am not saying that it is a bad idea, but there is a bit of work to be done on it.
I have a brief question on the process because I am trying to tease it out. The minister is keen to get our ideas and views, but we need a bit more sense of the process. We have had the review, which has come up with a number of questions. Will there be answers to some of them before you announce proposals later in the year?
There will be, after we have come through the review but before we have the consultation. I will be happy to come back to the committee at that stage.
Before you announce the structure that you will consult on, will there be a publication that covers issues such as the resources available, what you think needs to be spent and the costings of different options?
As the minister said earlier, there is a sequence of events. We have had the fisheries review report, which came up with 53 recommendations. We have listened with great interest to the evidence that the committee has received so far and we will take away members’ comments today. The next stage for us is to present in the spring a consultation on the broad principles for a management system. That will give another opportunity for iteration in the committee and in the wider sectoral interests. After that, we will consider what a management system and the legislation to support it would look like and what that would all cost.
We are a step short of answering the questions that the committee has raised about specific resources. One of the reasons for that is that, as the minister said, the possibility of reform has been on the stocks for a number of years, but nobody has picked it up because it has been so difficult. We want to ensure that, when we get to the point of producing a draft bill, we have gone through a process in which we have consulted on and understood the issues, so that we have a bill that makes sense and garners broad support.
We will also establish an external stakeholder reference group to help steer the development of the broad principles for a new management system through to detailed proposals and new legislation. Alan Wells from the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards has been seconded to the wild fisheries team in Marine Scotland to help us with the process.
Thank you for that.
There are two things that I want to ask about. First, you mentioned consultations in the spring, but can you be any more precise about timing? After all, we need to know what input we will get from you in putting together our report, and we need to be able to engage and ensure that all of this fits with your timetable and ours.
The consultation will be brought forward around Easter time.
That is helpful.
Secondly, I want to raise a point about income that has not yet been discussed. As we know, the rebate for shooting rates will be removed, but what is your intention with regard to the fishing rates that we have had in the past? Might they be a source of income?
This brings us back to the point that we are currently discussing the broad principles of the management system, and the delivery of revenue to support that system is part of that equation. We have not taken any specific views on issues such as fishing rates, because there might be another money-raising proposition for the management system that comes forward. This is not a case of replacing X with Y; we need to understand what the new system looks like and how it can be funded.
I hope that you take the potential income from fishing rates into consideration. I am sure that we will make a more formal comment in our response.
Alex Fergusson has some questions on sustainable harvesting. [Interruption.]
I am sorry, convener, but I am still shaking slightly at the idea of having fishing rates on top of an annual levy. I cannot help but feel that the two are much the same thing, but—hey.
Well, we have to sort that out.
No doubt the devil will be in the detail.
We have had fishing rates in the past. Perhaps the issue needs to be taken into account, given that they were only rebated.
I guess that that is a discussion for another time, convener.
Moving on, I note that Mr Cowan has already mentioned the review group’s proposal for a licence to kill. We have been quite impressed with the amount of common ground that has been found with stakeholders on some of the recommendations, but this particular recommendation caused a bit of controversy.
When you first look at it, the proposal seems very simple—in effect, it is a quota on the number of fish taken—but it is one of these proposals that the more you look at it, the more complex and difficult it becomes. That is largely for practical reasons—in other words, how it is actually implemented. We have heard evidence about the number of runs that each river could have, about the different runs of salmon, about the number of beats on different rivers and about the varying number of proprietors on rivers, and when you start to think about how those licences or quotas can be applied across those beats, those proprietors and those rivers, particularly given the volatility of annual runs of salmon and differences between runs within each season, you start to wonder how on earth they can be practically implemented.
I absolutely understand Mr Cowan’s point that the whole purpose of this is to ensure not that certain numbers of fish are killed but that a proper number of fish are able to head up the river and continue the species. I do not know whether you can answer this yet, but given the volatility and variety of runs, which can vary up to four times from one season to another, how can you base the number of salmon to be killed every year on one season’s results? After all, the figure might double or be halved the next season. How do you do this with sustainability in mind? How do you prevent what looks like quite a simple system to begin with from becoming hugely complex and therefore bureaucratic and very expensive at the end of the day?
We are consulting on the kill licence, the objective of which is to ensure that harvesting in domestic Scottish waters is sustainable. However, I must clarify that our salmon are a national resource; under the habitats directive, they are a protected species, and a number of variables impact on them.
Fish are being killed and there is no assessment at a national level of the sustainability of that activity. Therefore, we need to try to put in place an appropriate regulatory structure to ensure that an appropriate number of fish remain in the system and go on to spawn. That is a conservation measure for a protected species. It is about how we manage that protected species.
10:15
I absolutely understand that and the thinking behind it, but have you thought yet about the technical and practical difficulties of implementing that, given the variations in each river and in each season that I tried to highlight?
We know that a number of bodies want that, including the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Institute of Fisheries Management, the Scottish Anglers National Association and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. Other countries—notably Ireland—retain the resource in that way in the interests of conservation. We know that that is highly challenging, but we need to make our best efforts to address a strong recommendation of the report, because the wild fisheries review group made it very clear to us that it wanted immediate action to be taken in the area in relation to conserving our protected species.
The review proposes the creation of an offence of reckless or irresponsible management of fishing rights. However, last week the committee heard evidence that raised doubts about how that might work in practice. Would the introduction of such an offence be workable?
On the issuing and renewal of licences to kill fish, I wonder whether we ought to have in place a fit-and-proper-person test.
On your first question, as we have already said we plan to consult on the broad principles for the new management system, and we will consider in the round the appropriate regulatory requirements to ensure that there is effective and consistent compliance.
As I have said a couple of times, the proposition of the review and the forthcoming consultation is not that we pick away at individual points and try to fix something that is wrong today by addressing a single issue. When we have a proposition for a management structure, obviously that will need to have a weather eye to compliance with it. At that point, we will ask what works well in terms of compliance with the existing regulatory structure and what might be transferred over, or whether there is a different approach.
When we come forward with the proposition for the management structure, the kill licence in itself will restrict the ability of individual proprietors to kill fish without the licence. As the minister said, the Government currently has no control over the number of fish that are taken either by nets or by rod and line. The kill licence in itself will regulate the behaviour of people in the fishery, in that it will limit the number of fish that can be taken. To that extent, the kill licence may impact positively on the issue that was in the report, but, as I said, the key position for us in developing the new management system is what that system looks like and how we ensure compliance. The way to ensure compliance may be similar to what we have today or different, but we need to figure that out in the light of what the new system looks like.
Where will heritable rights sit in relation to the licence to kill? From a legal standpoint, if someone has heritable rights, can they not just carry on fishing regardless?
No. The heritable right for salmon fisheries is a property right. It enables the owner of that right to fish, but the Government can impact on that right in the national interest if it feels that there is a rational need to do so. In the case of salmon fisheries, some of the stocks are vulnerable. Therefore, the Government, in the public interest, has the right to impact on the property right.
That is useful. Thank you.
During last week’s evidence session, it was suggested that Scotland is behind the curve with its lack of policy on mixed-stock fisheries. The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization stipulates in its guidelines that fisheries should be allowed only if there is an exploitable surplus. On that issue, we also heard of the need for much more research in the short to medium term. We will discuss that shortly.
Is the approach that is proposed by the review sufficient to allow Scotland to comply with its international obligations under NASCO and with the habitats directive?
NASCO and the European Union recognise that mixed-stock fisheries present particular difficulties for the management of salmon populations. Therefore, the kill licence would provide a trigger to assess the impact of such fisheries on our special areas of conservation. A benefit of such an approach is the ability to use the process to manage mixed-stock fisheries. That will align with the approach and the requirements of NASCO and the habitats directive, and it will enable us to be seen to be doing so.
We come to scientific advice.
A key area identified by the review group was the need to consider the research requirements. Although gaps were identified, the group did not think that we needed to increase substantially the resources for data collection. However, the list of issues on which it is thought that more research is needed is substantial. It includes criteria for determining salmon killing licence applications, the link between salmon licences issued and the impact on stocks. To follow up the points that Angus MacDonald has just made, salmon-related data for reporting to the EU and NASCO is also included, as is general information about habitat productivity, resilience of fish stocks and the enhancement that needs to be carried out; a basic mapping of the wild fisheries resource of all species around Scotland; catch and release as a conservation tool, particularly the number of fish that die or survive through that process; threats to wild fisheries; and market research—indeed, the minister picked up on that issue in relation to socioeconomic opportunities.
That seems like a substantial range of research. Is the theory that the money will come up from the local money that is to be collected and that that will be sufficient to fund those research priorities?
Fisheries management needs to be underpinned by sound science and the best available evidence. The review recommended a national research and data strategy. The respective roles and functions in the delivery of research priorities at national and local level will be a key part of the forthcoming consultation.
Research is commissioned and conducted at national and local level. Therefore, I anticipate that that approach will continue under a national research and data strategy.
Carole Barker-Munro will talk through some of the research that is being funded currently.
Good morning. Sarah Boyack is right to say that that is a long list of areas to be looking at. However, those things are not all new; indeed, a number of elements of the work are already being undertaken by Marine Scotland science and by local boards.
I imagine that one of the first orders for drawing together a national research and data strategy would be to map exactly where we are with each of those pieces of work, to find out where lessons could be learned and then to prioritise that list. I do not think that we would be starting from scratch in doing that. As I said, a number of pieces of work are under way, but possibly under a different badge or for a different purpose. There is already a good bank of work there, and we would look to build on that in developing the national strategy for research and data.
Would the starting point not be to establish that research and science base now? The follow-on question is really about the capacity of fisheries management organisations to do that research. Do you envisage people who are currently doing research for the Scottish Government being shifted on to that? Alternatively, is it a question of the work that is done by local fisheries organisations being pulled up to the centre?
I do not know that I can comment on whether it might mean people being tasked with doing different things. An awful lot of what is in the wild fisheries review has to do with structures and reform that can be taken forward only through legislation. However, there is an awful lot of other work, such as the development of a national strategy, that would not require legislation to get started with.
Although we are looking at broader structures, decisions could be taken to start with some of that work now and to consider what that might mean in terms of pulling together who is doing what and for what purpose. Could it be better aligned? Is enough information being shared about what is happening? It might not necessarily be about moving people around but, rather, getting a shared understanding of who is doing what and making sure that lessons are learnt about that across the piece.
That is a very helpful answer. It feels like there are a large number of unanswered questions. It could be about scoping what we currently know and what work is going on and then thinking about how the change at local level will help. One of the concerns is about the potential impact on the funding of local work for local management. I just want to tease out the difference between a national priority and national funding that would come up from local level and what would be left at local level to enable people to carry out that work.
One of the suggestions is about looking at citizen science. A framework is needed in which to report citizen science. To what extent will the local mechanism be identified as responsible for bottom-up stuff? To what extent is it a kind of Marine Scotland overview? I am trying to get a sense of how ambitious the national unit will be in setting the agenda for research and carrying it out.
Those issues will start to come through in the consultation when we start talking about who should be doing what. However, as I said, there is an element of work that can be done now to start mapping who is doing what while considering who should be doing what in the future and marrying the two, so that we understand the impact of moving from the current structure to the new structure.
Costing it and thinking about the staffing resource is crucial.
To build on that, I highlight what I think is the crucial need for local flexibility. I think that it is sensible to carry out a mapping exercise of everything that is going on and bring it all together so that we have a clearer overall insight into what is being done, but there are local priorities that might not make the national list. For example, the acidification that is the biggest problem in my part of Scotland—the south-west—might not be a national priority come the day, but it needs to remain a local priority. I simply make a plea to keep that local flexibility in place whatever the final structure might be.
That is clocked, Mr Fergusson.
We move on to regulation and compliance questions.
Does the Government have any plans to look at extending the annual close times for salmon fisheries beyond those that were recently legislated for? I ask that partly because no sooner had the new close time arrangements been announced on the Esk than the Esk District Salmon Fishery Board was asking anglers on all the rivers that it oversees not to kill fish until 1 July. That suggests that in particular circumstances those with a local knowledge perhaps feel that there is a need to go further than we have gone so far in order to protect stocks.
It is important to ensure that the system in the round delivers adequate protection. Annual close times are part of the current framework, but we could also look at this issue in conjunction with the kill licence rather than in isolation. Such an approach might result in a similar outcome in terms of the protection that is afforded to fish at particular times of the year. Again, I would very much welcome members’ views on that.
There are a number of exceptions, as Mr Dey pointed out. The annual close time within the Esk salmon fishery district has been extended until 30 April, therefore netting has been delayed until 1 May. Spring fishing by rod and line prior to 1 May is on a catch-and-release basis. The extended annual close time does not apply in the Echaig salmon fishery district as the existing season start date of 1 May has been preserved. In the Annan salmon fishery district, where the existing statutory measures require the release of all salmon prior to 1 June, the date has been preserved. It all comes down to managing a species that is protected under the habitats directive.
10:30
I turn your attention to protection orders, on which the review has some proposals. Given the evidence that we have taken, we wonder whether we should have a national system of protection orders. We have had supplementary evidence suggesting that, in some parts of the Tay system, the orders work very well and there have been no problems. There is a suggestion, however, that there could be a problem in other areas.
The Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board broadly welcomed the principle in the recommendations. Do you have a sense of how protection orders can be used across the species?
Under the current system, protection orders were intended to play a part in responsible access to fishing, which is a theme that runs throughout the report; we have briefly touched on that. I wish it to be a key feature of the management system. I am open to suggestions about how that can be achieved and whether protection orders should be part of that.
We recognise that there may be questions about that in the consultation.
The opportunity exists in legislation to redefine or properly define the role of bailiffs. The committee—or at least a couple of members—has expressed concern during evidence-taking sessions about the bailiffs’ role. The report indicates that the police’s position is that bailiffs have powers that they are not using.
From my perspective, there is also concern that, across the environment, there are often people who take on roles for which better judicial or legislative training is required. Sometimes, if people do not have that training, or if they exercise their roles in the wrong way, difficulties can be created.
Minister, I seek from you a commitment that that area will be considered in the consultation. It gives us an opportunity to define the role of bailiffs properly. For example, some of the rangers in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park qualify as special constables, which gives them a proper context in which they can undertake some quite difficult work.
I thank the member for raising that issue. Anyone who exercises powers under the law must do so within a framework that includes the appropriate training, as you rightly pointed out, along with checks and balances. The system of water bailiffs is unusual in terms of law enforcement, but it provides a strong element of local knowledge and experience, which, many argue, should be retained. I cannot take a position on the recommendation today, but I am open to how fisheries law should be enforced.
Whether the committee feels that the recommendations that have been made are the right ones or that something else is needed in the mix, it is important to point out that the enforcement power is available. The way in which the powers are exercised is a different matter, but we would be keen to consider that through the consultation.
If we end up introducing rod licences, licences to kill and quotas, I suspect that more policing will be required, rather than less. Therefore, the subject of who polices the measures is extremely important; there is no point in having everything in place if there is not sufficient policing ability. I hope that that is borne in mind as the proposals are taken forward.
Indeed.
Okay—there are no answers to that, but you are taking it on board, minister.
I thank the minister and her team. We have had a very good discussion on these matters.
10:34 Meeting suspended.