Salmon Conservation Bill
The second item on the agenda is the proposed salmon conservation bill. We are joined by Diane McLafferty, David Dunkley and Joy Dunn, who are here to speak to the paper that has been circulated and to explain the purpose of the bill. We can then consider how to deal with the bill at stage 1 if it is to be allocated to the Rural Affairs Committee. A decision on whether the bill is to be allocated to us is unlikely to be made until next Tuesday.
Diane McLafferty (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department):
The bill takes enabling powers to bring in urgently needed measures for the conservation of wild salmon and sea trout.
The latest statistical bulletin, tabled for the committee, lodged in the Scottish Parliament information centre and publicly available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office in the next few days, shows that numbers of salmon and grilse caught and retained in 1999 are the lowest on record—records began in 1952—and are 39 per cent down on 1998. Sea trout catches are also the lowest on record and are 24 per cent down on 1998. The catch statistics are compiled from returns made by the owners of salmon fishings to the Scottish Executive rural affairs department.
The reasons for salmon declines are not yet fully understood. Increased marine mortality has led to fewer fish returning to spawn in Scottish rivers. Collaborative international research is on-going into the underlying causes. However, the problem of stock declines is so severe—particularly in the case of spring fish that have been at sea for several winters—that there is an urgent need to conserve as many fish as possible in the freshwater phase to maximise the potential number of spawners, the progeny of which will eventually repopulate the rivers. Wild fisheries contribute significantly to the rural economy of Scotland and the sustainability of salmon and sea trout is crucial for socio-economic as well as natural heritage reasons. Reports of good grilse catches in some areas are encouraging news for those letting next year's fishings, but in no way lessen the need for action.
In addition, international pressure is being exerted on the UK as an EU member of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—NASCO. Scotland is considered to have inadequate regulatory powers in place to achieve significant reductions in the exploitation of threatened salmon populations.
Wild salmon fishery management in Scotland is based on a river-by-river approach run by district salmon fishery boards, comprising owners of salmon fishings and representatives of angling and netting interests. Current conservation powers available under the Salmon Act 1986 are limited. Boards may apply to Scottish ministers for regulations to restrict the use of certain types of bait or lure, and for orders to alter the annual close seasons. Eighteen of the 52 boards have bait and lure restrictions in place and many boards have agreed voluntary conservation codes that recommend catch and release or impose bag limits on fish caught. However, voluntary measures are effective only if all salmon fishery proprietors subscribe to them. The Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, on behalf of individual boards, has lobbied hard for a wider range of conservation measures to be introduced. That echoes the recommendations of the report of the Scottish salmon strategy task force, published in 1997, which called for an extension of the measures available on application by district salmon fishery boards, and for ministers to have powers to take action when salmon populations are severely threatened.
Against that background, a consultation exercise was launched on 5 June which ran until 2 August, proposing that new enabling powers be taken to introduce conservation measures on application by boards to Scottish ministers and by Scottish ministers themselves. A total of 260 consultation papers were issued and 86 responses were received: 23 from district salmon fishery boards and fisheries trusts; 25 from national and regional bodies such as the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Scottish Anglers National Association and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; 11 from local authorities; six from angling clubs and 21 from individuals.
The question, "In whom should powers be vested?" received a majority in favour of district salmon fishery boards being able to apply for conservation measures. In response to the question, "What would appropriate conservation measures be?" most respondents argued for angling or netting to be restricted, although some were more specific in recommending measures such as catch and release or bag limit. In terms of geographic coverage of powers, respondents were in favour of the application of measures to whole or part salmon fishery districts as required. Many respondents urged that there should be full and open consultation on proposals at local level.
The proposed bill inserts five new sections into the Salmon Act 1986. It takes a non-prescriptive approach to the powers that boards may apply for, recognising that different measures will be appropriate for different rivers. Regulations can be made for salmon or sea trout or both. Examples of what might be enshrined in regulations are the imposition of mandatory catch and release if stock declines were particularly severe, or the introduction of a ban on the sale of rod-caught salmon. As with current powers under the 1986 act, statutory local consultation procedures will have to be followed before regulations are made. Regulations will be subject to negative resolution.
The proposed bill extends the powers of bailiffs to cover any new conservation measures introduced as a result of the enabling provisions. It also plugs a gap by introducing a requirement for proprietors of salmon fishings to make catch statistics available to boards upon request—previously the data have been supplied only to the rural affairs department, leaving the district salmon fishery boards out of the loop.
The bill is being introduced imminently because urgent efforts are needed to attempt to arrest the decline in fish stocks.
Do members have any questions on the information that we have received or on the proposed bill?
Although today's figures are very worrying, they confirm many people's fears about the decline in the latest catch figures for salmon and trout.
I have two questions. First, how many of the Executive's proposals were recommended by the 1997 task force report? Secondly, for how many consecutive years have catch figures declined?
I will answer the first question and invite my colleague, the inspector of salmon and freshwater fisheries, to answer the second.
The 12th recommendation of the 1997 Scottish salmon strategy task force report asked for the range of measures to be extended; that it be possible to apply different measures to different districts and parts of districts; and that there should be more on offer than simply restrictions on baits and lures or changes to the close time. The bill's proposal is consistent with the spirit of that recommendation. Recommendation 13 of the 1997 report advocated that ministers should have emergency powers to act if it was thought that populations were severely threatened.
David Dunkley (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department):
On the decline in salmon catches, it is not so much a question of the number of consecutive years that catches have declined, because there are always interannual variations. However, figure 1 in the statistical bulletin shows that catches have been declining consistently since 1973. Although such a decline has something to do with reduced netting effort, sometimes the decline in netting effort has been a response to perceptions of declining abundance.
Before I ask my two questions, I want to say how much I welcome this important bill, which will certainly help in the River Dee and other rivers in my neck of the woods.
My questions concern the memorandum and the pre-legislative stage of the consultation process. I notice from the Executive's information that only 20 of the 52 district salmon fishery boards have responded to the consultation. In light of that fact, has there been a comprehensive enough consultation process?
My second question relates to the information presented to us in tabular form in the statistical bulletin. With the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, the Executive presented more than 300 responses in a similar tabular form; however, the details of the respondents were included. It would be helpful to have the details of the 86 respondents to this consultation to see who has responded and what they have said. Why were the responses presented to us in this format?
It was obviously very helpful to have the local perspective of the 20 individual boards in the consultation exercise. However, we also received a very comprehensive response from the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, which represented the 52 boards. We have been assured that the smaller boards that did not respond on their own initiative subscribe to their umbrella organisation's views.
As for including the respondents' details, I can see how such information might have been more helpful to the committee for the purposes of today's consideration. However, the consultation responses are all available for detailed consideration from SPICe.
Could the Executive provide us with the details in that particular form? It would be very helpful.
Of course.
I might be raising the same issue as Mike Rumbles. It would be useful to know whether, for example, a certain local authority supported the principles of the proposed bill, but felt that the Scottish Executive should continue research into marine mortality. Such information might help the committee to decide whom we should ask to give evidence. I respect the fact that SPICe has the information and that we can find it for ourselves; however, it would be handy for the committee to have those details in front of us.
I also welcome the proposed bill. However, will there be consultation on any secondary legislation? Furthermore, will new research be undertaken before secondary legislation is introduced?
Under schedule 1 to the Salmon Act 1986, when baits and lures orders are introduced, applicants are required to advertise in local newspapers and there is a 28-day period during which representations can be made to Scottish ministers about the proposals and how interests might be affected. Those procedures will be continued with any new regulations introduced through this legislation. Furthermore, the proposed bill will specifically require Scottish ministers to consider representations from those with interests in fishing or in the broader aquatic environment. As a result, the consultation procedures will be thorough.
As far as new research is concerned, the applicant for regulations will be required to justify their case and prove the conservation benefits that can be achieved by their intended restrictions.
You said that our EU colleagues thought that we had inadequate regulatory powers. Will the bill give us what they would consider to be adequate powers; and, if not, what else would we need to do?
Although I very much hope that our EU colleagues will consider that the bill gives us adequate powers, I am not in a position to pronounce on their reaction. The consultation's launch on 5 June coincided with NASCO's annual meeting and met with an encouraging response. More important, the conservation measures that will be introduced will address the problems of spring fish and multi-sea winter fish.
Yes, but our EU colleagues must have indicated where our current powers are inadequate. Does the proposed bill address those areas?
The scientific advice that we have received from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has related to reducing the exploitation of multi-sea winter fish. In the past, the view has been that, compared even with our colleagues south of the border, we have been rather short on regulations addressing that issue. The proposed bill goes a long way towards addressing that matter, in light of the situations that arise in fisheries management in Scotland, which are different from what happens in the rest of the UK, let alone the EU.
In Scotland, all salmon fisheries are privately owned and, since the middle of the 19th century, we have seen the wisdom of river-by-river management. For example, other EU countries have taken blanket measures and closed or controlled fisheries. We have never been in the position to do that and I am not sure that we would want to, except in extremis. We still believe firmly that there is a strong case for river-by-river management.
I am sure that the bill will go a long way towards satisfying our colleagues on the international scene, commensurate with the way in which we see the operation of salmon fisheries management in Scotland.
The real problem is not the level of catching in our rivers; the real problem is somewhere out there and we do not quite understand what it is. This is the best measure that we can take until we find out what the real problem is. Is that a layman's summation of the situation?
That would be a fair summation of the situation. We are trying to preserve as many fish as possible to allow them to return to spawn, so that we maximise the chance of having viable salmon populations in the future, given that we are unsure what is affecting them in the high seas.
It follows, therefore, that the measures that the bill will allow us to take may not be successful and that if we take them we may still see declines in catches.
That is a possibility, but it is better than doing nothing.
I welcome anything to conserve wild salmon. To have any fishery, there must be a surplus. You say that you do not understand the causes of the decline. Has any work been done on the recommendations of the 1997 task force? Has the impact of the large increase in the number of seals been taken into account? Has the impact of fish farming on the west coast been taken into account? Has the impact of English east coast drift-net fishery been taken into account? Has enough work been done before we introduce legislation to see whether those are the causes of the decline?
Work is being done on all the issues that you mention. However, the perilous state of salmon stocks is such that we cannot afford to await results from research projects. The focus of the bill is straightforward. It is to take measures to reduce exploitation as quickly as possible, while seeking to obtain the data on which to base longer-term decisions.
Clearly, this is emergency legislation, because we have an urgent problem and we want to get legislation in place to deal with it. Out of interest, how does the bill relate to the recent review, "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries"? Is this our last shot? Will it be a long time before there is any more legislation to deal with freshwater fisheries? A lot of research is being done. We do not know the answers to many questions. The bill deals only with salmon and trout, but the review covers all freshwater fisheries. I am not an expert, but I assume that a lot of our rivers are multi-species.
First, I am not in a position to predict what future legislative programmes might contain. However, I am in a position to comment on the review of freshwater fisheries, which, as you said, examines all freshwater species and therefore takes a more holistic approach and a longer-term view than it is the purpose of the bill to take. As I have said, the bill is required urgently to address the specific problems relating to salmon and sea trout and to ensure that wild salmon and sea trout have a sustainable future. Sustainability is examined in the longer-term review. The two are not in any way at odds with each other; it is just that one is needed urgently.
As someone with a keen interest in salmon fishing, particularly angling, I have noticed over the past few years a steady and alarming decline in the stock of salmon and sea trout, particularly on the west coast. I am surprised that we have the decline on the west coast but not on the east coast. There must be a sound reason for that. Various suggestions have been made. It could be predation at sea—Mr McGrigor mentioned the high seal population, and there are other predators on the coast that are protected and have a diet that is high in salmon and sea trout.
Some years ago, I read a letter in a trout and salmon magazine that highlighted the decline in sport fishing of salmon and sea trout on the west coast of Scotland. It went on at length about the possible reasons for the decline. It concluded that there was no definite reason but that the decline was evident and that something drastic would have to be done about it. The editor's footnote said that the letter had been written in 1890.
People have suggested to me that such decline may be cyclical, but I do not think that it is. Various people up and down the coast have told me that, in their opinion, there are sound and justifiable reasons for the decline, apart from overfishing, predation and pollution. An element of pollution is caused by the high number of fish farms on the coast, which may be a contributory factor in the decline of salmon and sea trout. The decline is evident, it is serious and it has a massive effect on the economy of the communities that depend on a viable fishery for their existence. Why has more specific and definite investigation not been undertaken to scrutinise fish farm activity up and down the coast, either to give fish farms a clean bill of health and dismiss that argument or to establish once and for all that such pollution contributes to the decline?
There is a lot of on-going work into that issue, particularly in the context of the tripartite working group chaired by the Scottish Executive. That group has been in existence for more than a year and brings together representatives from the wild and farmed salmon industries. The concordat was launched in July. It is hoped that area management agreements will be the product of detailed discussion at local level.
The issue is being given careful and urgent consideration. Indeed, the bill, which, as I have explained, is fairly straightforward, will allow for specific measures to be introduced to deal with sea trout, should sea trout on the west coast or elsewhere be in need of additional protection. Separate measures might be felt to be needed to reduce exploitation of sea trout over and above the measures introduced for salmon. That is something else that is new; it was called for by the Scottish salmon strategy task force in 1997.
When will the tripartite group next report? Is the work of the seven west coast fishery trusts that have been set up to examine habitat and reasons for the decline of salmon and sea trout being taken into account?
Joy Dunn (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department):
The tripartite working group published a report and concordat based on its recent findings. It will meet again on 6 October to re-examine its terms of reference and membership. After that meeting, it will enter a new phase of its work, which will focus on establishing the area management agreements and the restoration that needs to be done on the west coast. However, that will be a long-term project spread over the next five to 10 years.
Is it within the competence of the bill to address the membership of the fishery boards?
No.
As there are no further questions, I thank Diane McLafferty, David Dunkley and Joy Dunn for explaining the bill to us and for giving us the opportunity to consider how we wish to proceed with it.
Before we leave this item, I would like to say a few words. We have heard today that the bill is urgent and that it is likely to be uncontroversial and relatively straightforward. The bill will be considered by the Parliamentary Bureau next week and we suspect that it will be allocated to this committee. Do members agree that we need to treat the bill as a matter of urgency and priority in our work over the next few months?
Members indicated agreement.
We will include this item on the agenda for next week's meeting, when we will decide on the details of evidence gathering. Remarks were made about the level of response to the consultation. Do members feel that it would be appropriate for the committee to seek further written evidence, rather than rely on the consultation exercise that has taken place?
I would be much happier if the names of individual respondents could be given to us in tabular form. I think that we were given that commitment.
At this stage, would you prefer not to take a decision on whether to take written evidence?
We need to see who has already submitted evidence. That would inform our judgment.
We will obtain that information quickly so that we can refer to it when we discuss this item next week.
It would also be useful to see a full list of the recipients of the consultation paper.
That is possible. As there are no further comments on the bill, we will place it on next week's agenda and discuss it again once we have received the information that has been requested.
I have been asked to allow a brief adjournment. Members should remain in their seats, as it will be for only a couple of minutes. That is not long enough to smoke a pipe.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—