Wild Fisheries Review
Agenda item 4 is on the Scottish Government’s wild fisheries review. We will take evidence from Andrew Thin, the chair of the review, and Jane Hope, one of the review’s panel members. I welcome them to the meeting and invite Andrew Thin to make an opening statement.
Andrew Thin (Wild Fisheries Review)
We are here to respond to the committee’s questions. As the convener said, Jane Hope is here with me; the other member of the review panel is Michelle Francis.
We are still in the early stages of the review. Our terms of reference are in the committee’s papers. The review is about modernising the structures and systems whereby we manage wild fisheries in Scotland. Since the 1960s, various reviews have suggested that those structures need to be modernised, but no one has ever fully got round to it. We have been asked to produce recommendations that will fully modernise those structures and that is what we are doing.
We are operating through an open and collaborative process. At the last count, we had held 29 meetings with stakeholders—I was in Ayr last night—and a great many more meetings are still to happen. That is terribly important because of the nature of the sector. An awful lot of people are involved in it and there are a lot of strong feelings and different issues.
So far, we have managed to get from Dumfries to Orkney, Stornoway and Montrose, so we are covering the country. There is also a website and, importantly, we are issuing monthly progress bulletins through the website. Anyone can join our email mailing list, so that everybody knows how the group’s thinking is developing. That is hugely important to ensuring that people feel part of the review and feel able to contribute through the meetings, the website and so on. As far as one can make such a review collaborative, we are doing so.
I do not want to take the committee through the terms of reference—that would be somewhat boring—but there are five themes that are probably worth summarising. The first concerns accountability. In so far as they are anybody’s property, wild fish are public property. The whole business of accountability for how they are managed—nationally and locally—is the central theme of the review, in particular so that democratically elected structures can lead and direct the management of wild fisheries in a strategic manner.
The second theme is transparency. We are clear that the people of Scotland need to be able to see how and why things are being done to manage their fisheries and need to see the performance of those actions. Transparency is highly important.
The third theme is local empowerment. The vast majority of the management of the sector needs to be done at a local level. The sector already has a colossal voluntary resource and voluntary enthusiasm, which we need to harness. It would be completely daft to turn the sector into some sort of centralised bureaucracy.
The fourth theme is doing things in an evidence-based manner. Everybody and his dog appears to have a view on how best to manage fish. At the end of the day, that is about democratic accountability, but that must be on the basis of good and robust scientific advice.
A theme that those who are already involved in the sector forget is that there should be increased participation and public value. As a result of our recommendations, the people of Scotland should get greater public value from their wild fish and their wild fisheries. That is fundamental to the review. It is fairly early days in the review—we have been going since March—but we have had a reasonably clear beginning.
We are fairly clear that there needs to be national leadership in the system, which is not the case now, as the system is driven locally. I emphasise the importance of local commitment, enthusiasm and so on, but the elected Government of the day needs to be able to fulfil national policy priorities and international obligations and agreements. We are clear that there needs to be a small—I emphasise “small”—national strategic function to ensure that national priorities are delivered through the system, that the quality of delivery is consistent across the country and that science, research and data collection are consistent across the country. However, I emphasise that that does not mean that that has to be done by a central function, although it has to be led by a central function.
The second thing that we are clear about is that we will need to recommend that there is a really effective network of local fisheries management organisations. We have a system that involves 60 or 70 local organisations, so we are not starting from scratch, but the challenge is to make the system fit for purpose in the modern world in a way that is inclusive but also accountable and transparent. We have a lot more thinking to do on that, although we have some ideas.
The third thing that I emphasise is the importance of finance. The system is currently financed by a number of means, many of which are derived locally and are not entirely transparent. In so far as the system needs to deliver national policy priorities, we think that it needs to be funded through a system that provides a degree of national control over the funding, because that ensures that national priorities are being delivered. However, that does not mean that all funding should be national. On the contrary, we need to pull off the trick of having a central system with modest finance—raised in an appropriate manner—that can deliver national priorities and which is greatly enhanced by local delivery bodies that can raise local resource, which includes financial resources, volunteers and all sorts of other resources.
Some species of wild fish in Scotland are under threat. We need to ensure that the way in which they are harvested—if that is a fair word in the context of recreational fishing; it also includes netting of some species—is sustainable. We are doing serious thinking about the possibility of legislative change, including the use of quotas and licensing, to ensure that fishing is sustainable and at the same time delivers greater public benefit.
That is where we have got to. That was a quick gallop, but I wanted to set the scene.
Your comments are helpful. Two members already have questions.
Good morning. My question will also help to set the scene. The review is referred to as a wild fisheries review, yet the remit states that
“The review will look forward, not backward ... It will not reassess how well the current system operates or how it might be amended”.
It strikes me that, at least in the terminology, there is a contradiction. How can you look to improve things if you do not consider where we are now or best-practice examples in Scotland? Maybe you are doing that and the issue is just the terminology that is used.
I presume that, as you go around the country—I am thinking in particular of Montrose—you will hear about live current issues and how people think that they might be dealt with, if nothing else. Will you give us a bit of clarity on the approach that is being taken?
What you say is absolute common sense. I do not disagree with anything that you said and I think that the issue is terminology rather than anything else.
Clearly, we have to understand very well how things are operating, what the current challenges are and what the current system’s strengths are. We have got a pretty good grasp of that from the 20 or 30-odd meetings that we have held. An issue such as netting in Montrose is highly visible politically. You will not be surprised to learn that we have been to Montrose.
Nevertheless, the point that is made in the remit is important. I do not think that the review should look simply at how we could meddle with the current system to make it better. There have been calls since the Hunter report in the 1960s to replace the current system with something that is more fit for purpose, but that does not mean that that should be done on the basis of completely failing to understand where we are now.
11:00
That is reassuring. The committee made a trip to the River Dee and saw a lot of good things happening there. I would like to be assured—and I think that I am by what you have said—that good practice is being taken account of in the work that you will be doing.
I welcome the review’s recognition of the importance of local management. I am sure that you agree that there is a good argument that every river catchment is individual and has differences. We cannot generalise about how to manage a river catchment. I very much welcome that approach.
I want to tie something down that I am not certain about. In your submission, under the heading “Remit”, the first bullet point starts:
“To consider from first principles the challenges and opportunities facing Scotland’s wild fisheries”.
I am aware from no less a journal than May’s edition of Fly Fishing & Fly Tying that you have been sent a letter from Dr Richard Shelton, the former head of the Government freshwater fisheries laboratory at Pitlochry, in which he states:
“My colleagues and I at the Freshwater Laboratory and our opposite numbers in the Irish Republic have known since 1989 that the collapse of sea trout populations in west highland Scotland was being driven by the large number of sea lice associated with the cage rearing of salmon. It is a problem that continues to get worse and greatly depletes salmon populations in fjordic systems.”
You talked about the importance of looking at the sustainability of some species. To cut to the chase, will you look at the impact of aquaculture on wild fish stocks?
I have two or three points to make on that. The review is very much about the systems and structures that will enable us to manage all the different challenges, such as aquaculture, the climate and a heap of others, so it is important that we focus on getting the system right.
In my experience, no two scientists ever seem to agree on anything. I seem to get conflicting advice on the issue that you raise as much as on many others. However, I am clear that the review’s outcome will be a system that can collect, collate and analyse data and evidence so that we can be certain that we understand the impact of sea lice on the populations and we can deal with it.
You consider that to be one of the challenges that wild fisheries face.
Yes. We will not review the science; we have not been asked to do that.
I appreciate that.
We are reviewing systems, but the system will not be fit for purpose if it cannot address all those major challenges.
That is useful.
I will ask about the development of skills for the future, which you highlighted in the scope of your remit. The committee has visited a number of places, including a hatchery and a marine science centre in the north of Scotland. To what degree will you be able to focus on what will be a changing picture? You have mentioned climate change, but there is a range of issues in relation to fish stocks and so on. I would like to know how you are getting evidence about that.
The evidence on skill requirements is being collected primarily through meetings with local fisheries boards and so on, in much the same way as the committee has done that, although we probably have the time to do more meetings. I am satisfied that we are getting good evidence.
There are two key priorities for the system. First, we have to ensure that it delivers consistent competence across Scotland. It is not reasonable that the people of one bit of Scotland should not have access to the same competence as people whose fisheries are in another part. Consistency is an issue, because we are clear that skill levels vary around the country. That is partly a resourcing issue.
The second issue is that it is increasingly clear that skill levels tend to be a bit static. The industry does not have a particularly good continuing professional development system. I do not want people to think, “Gosh—they’re obviously not up to the mark,” because that would be wrong, but we need to build into our recommendations clarity about national consistency and we need a national CPD system that ensures that skills stay up to the mark and adapt to changing circumstances. Good examples of where that is needed involve aquaculture, climate change and invasive species.
We simply do not know what will happen over the next 20 or 30 years, so we need people to adapt their skills so that, even if someone who manages a river is 55 or 60, their skills are still competent. I am comfortable that we will get that right, but we are not there at the moment.
Good morning. I am aware of some of the good work in my region, including work that the River Tweed Commission and the Tweed Foundation have done on not just the Tweed but its tributaries and the increase in numbers of fish as well as those of other vertebrates and invertebrates.
You talked about national policies and how there should be a central system, albeit that you want to keep localness. I would be concerned if decision making on our wild fish and fisheries was centralised. Concerns about the Nith and the Solway and concerns in the Borders can be quite different from concerns in Montrose and concerns about the River Dee, for example.
What body should look after the national policies centrally? What changes do you foresee that would not throw the baby out with the bath water but ensure that decisions are made locally? That will help people to adapt, as you said, and bring more speedy answers to problems in different parts of Scotland.
I draw a clear and important distinction between central strategic leadership and centralisation. It is right that the elected Government of the day has the ability to provide central leadership to the system in the public interest, in relation to legitimate national priorities, which might involve international agreements or national policy priorities. That seems reasonable, but that is about leadership, not centralisation. I draw that clear distinction and I will continue to emphasise, particularly given experience south of the border, the importance of local delivery and central leadership.
We have some thoughts about what we might do, involving some kind of central thing. However, I do not want people to say, “Oh, they have decided that,” because we have genuinely not decided yet. Jane Hope will sketch out some of our ideas.
Jane Hope (Wild Fisheries Review)
As Andrew Thin said, it is early days, so I am a bit nervous about saying too much, too soon. However, I have been struck by the number of questions that keep coming back to the central question of how we balance local ownership, and all the good input that we can get locally, with the national oversight that we need on some functions.
I am reminded of a bit of work that somebody did for the review panel about experience elsewhere. I should add that I am no expert on fisheries; I come to this with a completely open mind, which has its uses. Interestingly, Ireland completely reorganised its wild fisheries system and reduced the network to seven regional fishery boards, co-ordinated by a central fishery board. I get the impression that everything was fine for a while, as the system provided a regional focus and retained stakeholder involvement, but it started to go wrong when the central fishery board started expanding its role rather than providing support to the regions.
That is typical of what we must avoid. There is a place for the local and a place for the national, but we must ensure that the two roles are well understood so that, after a more centralised, very small structure is created, it does not grow over time and expand its powers. That is a lesson from Ireland.
I was struck by what was said about sea lice at one of the open meetings that I went to. That provides a good example of how the critical mass of expertise at a local level is simply not enough to deal with the really big challenges. Although management is best delivered locally, we still have to provide for some access to central expertise on the really important issues. Sea lice may be one of those. We will have to get that balance right all the time.
I would rather let Andrew Thin talk about what the models might be.
Let me give a brief sketch. Central leadership could be achieved by a single commissioner—I use that word loosely; to be frank, we could come up with any old title—who has been appointed by the Scottish ministers through open competition to give democratic accountability, with a very small secretariat. They could draw on existing people, resources and expertise in Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. That would not add costs; it would simply draw on what already exists. That function could be delivered with something as small and tight as that, and that would still give national accountability, which is really important.
The commissioner would agree with local delivery bodies annual fisheries management plans or perhaps five-yearly fisheries management plans in which they set out how they intend to deliver a range of national and local priorities that they wish to pursue. There would need to be a mechanism through which the commissioner could core fund some of that, and the rest of the funding and resource—I emphasise that this is not just about money; a lot of it is about volunteering resource—could be raised locally, as it currently is.
There would probably be quite a few of those local bodies—I do not know exactly how many there would be—to get localism really working. They would probably have charitable status, as that is hugely helpful in all sorts of ways for raising resource, and they would probably adhere directly to a model constitution, or at least have a constitution that had been agreed with the commissioner to ensure inclusivity. Inclusivity at a local level is important. At the moment, I am not persuaded that a fully democratic structure at a local level is needed if there is a constitution that ensures inclusivity.
That is useful.
Good morning to Jane Hope and Andrew Thin.
Following on from the previous comments, I have to say that I like the idea and principle of national leadership and things being done on the ground locally. It is the right way to go. However, how would we ensure that the commissioner had enough power to do what he or she needed to do, while preventing them from expanding that power and becoming overbearing? The danger and, indeed, tendency with any central body is that, over time, it might want to expand. I know that we are getting into details and that you will not have thought all of this through, but we need someone with the central power and authority to lead and direct, especially on issues such as sea lice and the stand-off between aquaculture and angling. We need to try to get a resolution to an issue that has rumbled on for far too long, and we need someone who can get a grip of it and ensure that it is dealt with.
11:15
Do you think, for instance, that the commissioner’s powers should include the power to compel regulators to report to him or her? I do not think that a purely voluntary approach would work. If the commissioner is to be effective, he or she will need the power to say to enforcement and other bodies, “I require you to report to me on what you are doing about such and such.” You would need to draw up a pretty clear list of powers and responsibilities.
That is one issue; the other is how to ensure that the commissioner’s role would not expand. I like the model that you have outlined, and I can see it being effective in a lot of other areas of work where we need a lead from Government on the broad standards but a lot of delegated authority on the ground.
Again, I emphasise that I am sketching out preliminary thinking. I think that the offices of the commissioner will need to be established by statute, with clear statutory powers and duties, perhaps including something that delineates and therefore limits the commissioner’s role. I think that that can be done through statute, but I do not have the detail yet. We need to work on that.
If the commissioner has the power to raise money and provide some core funding to the delivery bodies, he will be able—because he controls the money, to some extent—to ensure that national priorities are delivered by the local bodies. However, local bodies must be free to pursue local priorities, for which they can raise local money. We need to work out a system for doing that. In short, the commissioner’s ability to core fund the delivery of national priorities would create the control mechanism. I need to think through the detail, but that seems to work.
The question that remains is what happens if a local body is just useless and fails, which can happen. To deal with such cases, we would need to build in some reserve powers for the commissioner. I do not yet have a clear view on how to do that, but the sort of thing that we are thinking about is a reserve power to invite an adjacent local body to deliver national functions in an area, if necessary.
The statute could also contain significant provision whereby the commissioner could do certain things on the authority of the Scottish ministers. That would keep the Scottish ministers in control.
I am sorry that I have not been able to give you a detailed answer. Jane Hope will add a few comments.
I was going to add just one further thought. As Andrew Thin has said, funding is a big driver; it seems to me that the other big driver is data. There is a remarkably poor amount of good information about fish stocks. It therefore seems to me that the proposed commissioner must have the power to require information about stocks.
Currently, district salmon fishery boards may collect information in different ways, but they do not have to share it with anyone, so our knowledge of stocks is pretty poor. It seems to me that the whole issue of collecting and collating information and then making it publicly available is crucial; indeed, a lot of decisions that are linked to the national strategy must hang on that. Currently, we do not seem to have the basic information.
Although the model would not fit perfectly in this context, you might want to have a wee look at how the Office of Fair Trading, which was recently done away with, used to operate. The OFT operated UK-wide, but the enforcement of trading standards legislation was carried out by local authorities, and there were clear demarcation lines between the two. That kind of model might give you a starting point, although it would not be the solution.
You have provided half the answer to my question in your comments on the collation of data and the difficulty of finding out what is happening out there.
On sustainable management and the conservation of stocks, you will be well aware that, in an angling context, there is considerable variation in catch and release practices on rivers across Scotland. Have you come to a view on whether we need a more consistent approach to catch and release across the country if we are to get to where we need to be?
Every river is different, which is why localism is important in this equation. It is unlikely that it will be necessary to have a standard catch and release policy for Scotland. More generally, however, and to focus specifically on salmon for a moment, we are clear that we are going to have to come up with a system that enables control, right across Scotland, of the number of salmon killed in any given system, particularly in the first six months of the year. Although not so many spring salmon come back, they have a high value to local economies, hotels and so on because people come to fish for them in a period of the year when there is not much else doing in terms of business. They are economically and socially very important to Scotland.
For that particular first six-month period, we will come up with, say, a quota system or something—I am not certain what at the moment. We might propose that it is illegal to kill a salmon in the first six months of the year unless a person has a licence to do so, and licences could be issued to netting stations, if scientists think that that is safe. However, I want to do a lot more detailed work on that issue.
In 2005, the Scottish Executive said, in a document that led eventually to the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013, that it favoured a unitary authority model for salmon, trout and coarse fish. At the moment, we have district salmon fishery boards and foundations or trusts. What is your take on the way forward with regard to those two separate entities?
I think that we are already clear on that. Whatever they are called—let us call them local fisheries management organisations—they will be all-fisheries management organisations.
The reason why I ask is that, on our visit to the Dee, we saw how the River Dee Trust had been able to access considerable funds from the Scotland rural development programme in order to plant trees to create dappled shade and encourage salmon to spawn far up the river.
You talked about central funds and funds that can be raised locally. How does the SRDP match up with those two concepts?
I would expect that, as happens in some ways at the moment, a local fisheries management organisation would wish to apply to the SRDP for habitat management measures. I do not think that we would be proposing any change there. Many of the trusts are doing first-class work—you can see excellent work being done in the Tweed, for example.
Have you done any calculations to show how much SRDP money has been accessed by trusts? Is it possible to do so?
We could do that but, given that we are trying to look forward and given that the SRDP is changing, it will be difficult to relate that. The important thing is that we set up a structure that can access the SRDP in whatever form it takes, and our recommendation is that such a structure be fit for purpose for some decades. Part of what is driving our thinking is the question of how we design a system that is sufficiently flexible to cope with change. There might not be an SRDP in 10 years’ time, and we need a system that is sufficiently flexible to deal with whatever opportunities come along next.
That is interesting. I have various salmon fishery boards in my constituency. Inevitably, there is the view of the riparian owners on the one hand and, on the other, the view of angling clubs, which might be seeking more access to rivers, and issues about the economic value for the local area are perhaps tied up with more access for more popular fishing. Have you encountered that so far in your evidence taking?
Although there are significant access issues in some parts of the country, I do not want members to go away with the impression that they are universal; they are not. There are some very good examples around the country where access, including access for salmon fishing, is available to anybody at very low cost.
However, there are significant issues that the review needs to address. If we are serious about increasing participation in Scotland and, in particular, about bringing more young people into the sport, we need to address access issues, which are about not just geography but particular days of the week. Addressing those issues is very much in our sights.
I will not give you any answers at the moment because I do not have them. We are picking up a lot of really good suggestions, some of which are quite radical, and we need to work through their unforeseen consequences before we come to recommendations.
As the MSP who represents the aforementioned Montrose, I have some knowledge of the difficulties there, but I want to come back to the structural issues. One issue about netting anywhere is that the fish that are caught are going not just up the river that happens to be nearest but along the whole coast for what might be a considerable period. Much of that is not happening in my constituency, but that is not really the point.
I suggest that there is a problem in structural terms because it does not follow that any netting operation anywhere around our coast is automatically particularly relevant to the local fisheries board. Have you given any thought as to how, structurally, you might deal with those two perhaps orthogonal issues?
You are absolutely correct—the mixed-stock fisheries are a particular challenge and we do not really have enough science at the moment to manage them well. That said, Marine Scotland is already doing some very good science nationally on mixed-stock genetic sampling to try to understand what is happening.
I do not think that the structural issue conflicts with that because, nationally, the Government already undertakes research into aspects of salmon, particularly offshore, and local mechanisms already undertake research and data collection locally. That system works and it does not need particularly to change.
The challenge will come when we want to set quotas on licences for those sorts of fisheries—as we will probably need to do. If we do not know exactly where the fish are going or where they are from, how will we know what quota to set? Clearly, one of the strategic priorities for ministers will be to get that science done so that we can deliver that. I think that that is already happening and that ministers have already made it clear to Marine Scotland that that is a priority. As the science gets better, we will get better at setting quotas.
There is always a tendency among scientists to say, “You can’t do it until it’s perfect.” I am not persuaded of that argument. I think that we can do something that is not perfect but is better than the current situation. Our recommendations will be couched in those terms, setting out what we could do for the next five years and what we could do over the next two decades.
As a scientist who became an engineer, I agree with your view of science. You have to work with tolerances. Often, your data is not very accurate and you just have to live with that, unless you can improve it.
I am still interested in the structural issue of how you manage operations in which—if I can describe it diagrammatically—the fish that are being netted anywhere are going up the coast whereas the fish that are being angled are going up a river. Those are different stocks and different operations, which, as you say, are mixed. How do you manage that?
11:30
I do not think that there is a big structural challenge there. If we are going to go down a road of controlling culls and then issuing licences or quotas to cull salmon or any other kind of fish, it is almost certain that those licences or quotas will have to be issued nationally. If they were not, we would get into all sorts of conflict of interest issues, quite apart from anything else. Issuing quotas as part of the national structure is doable. SNH, Marine Scotland and SEPA already perform licensing functions for all sorts of other issues. If we already have the science, the marginal cost of adding a licence is not that great.
I identify myself with the convener’s remarks on participation in fisheries. That was going to be one of my questions, but I am pleased that the convener has raised it. In relation to that, what opportunities have you had, or will you be able to make, to connect with local communities beyond the fisheries boards to find out what the interest is? I take your point that there is good practice as well as some exclusive practice.
That was my first question; I suppose that my other question is about inclusion of fish.
When the committee considered the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, I was a bit embarrassed to find that I had not really thought very much about the coarse fishing aspect of the bill. That is from the people point of view but also in relation to the protection of fish beyond salmon and sea trout. I am species champion for sea trout, and I am worried about that species as well. I am just wondering about the broader issue.
We are heavily involved in consulting assorted industry bodies. There are lots of different bodies in this sport. There are coarse fish bodies, bodies devoted to pike and bodies devoted to grayling. I have found them very effective at articulating local interests in different parts of the country. That has worked fairly well. We have not yet engaged that well with local authorities and even community councils, but in so far as we have time we will try to do that as well. However, my impression is that those lead bodies do a pretty good job.
There is no question in my mind that a big part of the increased participation will originate with bodies such as Scottish Canals, of which I happen to be chairman—I will just declare that. Scottish Canals has just launched a new programme with the coarse angling body to promote getting kids out on the canals to fish for coarse fish. That is leading to trouble because there are parts of our community that like to eat carp and so on, so they go out on the canal with nets, which is illegal.
We then get into issues about policing—albeit not in the sense of Police Scotland. How do we deal with that? One of the workstreams that we are pursuing at the moment is the business of how we ensure adherence to wild fisheries legislation with very modest resource, for example with bailiffing and so on. I was in Ayr last night and Strathclyde the night before and there are fantastic examples there of voluntary bailiffing. If we can get that better co-ordinated, with proper national licensing and national training, we can feed into other agendas, such as employability. That can potentially take us into a lot of really interesting areas.
In relation to concerns about issues of conflict—between different groups such as netsmen and anglers, for example—some quite interesting models have been proposed in relation to agriculture and mediation. Under your national structures and leadership, are you considering opportunities for mediation and positive resolution?
Not yet. I am not persuaded that it will be needed—fingers crossed. However, I am involved in the tenant farming review so I am aware of that and of what the opportunities could be. I am also very aware of the potential cost.
I have two brief points and one question.
First, I think it was Jane Hope who talked about the need to gather better data and information in some regards. It is particularly relevant to the sea lice issue that I raised earlier, as access to the data is extremely important. A lot of the work that previous committees have done suggests that getting access to the existing detailed data on sea lice in particular populations is not that easy for some of the bodies that would benefit hugely from it.
Secondly, in your opening statement, you mentioned alien invasive species. This is a rather parochial point, but in Loch Ken in my area a very strong and thriving coarse fishery that was very important to the local economy has virtually been wiped out by American signal crayfish. I can see you nodding so you are obviously aware of the issue. The best advice available from SNH seems to be in the pamphlets it is handing out that advise coarse fishermen to make sure that they wash their gear out thoroughly before they go home while those animals spread up to two miles every night. I hope that you will be able to give considerable thought to the impact of alien species on our coarse fisheries in particular.
My question is simply this: how do you envisage guaranteeing the independence of a single commissioner who is appointed by and answerable to the Scottish ministers? I assume that such independence will be quite important.
We have a workstream to try to define more clearly the legal status, duties, powers and so on of such a commissioner. The extent to which that commissioner needs to be fully independent of the Government of the day needs quite a lot of thought. This is about democratically elected Governments having the tools to ensure that their priorities, whether they be about international agreements or policies, can be delivered.
For example, I was chairman of SNH for many years. It is an arm’s-length body and it gives good and robust independent advice. People do not always like it, but that is what it does. However, I was appointed by the Scottish ministers, I reported to the Scottish ministers, and I could be dismissed by the Scottish ministers at the drop of a hat. That seemed to me to be an entirely reasonable position because I was not elected and the ministers were.
I anticipate that the commissioner will be something fairly similar. They will operate at arm’s length but they will not be independent in the sense that the commissioner can go and do something that a democratically elected Government feels is not a priority.
I will follow that up with one thought. Would it be worth considering a model in which the commissioner is democratically elected by the local boards over which he or she would have authority to deliver the national priorities? I do not argue with the need for some organisation to be able to deliver national priorities and international commitments—I can absolutely understand that—but I wonder whether it might be worth considering the model I have just suggested.
We would certainly consider it. It is a very interesting idea, and it had not occurred to me.
You heard it here first.
I heard it here first; I will certainly consider it. I can just hear voices saying, “That is not democratic—what about all the people who are not involved in these local boards?” But, yes, let us think about it.
I will leave it with you.
We have experienced rivers that restock salmon and others that do not, and it is important to see the variable geographic impacts. How much do you take that into account when you think about the way in which the rivers should be managed? Science suggests that such approaches are possible and that they have been successful in some places. Do you envisage a place for remarks about restocking in your recommendations?
No. It would not be wise for the review to go into the detail of how to manage fisheries at a local level. We need to set up structures that are capable of deriving good, robust science and then making evidence-based decisions. That is important.
As you will be well aware, there is conflicting advice from scientists in relation to restocking. The important thing is that local delivery bodies can be free to set their priorities, raise money and get on and do things on the basis of decent advice. If they choose to stock, they should be free to do so subject to licences under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 and other regulations; if they choose not to stock, they should be free not to do so. We should not dictate that.
Jane Hope explained a little bit about international comparators of management. Does she have any international comparators on stocking?
I am afraid that I do not—I do not have enough knowledge myself. We asked some of the advisers to the panel to examine experience elsewhere, but we were particularly interested in structures and funding, so I am afraid that we do not have any international comparators on the details of how stocking is managed. However, the arguments are much the same in Ireland, New Zealand and Canada. They seem to boil down to how we get the balance between the local and national, what the role of Government is and how we raise the funds. I assume that you do not want to get into that now, but those are the sorts of issues that we have been considering.
I will expand a little on the restocking issue that the convener raised and, again, I will be rather parochial in the example that I use.
It might be going a bit far to say that the local fisheries trust in my constituency and a particular angling association on the River Cree were in open warfare, but there was considerable disagreement about the restocking policy that the angling association was following. There was bad feeling between two organisations that should have been working to the same end—we would all be a lot better off if they were—although I think that the situation is beginning to calm down.
It is right that there should not be a national policy on which rivers should be stocked; that should be the sort of decision that is made locally. However, do the witnesses envisage a commissioner having a role of arbitration in a circumstance such as the one that I described?
That takes us back to the point about mediation. I hope that, if we can come up with a structure of local delivery organisations that are constituted in a properly inclusive manner, the level of disagreement will tend to die down because people will have confidence that they have a voice in those bodies and that the organisations are, if not fully democratic, at least led inclusively.
That would mean that the situation of a fisheries board and a trust trying to do different things in the same piece of water would not arise. There would be one delivery body with a board that, by and large, people would be confident was inclusive and representative. The challenge for us is to make that happen.
I will think about whether the commissioner needs powers to mediate. It is a useful point, although we can easily envisage squabbles becoming easier in a way—people would decide to have a squabble about something and then hand it to the commissioner. It is sometimes quite good if people have to sort out their own problems.
It will be an interesting measure of your success if, in five years’ time, the situation on the Cree is looked upon as part of history.
We will put that down as a marker.
We have a final question—I am hopeful, but other members’ memories may have been jogged—from Graeme Dey.
I do not really have a question; it is an observation. Alex Fergusson suggested that the commissioner could be elected by the local organisations. I suggest that, if that were the case, there could be a risk of considerable turnover in commissioners. The witnesses might wish to consider that.
It is an interesting suggestion. I have not thought about it but I certainly will think about it. From day 1, my instinct has been to consider a model in which democratically elected Governments have a mechanism. That is the democratic channel.
That was a good introduction to the subject. I thank Andrew Thin and Jane Hope for their thoughts. There are developing issues.
With that, I close the meeting. Next week, on 28 May, the committee will take evidence from the land reform review group on its final report, and we will also consider the committee’s annual report.
Meeting closed at 11:45.