Subordinate Legislation
Landfill Allowances Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (Draft)
I remind people to turn off their mobile phones, if they have not already done so, as it avoids embarrassment later.
I welcome colleagues, members of the press and members of the public to our meeting. We have received apologies from Alasdair Morrison. Some visiting members are here this morning: John Home Robertson, Alasdair Morgan and Andrew Welsh. They are not required to come to the meeting, so they have come out of interest. We will come to the topic that they are interested in later.
Agenda item 1 is subordinate legislation. We have one instrument to consider under the affirmative procedure: the draft Landfill Allowances Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005. Parliament must approve the draft instrument before it can be formally made. The motion that is in front of the committee from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Lewis Macdonald, invites us to recommend to the Parliament that we approve the instrument. I welcome the minister, who is here to move the motion, and his officials.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee drew to our attention a couple of points of clarification that it sought, which have been provided by the Executive. Members have an extract of that committee's report.
Our usual practice is to have a session to clarify any technical matters or to allow an explanation of detail while the minister's officials are at the table with him. When we reach the debate, the minister will be on his own. I invite the minister to make opening remarks on the purpose of the instrument.
Thank you, convener. Like you, I am pleased that the ever-rising profile of environmental issues in the Parliament is attracting ever-greater attendance from members who are not on the committee. I hope that that is a sign of things to come.
The regulations make an important contribution to our proposals for dealing with waste. They are part and parcel of our efforts to modernise waste management in Scotland in line with the national waste plan, which the committee considered last year. Members are aware that, through the strategic waste plan, we have provided indicative resources of almost £1 billion through to 2020 to assist local authorities to increase recycling and to develop new ways of treating waste. The landfill allowance scheme, to which the regulations relate, is closely linked to that and sets clear limits on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that local authorities can send to landfill, so that they are in no doubt about their targets.
The regulations come at the end of a very long process. The convener will recall, from her involvement, the consultation on the measures that led to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. Other members who were in the Parliament in November 2001 will remember the debate in the Parliament on that United Kingdom bill.
The proposals are driven by our own ambitions, but part of the context is set by the European landfill directive, which places an obligation on member states to reduce dependence on landfill for the disposal of municipal waste. In the past, we have landfilled more than 90 per cent of our municipal waste. The landfill directive is targeted at biodegradable waste in order to reduce methane emissions—it is clear that that has wider significance in the context of greenhouse gases.
The Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 provides that the limits on landfilling in that respect should be allocated among the four countries of the United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The act allows ministers in those four countries to allocate landfill allowances to individual local authorities in a way that is consistent with the targets and which places a duty on local authorities not to landfill in excess of their holding of landfill allowances. That, in essence, is what is before the committee today.
The regulations have been developed through two stages of consultation and further contacts with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on behalf of local government. In essence, the regulations provide for a register of allowances and an allocation to each local authority. They allow local authorities to bank, borrow or trade their allowances to meet their targets flexibly—trading will be introduced in 2008. They provide for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to collect data to monitor the scheme and to calculate the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste from the data. They allow for the calculation of liability to penalties, should landfill in any year exceed the permitted allowance—taking account of borrowing, banking and trading—and they allow ministers to assess the level of any penalty to notify for payment.
The penalties, which are clearly an important part of the regulations, are required by section 9 of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003. We have introduced penalties in a phased way. The penalties are based on an assessment of tonnage of excess landfill multiplied by £10 per tonne in the first year—2005-06; £25 per tonne in the following year; £50 per tonne in the year after that—2007-08; and £150 per tonne from 2008-09.
Provision is made for liability to supplementary penalties should the UK fail to meet its target. We hope that that will not happen, but provision for the possibility must be made. Before any penalty for which the regulations provide is imposed, ministers will consult the local authority in question and consider representations from the authority before proceeding to the next stage. The 2003 act, which governs the regulations, allows ministers to waive liability to penalties, including liability to interest on the penalties.
The provision in regulations for liability to substantial penalties is a serious matter. However, of course it is not our intention that the powers should ever be required; our intention is that the targets should act, along with the very substantial grant support that we are providing, to ensure that local authorities are enabled and encouraged to meet their obligations. The provision for liability to penalties signals to everyone that the targets have great importance. It is for all of us to work together to reach the targets and our intention is that the regulations should underpin a partnership approach, whereby the Scottish Executive works with the UK Government and local authorities work with the Scottish Executive to achieve our objectives.
I invite members to ask questions or raise matters for clarification.
I want to ask about equity across local authorities. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that local authorities in areas in which the recycling and composting of biodegradable municipal waste can be done at low cost will perform quite well and will be able to build up credits that they can trade with local authorities that are doing less well, because the cost of recycling and composting is high in their areas. Will that create environmental justice problems in that some local authorities, in particular in rural areas, will be unable to recycle and compost as much as other authorities can do, so landfill sites in their areas will be open for longer? Such an approach would create an imbalance in the performance of different local authorities.
We acknowledge the importance of your point. I do not think that there is a particular urban/rural aspect to the matter, but I acknowledge that some authorities—in urban and in rural areas—will be in a better position than others will be to meet the targets. We chose the option that involves banking, borrowing and eventually trading in allowances so that we could put into the system the flexibility that we think will allow authorities that have a built-in advantage to press ahead and authorities that will inevitably need longer to make the investments to engage in trading and other mechanisms, so that they are not unduly penalised before they are in a position to meet their targets.
Year-on-year targets will apply to each local authority. Will targets be set at different levels for different authorities? Will there be a cap-and-trade system, whereby allowances will eventually start to be reduced year on year?
In essence, the overall target is set to decline over the period in question. The target of 1.8 million tonnes in 2005-06—the figure is broadly the same as the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that went to landfill in the last full year for which we have figures—is set to fall to 1.32 million tonnes by 2009-10.
Is that the Scotland target?
That is the Scotland target. Within that target, each local authority will be given an allocation, as was set out in the consultation document. The targets will have the force of the regulations for each local authority, but we will encourage local authorities to trade if that helps them. In other words, the targets are clear and firm, but they are not targets within which there is no flexibility or room for manoeuvre.
Will you clarify a couple of matters? First, allowances are set to achieve the Scottish target. Is the Scottish target a contribution towards the UK target?
It is.
Did the UK Government therefore have an influence over the extent of the Scottish target?
In the sense of—
I assume that the UK set a target, after which Scotland had to negotiate its target as part of that?
Yes.
Secondly, as I am sure that the minister is aware, COSLA contacted the committee to indicate its opposition to the proposed scheme. In its briefing to the committee, COSLA says:
"the proposed scheme has the potential to increase the risk of the targets not being met."
It goes on to say:
"Levels of waste growth are, in most cases, outwith the control of local authorities".
If COSLA, which represents most of our councils, is opposed to the regulations, what was the response of the other consultees?
The general thrust of the consultation responses was recognition of the need to take measures to reach the targets that have been set. We consulted individual local authorities, COSLA and other interested parties, including the landfill operators. The general response to the consultation was that action needs to be taken to make progress in that regard. Charles Stewart Roper might like to give some detail on the responses.
Charles Stewart Roper (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
Most of the responses that we received were from the local authority sector and they broadly reflect the concerns that COSLA raised.
We received a few responses from industry representatives who, in general, are strongly in favour of the scheme and want us to press ahead with it quickly. They said that they are in favour of high levels of penalties at an early stage and of getting the scheme up and running quickly. That was the flavour of the responses from the industry.
May I ask a final question?
Very briefly.
Given the relationship between our target and the UK targets, how do our projected percentage decreases compare with those in the rest of the UK?
I am not familiar with the figures for England and Wales. Charles Stewart Roper might have the information, however.
The basic figure for the landfill directive target year—the 2009-10 figure—is based on our share of the data in the 1995 baseline year, which is the landfill directive baseline year. The basic target—the landfill directive target—was divvied out between the different parts of the United Kingdom purely on the basis of data that were available for 1995. In a sense therefore, no discretion was available to us.
Our track from now to 2009-10—the shape of our line between now and the landfill directive target deadline—is based on a decision of the Scottish ministers. The figures appear in a UK statutory instrument, but that is how the WET act works. The figures were set by Scottish ministers and communicated to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, where they were built into its regulation.
What will the effect of the penalties be on the voluntary environmental groups that have been contracted by local authorities to recycle or facilitate the reuse of furniture, for example? Highland Council has contracted a certain amount of tonnage from such organisations, yet the necessary recycling centres have not been set up to collect the materials. I am anxious that the penalties are not passed on to voluntary groups who, through no fault of their own, are unable to meet the targets.
The voluntary groups tell me that the council told them that they must speak to the Executive on the matter. However, the Executive told the groups that they must speak to the council. I have been in touch with Ross Finnie's office, but I would appreciate the minister saying something on the subject.
I am happy to comment. I am familiar with the specifics of the matter that the member has raised; I think that I am right in saying that it concerns Lochaber environmental group and Homemade Caithness, both of which are in the category that the member described. We will meet those groups shortly to discuss how their issues might be addressed.
It is important to distinguish between the strategic waste fund and the funding that it provides for specific projects to go forward and the targets. In a sense, the regulations are a response to a failure to meet targets. They set limits on the amounts that can go to landfill, whereas the strategic waste fund promotes alternatives. If projects are in difficulty in relation to funding from the strategic waste fund, there may be other methods by which funding could be provided to allow them to continue dealing with waste issues in ways that help us to meet our overall target.
That was helpful.
Can the minister enlighten us on the subject of voluntary recycling as an activity in other areas of Scotland? Does Highland have fewer contracted voluntary recycling projects such as those that Maureen Macmillan described? I would like to get a flavour of the predicament in which Highland finds itself now that it has those targets to meet.
All local authorities face targets. In any case, there would be no point in setting targets if we did not think that they would make a difference. Of course, local authorities will regard the targets as demanding; that will be as true for Highland Council as it will be for every other council. The combination of measures from the council and from voluntary bodies will vary from area to area, but the general pattern is that, although councils are taking forward a lot of their own work, they are engaging with providers in the voluntary sector—and, in some cases, in the private sector—where appropriate and where such actions support their efforts to meet targets.
I hear what the minister has said, but there has been no indication of percentages. At the moment, it might be too difficult to secure an answer to that question from other local authority areas. Problems with the on-going transportation of landfill waste to Peterhead and Perth from Highland show that, because of issues such as sparsity, the council still has a long way to go to catch up. I wonder whether your allocations take into account the long period of underinvestment that has brought Highland Council to this position.
They certainly should do so. For example, the consultation document shows that, in 2005-06, Highland Council's BMW to landfill allowance is 86,216 tonnes. That figure is derived from the status quo. By 2009-10, Highland should have reduced landfilling of BMW to 60,817 tonnes, and that also broadly reflects its share of the overall allowance.
The process by which councils will get from where they are today to where we want them to be by the end of the period will vary from area to area and will be tougher for some. Some will face the challenges earlier and others later. As a result, the banking, borrowing and trading allowances have been designed to help councils that have to meet particularly difficult challenges while ensuring that every council works towards meeting these demanding targets.
The baseline assumption is that 63 per cent by weight of the municipal waste that is collected is biodegradable, and I presume that councils receive brownie points for whatever is extracted from that. If a council can encourage its residents to compost at home, is there any way of measuring that contribution to its overall effort?
I do not know whether Charles Stewart Roper can provide a technical answer to that question. I admit that no such answer immediately occurs to me.
I am afraid to say that, although much thought has been given to that matter, no full conclusion has been reached. Obviously, stimulating a tonne of home composting would mean a tonne less municipal waste—of which, as you said, 63 per cent would be biodegradable. As a result, the council in question would not receive any credit for the other element that you mentioned, because all material from home composting is biodegradable.
It is very difficult to capture and measure such amounts. That said, it is still worth stimulating such activity, because we need to reduce waste arisings generally. As for measuring the content of municipal waste, we hope that more home composting will mean a lower proportion of such waste. As a result, that 63 per cent figure might fall or might not rise as much as it would otherwise. Although there is a mechanism for feeding back information, there is no immediate way of capturing the full volume of home composting. It is simply a very difficult thing to measure.
I am glad that I am not the only one who does not have a full technical answer to that question. However, the general answer is that councils should not be penalised under this system for being more successful than they are required to be.
Would a voluntary scheme have enabled us to meet our targets?
If we had introduced a scheme that did not have regulatory requirements, we would have run a greater risk of missing our targets. We were required to establish a mechanism to make it as likely as possible that we would meet those targets in time.
I do not need to tell members that the consequences of failing to hit the targets—which would result in fines of up to €500,000 a day—would be a most regrettable failure to achieve our environmental objectives and would have a regrettable impact on Scottish public expenditure. Therefore, the scheme is designed to make it more likely that we will hit our targets by assigning responsibility to local authorities for the areas for which they are responsible and providing them with a degree of flexibility that will, we hope, make it equally easy for councils in different parts of the country to make their contribution over the period in question.
We have given the points of clarification a bit of a going over, so we move to formal consideration of the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the draft Landfill Allowances Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005 be approved.—[Lewis Macdonald.]
Everyone in the committee is in favour of reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfill, which has been a big issue in recent years. The debate is not about whether there should be regulations to achieve that objective—there is probably quite a good case for such regulations—but about what the nature of those regulations should be. I am slightly concerned about that. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has contacted us, says:
"This power introduces a degree of uncertainty that is unlikely to assist in long term planning or to promote the establishment of an effective trading regime."
It might be worth while inviting some of the local authorities and SEPA to give evidence to the committee before we take a decision on the motion, rather than just rubber-stamping the regulations.
We could put back the decision to next week if necessary, but I would be happy to take it today, because we have COSLA's representations and we have been able to question the minister on the matter. Unless you want to propose formally that we put our decision back to next week, I would be keen to take it today.
I will do that if I need to.
The clerk has advised me that, if you had wanted to do that, you should have made that proposal before the minister moved the motion. We are now considering the motion, so we have to address it.
How can I do that without hearing the minister's response to the debate?
You will not be able to do that. You should have made your proposal earlier. We are now in the middle of a debate, the motion has been moved and I have opened the discussion to arguments for and against the motion. You would have to vote against the motion and, if it was not agreed to, the Executive would have to decide whether to bring it back to the committee.
What is the point of giving members the opportunity to get points of clarification from the minister if they are not allowed to respond to them?
You should have made your point before we began the formal debate. That is the point of the clarification process.
In that case, will you clarify what my options are?
If you have such strong feelings that you would rather not agree to the motion without having a lengthier discussion with other representations and more evidence, your only option is to vote against the motion. I realise that that is not an easy situation, but we have procedures to follow, which is partly to be fair to everybody.
I will make a more positive contribution. It is good to see a phased introduction of a response to a European directive; I have been on the receiving end on occasions on which we have ignored a European directive until we are right up against infraction procedures, which is not a happy place to be. It is entirely right to introduce measures that we have to take in response to European directives in the time that we are given, which is given to us to enable such phased introduction. I welcome the regulations.
I am minded to support the motion, but I would like reassurance from the minister that he will target the strategic waste fund at those local authorities that have particular difficulties and which incur particularly high costs in diverting compostable waste from the waste stream. I would not like us to be in a situation in a few years' time in which those local authorities that have great difficulties are using the tradable quota credit system to buy their way out of dealing with the problems that they face.
Nora Radcliffe's point about the contribution of domestic composting was well made. I would like the committee to hear about a mechanism for bringing that into the system—whether it is part of the trading system or whatever. Composting must be factored in.
I am minded to support the motion, but I have concerns about what Mark Ruskell said. I do not want matters to be skewed too much one way. Some authorities have taken difficult decisions, which have had consequences, to have landfill in their areas. Some authorities have diverted landfill to other areas, but they should not be rewarded when other authorities have had to take hard decisions for which they have been unpopular.
It will not be easy for any local authority to meet the targets, but if the nation is to meet its targets, we must encourage each local authority to do its bit and, in turn, each household to do its bit. Some local authorities can do far more to encourage recycling and reuse, rather than simply stuffing waste in a bag and sending it to the dump.
It is positive to examine how the scheme will be applied. We will have to review how it works in practice. It is all very well to say that the instrument is positive, but it is a fact that people started with handicaps that have never been caught up with. Mark Ruskell talked about what makes it difficult for Highland Council and other authorities to meet the conditions, whether or not they take hard decisions. COSLA has suggested that the scheme is probably not the best way in which to proceed.
What I am saying is not negative; I am just unhappy with the suggestion that some people are not pulling their weight. Members should respect the fact that local knowledge suggests that we must be careful about what we say, so that the whole country is taken along. I am unhappy about the tone that has developed, because not enough understanding has been shown of the difficulties that are faced in some areas.
The scheme is positive in the sense that it is clear. I read the Executive's statement of the options that were available to it and the fines of €500,000 a day should concentrate everybody's minds. We all agree that we should send less waste to landfill and that we should recycle more, but without a stick to concentrate the mind, it is difficult for local authorities to prioritise expenditure and staff time. The strategic waste fund gives authorities an opportunity to plan.
I am glad that ministers have developed a phased implementation scheme. The situation will have to be monitored, but after examining the alternatives, I think that the scheme provides room for flexibility while setting a clear target. The Executive needs to talk more to local authorities to ensure that everybody is engaged and is on target to implement the scheme.
I agree with Karen Gillon's comments about what local authorities do by way of campaigns to communicate with the public. Edinburgh has a waste awareness campaign to encourage people to use resources more wisely and to create less waste. Nora Radcliffe's points about composting were bang on. Over time, it would be useful to capture that. I hope that the Executive will commit to considering that.
It is important to recognise COSLA's concerns, which have been mentioned. COSLA has worked closely with us and has been fully involved in the consultation process. The scheme differs in several respects from that which applies elsewhere in the UK, largely as a result of the effectiveness of that consultation process. For instance, we have adopted a phased approach, which means that the penalties in the first three years will be less severe than they will be in succeeding years. I think that I am right in saying that that is unique in the UK: Scotland is the only country that has taken such an approach. That will meet some of the concerns that local authorities have.
To meet our obligations, the regulations must be in place by 1 April, so I am glad that the committee is discussing them today. That is important. We are keen to ensure that the concerns that local government has expressed continue to be addressed. It is important that that should be the case. To achieve our objectives, we need stick and carrot. We would not expect the stick to be as popular as the carrot. What we are proposing is proportionate to the objectives that we have set. Broadly, Scotland's local authorities are willing partners in the process of reducing landfill, so I expect that they will work with us closely on that.
An issue that councils have raised is what factors will be considered when penalties are applied. I re-emphasise that the regulations give ministers discretion in the application of penalties. We would want to consider such matters as whether a local authority had received grants for tackling waste issues or had experienced unexpected growth in waste that might have made a difference to its ability to achieve the targets. A perfectly legitimate reason for not quite meeting a target might be unforeseen delays in commissioning plant. In such circumstances, we would want to know what the council had done about any deficiency on its part. We have designed the trading scheme to allow councils collectively to address such deficiencies and to reduce their impact on any one council.
The strategic waste fund must be cost effective. We have discussed with local authorities and others whether allowances might be redistributed as we proceed, to reflect the fact that different councils face different difficulties. If some councils obtain better support from the strategic waste fund that allows them to provide more low-cost solutions, we might want to talk to them about the redistribution of their allowances. In any case, the opportunity for trading will mean that councils will be able to reduce their costs. Concerns have been raised about the provision for ministers to suspend trading but, again, we would take into account all the different factors.
The regulations are about working with councils to achieve agreed objectives. We are all signed up to the achievement of those objectives and the regulations provide the proper basis for us, together with local authorities, to make progress on them in the future.
The question is, that motion S2M-2405, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the draft Landfill Allowances Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005 be approved.
I thank Lewis Macdonald and his officials. I ask the deputy minister to stay in his place for item 2.
Conservation of Salmon (Esk Salmon Fishery District) Regulations 2005<br />(SSI 2005/24)
We come to item 2.
On a point of order, convener. During the discussion of item 1 we had a degree of confusion about the alternatives for dealing with the draft Landfill Allowances Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005. As we move to deal with another statutory instrument, which could also be controversial, can we get clarification on the alternatives that are open to us? If a member was of a mind to propose an alternative to the two options that we will have when we deal with the motion, at what stage would it be appropriate for them to do so?
I am grateful to you for making that point. I have asked Mark Brough to draw up after the meeting a note about how we handle motions, because once they are on our agenda we have to deal with them or decide to defer them. Normally, if we are dealing with a negative instrument and the relevant minister is not at the committee, we ask the clerks whether we have time to kick it back a week or so. The Conservation of Salmon (Esk Salmon Fishery District) Regulations 2005 were originally scheduled to be dealt with by the committee before the February recess, but because Andrew Welsh lodged a motion to annul, we were given more time to bring it to today's meeting.
The upshot on these regulations, as opposed to the regulations with which we dealt under item 1, is as follows. We have to report to Parliament on the regulations by Monday; that is our deadline. If members are not happy with the minister's proposal and want to take more evidence—the approach that Richard Lochhead took to our earlier discussion—we would have to arrange a meeting to discuss the regulations before Monday. They will go through automatically unless we agree to Andrew Welsh's motion, which would annul the regulations. Members' options are to vote for the motion if they support it, vote against it if they do not support it or call for another meeting between now and Monday to debate the motion to annul, if they want to take more evidence. I know that that sounds complex, but because of the timescale involved we do not have many alternatives. Does anyone seek clarification?
On the issue of asking the minister for clarification—
Sorry, I just wanted to check that everybody was okay with my answer to your point of order and that nobody wants to ask about the procedure.
I seek clarification on something that you said, which might, inadvertently, have misled members. You referred to our annulling the regulations. If we agree to the motion to annul, the regulations are not annulled; we have to lodge a motion before the Parliament to annul them. Is that right?
Yes. Thank you for that helpful point. That is what I meant to say initially. I did not have a scripted answer; I was asked to rule on something without notice.
If everybody is okay, we will now deal with the regulations. We will take questions seeking clarification before we debate the motion before us. I ask the minister to explain the background before we get to the debate. I will then invite members to ask questions. I can see all members nodding vigorously; I will take their questions when we get to that point.
Members who are familiar with the Gaelic language will know that uisge is Gaelic for water and therefore Esk rivers appear in all sorts of places where Gaelic was spoken 1,000 years ago but is perhaps no longer spoken today. For the avoidance of doubt, the regulations relate to the Esk district in Angus and the Mearns, not to any of the other Esk rivers or bodies of water in Scotland. It is important to make that point.
The second point to make is that the regulations are concerned with the conservation of salmon. They are made under the provisions of section 10A of the Salmon Act 1986, which was inserted by the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Act 2001 and which allows Scottish ministers to make salmon conservation regulations either upon application to us or otherwise, where we consider it necessary or expedient to do so for the conservation of salmon.
In this case, the regulations have been made upon application to the Scottish ministers by the Esk district salmon fishery board, to promote the conservation of early-running salmon—which are known as spring salmon—returning to the rivers in the district for which that board has responsibility. Those rivers are the North Esk, the South Esk, the Bervie water and the Lunan water.
As in many other districts, such arrangements have been put in place on a voluntary basis, and we and others had clearly hoped that that would be possible in this case. However, it has not proved possible for the board to reach agreement on a voluntary basis with all those with an interest in the fisheries on those rivers, and it is for that reason that the board has sought the order.
The regulations are part of a package of two instruments that is being introduced, and it is important to be clear about that. The regulations provide for three things. First, on the use of rod and line, they provide that, between the start of the season on 16 February and the end of May, anglers should use single or double barbless hooks in catching fish. Secondly, they prohibit the retention of any salmon caught by rod and line during the same period. In other words, the regulations introduce catch and release on a statutory basis between the beginning of the season and the end of May. The third aspect relates to netting. The regulations restrict the level of netting effort during the month of May to that which has applied in recent years.
It is important to be clear that these regulations relate to catch and release and to the use of appropriate hooks for anglers, and that they impact on netsmen only for the month of May. There is a separate order—the annual close-time order—which is also being brought into force and which extends the annual close time for netting to 30 April. That separate order is not impacted on by the regulations that we are considering today. It is not open either to the committee or to ministers to remove the close-time order, which is a separate instrument. I can explain why that difference applies in answer to questions if members so wish.
The combined effect of the package—the close-time order, which ends netting in February, March and April, and the regulations that restrict netting in May and introduce catch and release until the end of May—is to reduce the number of spring salmon killed by both anglers and netsmen during that period, for conservation purposes to protect the stock. Both the regulations and the close-time order apply for five years from 16 February this year and will be subject to review after the end of that five-year period.
What we are considering today is the catch-and-release proposal and the restriction of netting effort in May. For clarification, that is a restriction to the level of effort that currently applies, and members will see set out in the regulations what that means in practical terms.
I hope that that was helpful as an introduction. I am happy to answer questions.
Just about everybody wants to ask questions. I should add for the record that Fergus Ewing MSP has joined us. I invite Andrew Welsh to ask the first question.
What mortality rate is allowed for in the catch-and-release proposal?
The catch-and-release proposals are based on an expectation of survival rates of 80 per cent or so—in other words, a mortality rate of up to 20 per cent.
If catch and release only really works if it is policed and monitored, what reassurances have been received about adequate policing of the proposal?
The district salmon fishery board has bailiffs in place. It employs two full-time water bailiffs, whose job will be to monitor and police the requirements. I understand that it is also appointing honorary bailiffs to support that effort, to ensure that the regulations and other limits are properly enforced. I agree that the regulations will be effective only if they are properly enforced, and it is important that the board should do that.
Can you confirm that sea trout are included in the total catch-and-release scheme?
Yes. The ban applies to salmon and sea trout.
Can you confirm that, in recent years, the fish counter has shown that the number of fish that are ascending the river is generally higher than it was in the 1980s?
Let me just look at the figures, which I have with me. The broad pattern is that the number of fish returning to the coast has decreased, although the number of fish that escape capture and go on to spawn—which is an important distinction—is increasing. The number of fish that escape capture is increasing, but the evidence that we have collected indicates that the total stock of spring salmon, or early-running salmon, is declining. That is the basis for the conservation measures. It is important to make the distinction, as there is not the same concern over summer stock that there is over the spring stock.
I have a sense that you have a huge number of questions to ask, Andrew.
I have only one more.
I want to let other members ask questions, and they may have the same questions to ask as you. However, if you have only one more question, I will let you ask it briefly.
Thank you, convener.
Minister, can you confirm that the number of spawning salmon in the North Esk in April and May is steady or increasing?
Yes, the number of salmon that are escaping to spawn is increasing. I have here some figures comparing the present number with the number in the 1980s. The total number of spring salmon fell from just under 4,500 20 years ago to just over 2,600 in the period 2001 to 2003; however, in the same period, the number of spring spawners doubled from just over 1,000 to just over 2,100. That reflects what I suggested a moment ago: the stock is getting smaller—the number of fish that are getting back to the river is decreasing—although the number that are going on to spawn is increasing. The difficulty with the convergence of those two lines is that, if the number of fish that reach the coast continues to decrease until it matches the number that are spawning, there is a danger that the total number of stock will fall off the edge of a cliff. That is the conservation concern that lies behind the regulations.
I have two brief questions. First, considering the information that you have given us in response to Andrew Welsh's questions, why have you decided to act now on the basis of information that appears to be relatively positive? Secondly, what consultation was entered into with various groups before the regulations were drafted?
The figures could be regarded as positive only if we focused on the number of salmon that escape to spawn. In the conservation of any stock of fish, the critical question is not how many are escaping to spawn but how many are swimming up the river or coming back to the coast from the sea. The main conservation concerns about salmon lie in what is happening to them out at sea and the fact that the numbers that are coming back to the east coast rivers are declining sharply. Going further back, the average annual catch of spring salmon in the Esk district 50 years ago was 10 times what it is now. There is a significant wider conservation issue, which has increased in severity in spite of the fact that the number of spawning stock is increasing.
The answer to your second question is related to the point that I made in my opening remarks about our wanting a voluntary agreement to be in force. Voluntary agreements have been in force on these rivers in the past. The Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland, which represents the netsmen, has had a voluntary agreement in place since 2000, under which it has deferred the beginning of netting for the first six weeks of the season, until 1 April. That voluntary agreement has been effective and is part of the reason for the increase in the number of spawning stock. Unfortunately, one member left the association and no longer abides by that voluntary agreement, and pressure is being put on the stock as a consequence.
Equally, since 1994 there has been a voluntary agreement for catch and release in relation to angling, which applies in many other rivers. Unfortunately, in the Esk district, again because not everyone who is involved in angling has fully bought into the approach, it appears that only 40 to 50 per cent of the catch is being released, whereas the figure for the Dee is closer to 90 per cent and the figure for some other east coast rivers is around 70 per cent. The voluntary agreements that applied in the past have broken down and the efforts that the Esk district salmon fishery board has made to put in place other voluntary agreements have failed. For that reason, the board seeks statutory measures.
What about the extent of consultation?
The board was responsible for bringing forward its proposals. We consulted our scientific advisers in the Fisheries Research Services laboratory, whose advice was critical, Scottish Natural Heritage and other parties in the Executive who have responsibility in relation to the matter. We also consulted the Salmon and Trout Association and the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland. There is general agreement that there is an issue about spring salmon.
Have efforts been made directly to consult the anglers who regularly use the rivers?
Consultation with individuals was part of the process that the board undertook in preparing to bring forward the regulations.
Who makes up the Esk district salmon fishery board?
I have brought a list of members. Like most salmon fishery boards, the board comprises proprietors, netsmen, tenant netsmen and anglers, including members of angling clubs. It was established by statute and includes everyone who has a stake in exploiting the fishery on the rivers in its district.
You said that more salmon are going to spawn but fewer are returning. What is the Executive doing to try to ascertain why that is happening? For example, is there research into the bycatch from industrial fishing or the impact of seals?
There is serious concern about what is happening in the Atlantic. We are fully engaged with the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, which is an international body that considers such matters. Clearly, if we knew all the reasons for the phenomenon, life would be a little easier. The International Atlantic Salmon Research Board is considering the matter. There are various suspects: climate change and changing sea temperatures can affect patterns of fish movement at sea; changes in currents can affect the movement of the food supplies that salmon locate when they are at sea—in other words the salmon become lost when they follow a food supply that is moving in a different direction from the one in which it moved in the past; and the pelagic fishing sector appears in some cases to be catching quite a lot of salmon as a bycatch from surface trawling for mackerel. Those are among the chief suspects in our search for reasons why the total stock of spring salmon is declining.
It is important to make the point that the spring salmon stock is genetically distinct from the summer salmon stock. I said to Andrew Welsh that the summer stock is not facing the same threats as the spring stock is facing, which is a significant point—it is not a question of two stocks that comprise the same type of salmon but return home at different times. Spring and summer salmon are genetically distinct. The risk is not to the summer salmon stock in the Esk but specifically to the spring stock, which spawns higher up river and takes longer to become fit to go to sea and to return. In some respects, the spring salmon stock is less robust because of where the fish spawn and the circumstances of their migration to and from the sea. Therefore, if measures are not taken to protect the spring stock, it will be in jeopardy.
Who owns the traps and how does their fish catch compare to that of anglers on the river?
Perhaps David Dunkley has details of the ownership of the different forms of exploitation.
David Dunkley (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
The traps to which the regulations refer are the parts of nets—bag nets, fly nets or other stake nets that are operated in the district—in which fish are caught. The traps are operated by either the owners or tenants of net fisheries in the district.
How does their catch compare with anglers' catches?
In recent years, the anglers' catch has tended to exceed the net catch. That was the case until fairly recently, when there has been a small upturn in fishing effort in the Esk district. During the period in which the fishing season was deferred by members of the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland, the balance swung from there being predominantly net-caught fish to there being predominantly rod-caught fish, but that balance has changed back again as a result of additional salmon being caught in the early part of the season.
The other point to note is that nets cannot catch and release. Things depend on which method of rod catch is measured and whether the number of caught and retained fish or the total rod catch, which may be much higher, is measured, but some fish are being released.
I will explain that. Netsmen do not catch and release because they are commercial fisheries that catch salmon to sell them. There is more of a tendency for anglers to be game fishers, and catching and releasing is therefore a realistic option.
According to submissions from various interested parties, the scientific case was made in a 37-page document by the Esk district salmon fishery board. What was the response of the Fisheries Research Services to that case?
The board's initial proposals were to extend the close season to the end of May and to extend catch and release to the end of June. The Fisheries Research Services thought that that was unnecessary and excessive, but that there was a conservation case that required to be answered, which is the basis on which the regulations have been produced. In other words, the regulations will have a less severe impact on netsmen and anglers than the board's initial proposals would have had, but the Fisheries Research Services made it absolutely clear that there is a real conservation issue that affects the spring stock. Therefore, measures had to be taken.
A scientific appraisal of such instruments would be useful for the committee in the future.
I have two brief questions. The Executive talks about reviewing the Conservation of Salmon (River Annan Salmon Fishery District) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/37)—which are next on our agenda—before they end, but there are no plans to have such a review of the SSI that we are now considering, despite its seeming much more controversial. Why is that?
The regulations relating to the River Annan arise from similar circumstances, in which a single proprietor has made it difficult to proceed with voluntary agreements. However, the difference between the Esk and the River Annan is that there is a permanent Fisheries Research Services station on the North Esk, which allows continuous monitoring of what has been caught.
I ask David Dunkley to elaborate on what he said about the number of fish that netters and anglers catch. What has been the trend in the number of netters who have worked on the river in recent years?
Over the past few years, the trend in the number of netsmen who operate has been fairly stable, but it is significantly down from the numbers that there were in the heyday of the salmon fisheries back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. There are probably five recognisable fishing groups in the district now. Previously, there were one or two major groups, but the big salmon fishing company that used to operate no longer exists. I suppose that we are talking about a maximum of half a dozen fisheries in the district.
It is worth noting in that connection that the Esk remains the largest net fishery on the east coast of Scotland.
You have referred to the advice that you received from the Fisheries Research Services freshwater laboratory. On 2 August, Mr Beveridge of the FRS gave advice on the Esk board's application, in which he said:
"The Board's internal scientific case is extensively flawed. Their interpretation is not always even-handed and (unsurprisingly) includes a measure of advocacy."
Why did you decide to proceed on the basis of a case that, according to the advisers who you say have a role in providing you with advice, was "extensively flawed"?
As Mr Ewing will have heard in my response to an earlier question, I considered the case that the board put forward as well as the comments of Mr Beveridge and his colleagues at the FRS. We came to the view that we should follow the scientific advice that was provided by the FRS.
How could you follow it if FRS said that the case was "extensively flawed"?
No, that is—
I assume that you do not disagree that Mr Beveridge was correct. If you accept that, surely he was correct that the advice was flawed?
No. If Mr Ewing had listened to the point that I made in response to an earlier question, he would have heard me say that the scientific advice that we chose to accept was not the board's initial proposal but Mr Beveridge's scientific advice. Mr Beveridge said that the board's initial proposals were excessive in terms of their impact on both netsmen and anglers and that they went beyond what was required. The advice that Mr Beveridge provided to us forms the basis for what we have done in the regulations.
To pursue the point, in a letter to Mr Stansfeld of 8 October, Mr Youngson of the FRS said that the board's proposal was essentially based on the FRS findings for Scotland as a whole. In particular, Mr Youngson says to Mr Stansfeld:
"You do seem to have a point regarding a mismatch between the Board's so-called PFA values and values generated from the Logie counter."
Surely that casts serious doubt on the evidence base that you believe justifies the regulations?
I am not sure whether Mr Ewing is hearing my replies clearly, although I think that I am making the point fairly clearly. The evidence base on which the regulations are based is not the initial case from the board but the advice from the FRS.
Although the points that Mr Ewing makes are all very interesting, the fact remains that the decision to bring forward the regulations was taken not on the basis of the board's initial proposals but on the basis of the FRS advice as to what we needed to do in order to conserve the stock of spring salmon in the Esk salmon fishery district.
I understand that the original catch-and-release proposal was for up to 30 June and that it now relates to 31 May. That proposal has changed. What has changed in the restriction in the level of net fishing?
The initial proposal from the board was that the annual close-time order should run to the end of May. It now runs to the end of April. In respect of both angling and netting, the board's initial proposals went further than our scientific advisers believed it was necessary to go. We brought forward the regulations on the basis of our scientific advice.
The point remains that it is the evidence and not the proposal that I am challenging. I will move on, however.
It has been put to me that catch and release may risk disease. The point is one with which Mr Dunkley is familiar. I understand that the argument has the backing of Dr David Summers of the Tay district salmon fishery board, although I have not had direct contact with Dr Summers on the matter. In particular, I understand that
"Putting back damaged or diseased fish creates a larger infection pool for the fungal infection ‘Saprolegnia' particularly in rivers like the Esks and Ericht where narrow barriers cause concentrations of fish to build up."
The point is that
"Infection created by diseased or damaged fish being returned vastly outweighs any benefits catch and return would give."
Those who support the precautionary principle would be concerned about that. What is the minister's response?
I am entirely confident that Malcolm Beveridge has taken those considerations into account in making his recommendations. Members will be aware that the catch-and-release scheme operates on a voluntary basis on many other rivers and is not responsible for the kind of problems that Mr Ewing suggests. The measures that we are putting in place are intended to achieve the same outcomes as the voluntary approach that we and the board were seeking to put in place, which applies on many other rivers. The scientific advice that we have received is that the operation of a catch-and-release scheme until the end of May is appropriate to and helpful in the conservation of stock, which remains our critical objective.
What assessment have you done of the impact of catch-and-release schemes on angling tourism in Scotland? Do you agree that such schemes could have an adverse impact on angling tourism, which is a staple of the rural economy?
The value of angling tourism is not in doubt; the impact of catch-and-release schemes on tourism or on the economic benefits of angling is much more dubious. I do not accept Fergus Ewing's view. The Dee is perhaps the fishery district that is closest to my home. On the river Dee in Aberdeenshire, in excess of 90 per cent of fish caught are released, and I have received no indication that angling tourism on the Dee has suffered as a result of that. Some anglers will not fish a river if they have to put the fish back; however, there are others who think that catch and release is a good idea. Although some people go elsewhere, others want to fish in a catch-and-release fishery.
It is 28 years since I was adopted as the Labour candidate for North Angus and Mearns, and a bit of water has flowed down the Dee since then.
You did not win, then?
I did not even stand for election.
The rest is history. Get to your question, please.
I still take an interest in fisheries matters, however, both because they are important in my constituency and because I was, briefly, the minister with responsibility for fisheries. I worked with David Dunkley back in 2000. My experience, especially on the Tweed, gives me grounds for suspecting that decisions can be driven by vested interests rather than by objective conservation considerations. The minister might concede that concern about that exists throughout Scotland. Perhaps he can comment on that.
As John Home Robertson knows from his personal experience of what happens on the Tweed and elsewhere, the work of district salmon fisheries boards is governed by statute and is constructed in such a way as to involve representation from all those who actively exploit fisheries on a river. The operation of the boards varies from place to place, and I recognise the point that he makes. Where boards are ineffective or inactive, they might be seen also to be partial; therefore, we would encourage the model of active and effective salmon management. It is hoped that the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Act 2001 will assist us in doing that.
John Home Robertson will be familiar with the freshwater fisheries forum that we have set up to engage with all stakeholders from around Scotland to find ways in which we can modernise the management of fish stocks in our rivers. Our aim is to ensure that everyone is represented and that all those who are responsible for the management of those stocks remain focused on the need for a sustainable fishery for the future.
I will come back to the issue of structures in a moment. The minister referred to the second of the statutory instruments that we are discussing, which is not up for decision in the committee. It would, in effect, take 10 weeks off the legal netting time on the Esk. Does he acknowledge that that is likely to have a significant effect on the viability of netting operations on the Esk?
It will have some effect. In the past, a voluntary agreement has applied until 1 April; therefore, the effect of the close-time order will really only be on the month of April. The scientific evidence shows greatest concern for February and March runs, a fair degree of concern for April, and some concern for May. In other words, the later in the year, the less the concern, but there is concern for the whole spring stock.
But is there not evidence from experience around Scotland that if you go on squeezing the legal netting industry by extending the close time and other restrictions, the cumulative effect tends to be the shutting down of more and more businesses?
It is a matter of regret that one of the netsmen on the Esk chose to abandon the voluntary arrangements that were in place and to leave the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland. You may say that that is another story, but the point is that netting and angling efforts are sustainable if there is the will on both sides to be mutually sustainable. The moment it breaks down on either side, it becomes difficult for both to harvest the surplus fish. That is when the requirement for statutory action comes into play.
Sure, but is there not evidence from around Scotland that the cumulative effect of more and more restrictions is the shutting down of fisheries? I think that Mr Dunkley referred to some figures on that, specifically for the Esk. There has been a huge reduction in the number of legal netting operations around Scotland, has there not?
That is the case, although not necessarily as a result of restrictions, but as a result of buy-out agreements between fishery boards and individual netsmen.
I have an observation on that, which follows from where I live—
Is it an observation or a question for clarification?
It is leading to a question. Last month, I was walking along the Tweed by a closed fishing station near where I live. There were no fishermen there, but there were three adult seals making free with the scarce spring fish. They were not there when there were nets, and they do not pay any attention to close times, do they? Are you at all concerned about the fact that you are exposing scarce stocks to bigger dangers?
I refer to your earlier question on the impact of increasing restrictions. It is important to be clear that many of the restrictions that have been placed on the netting industry have been accompanied by compensation arrangements. Part of the board's proposals for the Esk district is that compensation should be paid, which will include compensation to netsmen. The restrictions on netting will not greatly reduce the take that formerly applied in February and March. It will limit the take in May to what currently happens. It will not increase the ecological dangers from other sources for those months. April is the one month when there is a significant change, in order to promote better conservation of stock.
Finally, if I may, then I will shut up—
Be very brief, because I want to get on.
You may recall that five years ago the Executive launched a consultation document on "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries", which proposed to drag the management of rivers out of the middle ages and into the 21st century. Are you making any progress with that?
We are. The freshwater fisheries forum is the key instrument for making progress. I do not need to tell committee members that there can be severe differences of opinion on priorities within the freshwater fisheries community. The forum has helped us to resolve some of those differences. There is an increasing willingness on all parts to examine how we can secure the conservation of the stock for future fishermen, both netsmen and anglers.
Three members around the table have questions. I encourage them to be brief.
Why did 20 per cent of proprietors not agree to the voluntary arrangement? What were their interests? Presumably, they did not want to release the fish. Was the possibility of a total ban on fishing the spring run considered? The netsmen seem to be complaining that they are being asked for a total ban yet the fishermen are not.
Those are two separate questions. The first was, why did individual parties choose not to take a voluntary route? I cannot answer for them. As I say, the situation is regrettable. One of the angling parties that was uninterested in a voluntary approach was a time-share consortium that took the view that its members wanted to be able to take home the fish they caught. As it was unwilling to sign up to a voluntary agreement, the consequence for everybody is a statutory agreement. Catch and release has been in place for angling since 1994 but it has not delivered to the same extent as in other rivers, which is a regret. It is equally of regret that some angling interests and one netsman chose not to take a voluntary approach.
The board did not ask for a complete ban. We took scientific advice on the board's proposals. As I have explained in detail, we considered the board's proposals and produced regulations that will have less impact on netsmen and anglers.
Catch and release for anglers means that if proprietors and others replace anglers who do not want to catch and release with anglers who do, which the evidence from around Scotland suggests can be done, the impact on the local economy that was mentioned will be avoided. We want the minimum negative impact on the local economy. Catch and release allows anglers to go fishing and to catch fish. The only difference is that it requires them to put the fish back alive. That matters if someone wants to take home a trophy to hang up or—perhaps more appropriately—to put in the pot and eat.
The smell is a factor.
That is enough information. We get the point.
Catch and release makes no difference to the net willingness of tourists to spend significant sums of money in the local economy to enjoy the sport of catching fish.
I understand that the problem went to ministers because the previous voluntary agreement broke down. However, I also understand—correct me if I am wrong—that the statutory instruments, one of which we are not dealing with, go further than the voluntary agreement. Why was it not possible simply to give statutory force to the voluntary agreement, whose breakdown caused the approach to ministers?
The point is fair in regard to nets, as I said to John Home Robertson. The previous voluntary agreements meant that no netting took place in February or March. The close-time agreement, which is not in front of us, means no netting in April, either. That is a consequence of having considered the scientific advice about the April component of the spring stock. The pressure is greatest on the February and March components, which involve very low numbers, but April is heading in the wrong direction. I return to Andrew Welsh's questions at the outset. The total number of fish that return to the coast in April is also on a downward slope. For that reason, it is necessary to take action for April, too.
As I said, the catch-and-release system that operated previously was never as effective as it is in other rivers. As voluntary agreement could not be reached, it was clear that if a statutory scheme was to be fair, it had to apply to every fishery and to the time-share fishery as well as others.
Does Rob Gibson still have a brief question?
I have a point to make.
Do you have a question? You can make a point in the debate.
I have a question that must be prefaced by a statement.
The question does not have to be prefaced by a statement. I am being serious, colleagues—we are asking questions at this stage.
My reference is Malcolm Beveridge's advice of 1 September 2004, which claims:
"The Board's scientific case is partially flawed. Pre-fishery abundance figures for the"
north and south
"Esks cannot legitimately be derived."
He also discusses inconsistencies in information.
Yesterday, we received a copy of a letter from the Esk district salmon fishery board's chairman, Hugh Campbell Adamson, to The Scotsman, in which he says that the measures will increase the number of spring spawners by 40 per cent. Does the minister agree that that is optimistic?
If I understood you rightly, the first part of your question quoted Malcolm Beveridge's advice that some of the science advanced by the board was not reliable. In a sense, that was the question that Mr Ewing asked and I responded that we have not followed the board's prescription. We have taken advice from Malcolm Beveridge and his colleagues and acted on that. Mr Beveridge said that in spite of the flaws, there was definitely a case.
On the impact on stock, I do not know whether David Dunkley will say that the 40 per cent is optimistic. It is certainly intended to protect the stock and prevent its further decline. I do not know whether FRS has a view on how quickly it expects to see stock recovering.
We do not have a view on how quickly we expect the stock to recover. The answer is that dead fish cannot spawn; live fish will. Whatever the benefit is, it will be an increase and more fish will be alive to spawn in the stock component that our scientists have identified as being particularly vulnerable.
The measure is intended to cover five years but we are not going to be allowed to analyse or alter what goes on during that time. A review is built into the Annan scheme, but not into this one.
The measures are to be put in place in response to a request from the Esk district salmon fishery board. If it is satisfied that the measures have been effective within that five-year period, it can come back to us and request that another measure be put in in their place. As I understand it, the scientific view is that one year of data does not provide enough information on which to make a judgment. Five years is needed to accumulate those data. The pressures on the stock are such that we want the opportunity to do that.
We have exhausted the questions, so we will move to the debate. Because the motion is to annul, I will invite Andrew Welsh to speak to it.
I have a couple of comments. I dread to say this, but we are allowed 90 minutes for the debate. We have also notionally scheduled three ministers from the Executive to be grilled about climate change at 11.45, but I am not strictly connecting the two: we really do have 90 minutes. I hope that we will not take that long, but I want to enable as many members as possible who have points for and against the motion to speak.
With those brief words of introduction, I invite Andrew Welsh formally to move and to speak to motion S2M-2380:
That the Environment Rural Development Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Conservation of Salmon (Esk Salmon Fishery District) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/24).
Thank you convener, you saved me 20 seconds by reading out the motion.
The order enforces mandatory statutory changes on rod-and-line and net fishing during the next five years. The use of statutory powers by the Esk river board abolishes the past system of voluntary agreements; it sets a precedent with potential repercussions for the whole of Scotland; and it was forced through by the casting vote of the chairman on a vote split five against five. That picks up the minister's point that the SSI is based on a request from the Esk district salmon fishery board.
The board decision creates statutory fishing bans when almost everyone else who is involved seems to want a voluntary scheme based on compromise and consensus among all sections of the fishing industry. I believe that the minister has consistently favoured the idea of voluntary agreements. Rod-and-line fishermen want voluntary agreement; netsmen want a voluntary agreement. In the past, the Esk board has called for voluntary agreements; however it has now chosen the legislative route.
Criticism of the use of statute has come from all quarters of the fishing industry. Netsmen have a genuine concern that their minority status will be used to put them out of business; anglers fear that compulsion will be extended to other Scottish rivers. The chairman of the Salmon and Trout Association has stated that his members are totally opposed to mandatory measures being used against anglers—for the first time—in Scotland. The concern is that if the order is applied in the name of conservation on the Esk, which has sufficient salmon stocks, the measures can be applied to every other river throughout Scotland for exactly the same reason.
The choice is between consensus and statute, but consensus has been abandoned in the order, which forces rod-and-line fishermen into a compulsory catch-and-release scheme, with consequent problems of monitoring, supervision and enforcement that are not mentioned in the order.
I am informed that the number of bailiffs has been reduced from three to two, which is hardly reassuring given the length of the waterways involved. All highly expensive fishing trips over the next five years will be expected to end with every salmon being returned to the river. As that can go somewhat against human nature, how can it be enforced?
Netsmen will again have to stop fishing and will face a threat to their economic survival, although they have a premium value product that should mean that fewer fish are required to sustain their livelihoods.
The order introduces mandatory powers that were never designed to apportion resources between netsmen and rod-and-line fishermen, which has always previously been a matter of negotiation between those interests. The Esk district salmon fishery board admits that the mandatory restrictions will have a detrimental effect on netting and angling.
Why has compensation for netsmen as part of the package been dealt with by verbal assurances of a fixed amount over five years—which does not take into account the effects of inflation or other costs—rather than been guaranteed in the order?
Why has a five-year deal been chosen instead of annual reviews, which would allow a more flexible approach in reacting to any significant changes in fish numbers? It is clear that, in the past and without compulsion, there has been a general willingness to curtail fishing activities to conserve salmon stocks if there is a demonstrable need to do so.
The Esk is the most monitored and researched river in the country, and past voluntary agreements have been successful. Fisheries Research Services states that, in April and May, there are
"adequate existing conservation measures in place."
It also reports that
"spawning numbers indicate a sustained upward trend"
and that there is
"scientific evidence for a further comfort zone for management."
By those statements, FRS admits that a comfort zone exists in stock numbers and that existing voluntary measures are working.
For April and May, FRS recommends a ban on fishing, but the compulsory scheme in the order goes further than FRS's stated minimum requirement and even its recommendation. Why are we having a new, compulsory ban to provide a further comfort zone rather than allowing river users some benefit from their past voluntary efforts?
Ultimately, this is about the conservation of salmon stocks and the sharing of resources to ensure a reasonable situation for all who rely on the river for their sport or their livelihood. There is a common interest in ensuring the continuation of that renewable resource. The great danger is that compulsion will become the norm and that a spate of ad hoc regulations that vary from river to river will follow, rather than a national policy framework that is fair to everyone with a genuine long-term interest in the conservation of fish stocks.
The resort to legislation is being made on the basis of a divided Esk District Salmon Fishery Board and against the stated wishes of ministers, fishing organisations and all who prefer a voluntary system. It is also unfair to the interests of the very small number of remaining net fishermen.
I ask the committee to support my motion to annul the regulations and to give the Government time to create a national policy framework in which sensible, mutually agreed solutions can be found.
I move,
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Conservation of Salmon (Esk Salmon Fishery District) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/24).
Thank you very much. A couple of members would like to come in. Alex Johnstone will go first.
I have considerable sympathy for the motives that lie behind the SSI, but that is not to say that I do not have significant concerns about its nature and the process that led to its being introduced.
I have spoken to anglers who regularly use the North Esk and there seems to be a view that the voluntary return policy has been extremely successful, especially among anglers. There is also the issue of the movement towards the buy-out of the Montrose bay nets, which is achieving much of what the regulations seek to achieve. In other words, the regulations are not necessary.
It appears that there is a background of increasing fish numbers in the Esk. Anecdotal evidence suggests that that trend is continuing in the current season. I am concerned that the regulations appear not to have taken sufficient account of the views of anglers. When I asked the minister how anglers' views had been taken into consideration, he told me that that had been done through their involvement in the Esk District Salmon Fishery Board. I am not content that that consultation was adequate or that anglers' views were properly taken into account.
I support a number of the points that Andrew Welsh made in his speech. I am in favour of the concept of building a review into the process but, unfortunately, the regulations do not include such a proposal.
My final point is about the notion of angling as a means to bring in resource. That is beneficial to the fishery in the longer term. The comparisons that have been made between the Dee and the Esk are perhaps not fair, given that the idea of angling tourism is considerably more advanced in areas of the Dee than it is on the Esk. That means that the difference in the catch and release figures for the two rivers may be a measurement of their popularity among angling tourists.
My main concern is that we should encourage the recovery of resource by owners and managers of the banks of rivers such as the North Esk to ensure that proper management of those banks can be maintained and financed over time. Anecdotal evidence from anglers to whom I have spoken appears to indicate that on the North Esk there are many instances of young fish being left stranded simply because the banks have not been properly managed over time. If the necessary resources are to be drawn into the management of rivers such as the North Esk, we must ensure that angling managers have sufficient opportunity to recover resource from their asset. In certain circles, there is a genuine fear that the restrictions that the regulations will place on anglers in the spring may reduce the returns that are obtained, which in turn will reduce people's ability to manage their assets and resources properly.
I add my support for the broader sentiments of Andrew Welsh's speech and indicate my support for the motion to annul.
The debate has been interesting, but we should bear in mind the fact that the written evidence that we have received before today's meeting includes a substantial amount of criticism of the new regulations by some organisations.
I am quite relaxed about the catch-and-release element of the regulations; my concern is over the impact on the netsmen and on what has been their livelihood for many generations. When we are putting in place new legislation that sets a precedent, we must be careful to ensure that it is even handed towards everyone with an interest in the issue.
We are all aware that many vested interests are involved in the debate. John Home Robertson alluded to the possibility that the current laws give too much power to certain vested interests over and above others, which is something that we must take into account. That is why we must be extra careful in treating everyone equally.
I am convinced that, if we approve the regulations, they will cement ill feeling on the River Esk for at least five years, which would not be in the interests of anyone—we want to avoid that if we can. There have been voluntary agreements in the past but, in this case, those seem to have broken down. One of the most effective contributions was from Alasdair Morgan, who pointed out that the proposed regulations go further than the original voluntary agreement that they were supposed to reinstate. Andrew Welsh also referred to that and mentioned that the Fisheries Research Services would have settled for something less than what is contained in the regulations. There is no commitment to review the regulations, as there has been in the case of other, similar SSIs.
I would have preferred to hear evidence from scientists. We have been told that the only option is for the committee to hold another meeting before Monday. It is fair to say that that is not practicable. The only option left on the table is to reject the regulations and support the motion to annul. I propose to vote that way and I hope that the minister will be able to come back to us with an improved set of regulations or, even better, with a new voluntary agreement for the River Esk.
I return to the point that I raised with the minister earlier, to which Richard Lochhead has just referred: the statutory measures go further than the voluntary measures that have failed. The measures did not fail with regard to conservation, but people did not sign up to them. The minister responded by saying that the scientific advice outlined a particular problem in April, which was why the statutory restrictions go further. I can understand that argument.
The irony is, however, that the minister would not even have reached the stage of considering the evidence if a few people had not stuck to the voluntary agreement. As a result, those who want to comply with the voluntary agreement are being penalised because of a minority who were not prepared to sign up to it. That is unfair to those who have worked for a voluntary consensus over the years, especially if what Mr Welsh tells us is correct—I have no reason to doubt it—and the decision of the Esk board that triggered this whole process was passed only on the casting vote of the board's convener. For those reasons, the committee should agree to the motion to annul.
Alasdair Morgan has identified the key flaw of the proposal. We are being asked to put the measures in place for a period of five years. That seems draconian and is likely to create further division and hostility and to ferment acrimony among the various competing interests, which, as the minister has recognised, are characterised by a lack of consensus on every point. Back in August last year, Mr Malcolm Beveridge argued that it would be justifiable for the Scottish Executive to reject the proposals and instead
"defend a refusal … coupled with a recommendation for year-by-year re-assessment of a tabled proposal."
At least at that point, Mr Beveridge, the minister's adviser, was recommending a year-by-year assessment.
In his letter of 8 October last year, Mr Alan Youngson, on behalf of the Fisheries Research Services, pointed out:
"it takes 10 or more years to generate a long enough series of data to examine trends".
On the one hand, it is being recommended that a year-by-year assessment be considered; on the other hand, it is being pointed out that it takes 10 years to come up with sufficient data on which to found any rational conclusion. The FRS argument seems to suggest that five years is too short.
The minister is caught between a rock pool and a hard place and the best thing that he could do would be to withdraw the regulations. If he does not withdraw them, my concern is, as Andrew Welsh argued in his opening comments, that they would set a precedent for other rivers in Scotland and many other salmon rivers are not as well stocked as the Esk. If the precedent of the conservation case led to stronger restrictions for other rivers, my arguments about the impact on angling tourism would be only the stronger.
I appreciate that the minister responded to the question that I put earlier. Perhaps we can agree to disagree. In any event, when assessing what will happen in the future, only fortune tellers are armed with crystal balls, so neither of us can display any certainty.
I am no expert, but my constituent Eric McVicar asked me to become involved, which is why I am here. There is a plethora of arguments with force behind them, coming from a range of different interests. Whether one is primarily interested in the environment or business, the rural economy, netsmen, anglers or anyone else, there is an extremely strong case—one of the strongest that I have heard in this type of argument—for withdrawing the regulations and thinking again.
I have read through all the evidence that we received and found it a bit contradictory. That is the basis of my problem—the general attitude seems to be, "It wasnae me, it was you," and, "You're hurting me, so let's hurt them more."
I understand that the board has proposed a review, but I share John Home Robertson's concerns about the vested interests that are represented on the board. I would be grateful for some indication from the minister about whether the Executive will be prepared to review the regulations after two years, for example. I would be reluctant to proceed on a year-by-year basis, because that approach can be slightly misleading.
However, the Executive should undertake a review after two years to look at whether the regulations have achieved what they were supposed to. That would also allow the Parliament to look at the issue again in this parliamentary session—we cannot bind our successors to do anything and, given that such a review would take place before the 2007 election, it would be useful if the Executive would commit to it.
As no other members want to speak, I will let the minister make brief comments in response.
I notice that John Home Robertson wants to speak, although he did not stick his hand up.
I am sorry, I thought that I had—I am not sufficiently conspicuous.
I urge the committee to think carefully about the progressive destruction of the legal netting industry as a result of what I see as collusion between Governments and riparian owners over many years. I first raised the issue in the House of Commons in 1988, when I had the support of Alick Buchanan-Smith, who was then the Tory MP for Kincardine and Deeside. The issue has been running for a long time.
I fully accept that angling is much more important to the rural economy than netting and that the long-term survival of the wild salmon species is extremely important to the Scottish rural economy. There are very few netting stations left in Scotland, but the removal of the nets has not turned out to be the salvation of the salmon on the rivers where that has happened. It is an historic fact that the legal netting industry has operated for centuries subject to seasonal controls, weekend closures, mesh regulations and so on. Those restrictions meant that, although the nets took a percentage of the available catch, they let far more fish up the rivers to spawn and breed. The salmon have survived centuries of that kind of treatment.
Meanwhile, the removal of legitimate netsmen can expose the endangered salmon species to significantly worse hazards—I referred to seals and there are other considerations. Therefore, I am suspicious of such regulations. I suggest that legitimate netsmen could be part of the solution to what is a genuine problem, but I do not expect any district salmon fishery board anywhere in Scotland to understand that point—they are not like that.
I would like the committee to consider these regulations carefully. The committee might also ask the Executive when it is going to move forward with plans to drag freshwater fisheries legislation out of the middle ages, following proposals that were put forward by a dangerously radical fisheries minister about five years ago. I submit that, in general, district salmon fishery boards are an embarrassing anachronism and should be replaced by credible, accountable, inclusive bodies to manage what is a very important resource for Scotland and to protect fish stocks in all our rivers. If I had a vote on the committee, I would probably vote to annul the regulations.
Thank you for that information. I ask the minister to respond to the debate before I bring Andrew Welsh back in.
John Home Robertson raises some important points about the netting industry and the modernisation of the management of fisheries. I agree that it is important for us to protect netting where that is still a commercial activity and that we should do so by conserving the stock. I also agree that we should modernise the management of freshwater fisheries; as I said earlier, we will introduce measures for that. I emphasise that there is absolutely no collusion between us and either netting or angling interests.
As Mr Ewing said, there are concerns on both sides. Sometimes, in finding an even-handed and fair way for people to make a contribution to conservation, it is difficult to persuade either side that they are not being asked to do too much. However, I think that the regulations achieve the right balance. Andrew Welsh concluded by saying that the issue is the conservation of stocks—a common interest—and sharing those stocks equitably. That is why it is important that the annual close-time order, which is in place, and the regulations that are under discussion today should both go forward.
Comment has been made on the opinion of those who are involved in the fisheries. I should clarify that, last July, the board was unanimous about the need for measures to be taken. In November, the vote of proprietors was 79 per cent in favour of the proposals. A vote was taken in January that was split 5:5 and was determined by the casting vote of the chair. That was the very last vote in the process, when it became apparent to a majority of proprietors—[Laughter.] The point is an important one. It distinguishes between the will and the recognition of the need to do something to conserve the stock and the unwillingness of some interests to go down the statutory route. As has been said, a voluntary agreement was wanted by everybody—that is absolutely correct. That was wanted by the Government as well. Nevertheless, mandatory powers exist and were designed precisely for circumstances in which a voluntary agreement could not be reached. That is the position that we are in.
There is not a choice between a voluntary and a statutory route. Every effort has been made to achieve a voluntary agreement. However, one netsman and one or two parties on the angling side have refused to sign up to a voluntary agreement. That is why we are going down the statutory route. Taking that route does not penalise those who have signed up to the voluntary agreement; on the contrary, it protects them and means that they are making an equitable contribution. A voluntary agreement that was respected by only some parties would penalise those who respected it. By obliging all those who are involved to protect the stock, we are making the situation equitable between nets and rods.
It is critical that the terms of the instrument are equitable to netsmen and angling interests and are seen to be so. The annual close-time order remains in place and annulment of the regulations would punish the netsmen; it would not relieve any of their difficulty but would skew the balance between net effort and angling effort. It is important that the regulations tie in with the annual close-time order that is in place, to ensure that the pain is shared equally and future stock is conserved for both parties.
The point about a review is important. As I said in reply to an earlier question, the FRS has a permanent station on the river basin. That means that it will be in a position to provide us with the information that we require on an on-going basis. I expect that information to come to ministers, as well as to go to the board. At some time in the next five years, the board may come to the view that the measures have succeeded and that there is no longer a requirement for them. I expect that the same scientific advice that led to the introduction of the regulations will allow us to move towards their removal if they are no longer required.
I ask Andrew Welsh to wind up and to say whether he intends to press the motion.
The minister talked about the modernisation of fisheries management and the measures that are to come—those are certainly things to look forward to. He also mentioned the need for conservation and the need to achieve a fair and consensual solution. I am with him on that, but the committee does not appear to be entirely convinced about the regulations. He mentioned the 5:5 split vote that led directly to the regulations—that tells us that the statutory solution could perhaps be better and fairer.
I fully understand the complexity of the situation and the fact that there are a number of vested interests, but some common themes have emerged from today's debate, such as the fact that a review system is required, the effect of the compulsory agreement and the fact that the agreement is to last five years. The committee has expressed great concern about the situation and I believe that there has to be a better way. I would like an overall framework that provides a decent living for all and a river system that has an adequate amount of salmon. The issue boils down to the conservation of salmon, which is in everyone's interest. We should consider what happened in relation to fishing at sea, where vested interests fought one another, leading to the destruction of the industry.
If we are at the five-minutes-to-midnight stage, I appeal to everyone involved to go back to that consensus—I hope that the minister will play a part in that—and return to the wider picture of how the framework could apply to the whole of Scotland. The Esk has sufficient salmon, but that is not necessarily the case with other rivers. We can argue about the science, but I believe that some evidence has been led on that. We should look towards a better picture in the interests of the industry throughout Scotland. The task is not easy, but I look forward to the modernisation of fisheries management that the minister mentioned and the measures that are to come. However, given the proposed solution, I still wish to press my motion.
The question is, that motion S2M-2380, in the name of Mr Andrew Welsh, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
The committee is therefore content with the instrument and will make no recommendation to the Parliament. We will record the result of the division in the committee's report to the Parliament on the instrument.
That was a difficult debate but I hope that the minister will pick up the spirit of Andrew Welsh's comments and that the matter will come back to us. If there was agreement, it was on the fact that we would like the matter to be kept under review.
I am happy to say that we will keep in mind the points that Andrew Welsh made in his closing remarks about encouraging co-operation in the sector.
I do not want to reopen what has been a difficult debate. I just wanted to put that on the record.
I thank the minister, his officials and Andrew Welsh for enabling us to have that important debate this morning.
Conservation of Salmon (River Annan Salmon Fishery District) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/37)<br />Antisocial Behaviour (Noise Control) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/43)
Domestic Water and Sewerage Charges (Reduction) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/53)<br />Water Services Charges (Billing and Collection) (Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/54)
We have four instruments to consider under the negative procedure: the Conservation of Salmon (River Annan Salmon Fishery District) Regulations 2005, the Antisocial Behaviour (Noise Control) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, the Domestic Water and Sewerage Charges (Reduction) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 and the Water Services Charges (Billing and Collection) (Scotland) Order 2005. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered those four instruments and has made no comment on them. Do members have any comments on the instruments?
No.
I would like a bit more detail from the Executive on the implications of the Antisocial Behaviour (Noise Control) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 for individuals, but I am not suggesting that we do not agree to the regulations today. Are members content with the instruments and happy to make no recommendation to the Parliament?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you for that.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—