Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1502, in the name of Ross Finnie, which seeks agreement that the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill be passed, and on an amendment to that motion. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When you introduced stage 3 of the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill this morning, you said that the debate would be in two parts, where amendments to the bill would be taken first, following which we would move to a debate on the bill.
It is a common interpretation that once we have dealt with amendments, we move on to a discussion of the bill, as amended or not. Therefore, as a point of order, I wish to seek clarification on how, at this stage, it is competent to entertain an amendment that includes elements that could have been included quite properly at stage 2 or stage 3. How can it be competent to introduce those elements at the conclusion of that part of stage 3 in which amendments are dealt with?
I will be more specific. The elements relate to the scope of the bill. How can it be competent to entertain an amendment that deals with consolidation of legislation that is wholly and totally outwith the scope of the bill? I seek clarification from you, Presiding Officer, as to how, in such circumstances, the amendment can be competent.
I cannot give you an immediate explanation as I was not party to that decision, which was a decision of the Presiding Officer. I will ask the clerks to make inquiries and get back to you as soon as possible. Are you suggesting, Mr Finnie, that it is not appropriate to continue with this debate at this point?
I am.
As this is a serious matter, if members will allow me a couple of minutes, I will consult the clerks at this stage.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding is that an amendment that we had sought to have included for debate was ruled out on precisely the grounds that the minister has just specified. If one party's amendment has been ruled out, a consistent approach should be adopted by the clerks.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister contends that the reasoned amendment deals with matters that could and should have been dealt with at stage 2. That is not so. We have already heard from the minister that the points that the amendment raises could not have been within the scope of the bill.
Fine. Are there any other points?
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. I recall that, when this matter was discussed by the Procedures Committee, we came to the view that a reasoned amendment at stage 3 was perfectly competent. A reasoned amendment, we envisaged, would be either an amendment that stated that the bill was supported because of certain reasons or in spite of certain perceived deficiencies or that the bill would be opposed for reasons that the mover of the amendment wished to highlight. It seems beyond what we envisaged that a reasoned amendment should be presented that refers to additional and extraneous matters and calls for measures that are further than the scope of the bill. The clarification is essential.
Thank you.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding of the discussion in the Procedures Committee, which I was party to in a previous life, was that we would discuss reasoned amendments at stage 1 rather than at stage 3.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. The amendment in the name of Fergus Ewing is a reasoned amendment. It has already been accepted by the Presiding Officer as competent. It would be wholly inappropriate for it to be withdrawn at this stage. The debate should take place now. We have accepted the Presiding Officer's judgment in the past and we should do so now.
My judgment is that since neither I nor the clerks beside me were party to the decision, I should seek leave of the chamber to suspend this meeting of Parliament for up to 10 minutes while I consult further. The minister has raised a matter of some substance.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. Would not it have been in order for the minister to make his point when he saw the business bulletin this morning, before the debate began?
This is a matter of some substance and I ask for leave to suspend the meeting for up to 10 minutes while I consult further. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Welcome back. I should say, first, that this is an exceptional circumstance and I do not want to create a precedent for suspending while we take further advice.
My first point is that if ministers or members wish to raise matters of such substance, it would be helpful if advance notice could be given to the Presiding Officer so preparatory work can be done and we do not have to suspend, as we have this morning. I have taken the advice of the clerks, which is that the rules on the admissibility of amendments to bills are separate in the standing orders from the rules on the admissibility of amendments to motions. We are dealing with a motion.
On the advice of the clerks, the Presiding Officer was satisfied that the amendment is admissible within the rules set out in chapter 8 of the standing orders. If the amendment is agreed to and the motion as amended is agreed to, the bill is still passed without qualification.
I hope that we can move on. I should add that it is not the first occasion that questions on reasoned amendments to motions have been raised. Advice on the subject has been prepared for the Presiding Officer and he is taking it forward through the usual channels. We still have almost 50 minutes in hand. I hope we can now agree to move on.
I have the honour of proposing that Parliament passes this bill today. First, I will deal with Fergus Ewing's amendment. As I have said repeatedly, the factors that influence the mortality rate of salmon are many and varied. The bill focuses on providing means to address the factors over which we can exercise control in the areas over which this Parliament has jurisdiction. Fergus Ewing might like to be able to control the temperature in the North Atlantic; the Parliament is not able to do that. Furthermore, it does not seek to take powers that are already provided by other legislation.
The Scottish Executive, through the fisheries research services and its close association with district salmon fishery boards, fisheries trusts and the Scottish fisheries co-ordination centre, is engaged in getting as much information as possible about the salmon and the habitat in which it lives, in all phases of its life cycle. We are committed to continuing that essential research. I am also keen to see the work on consolidation progressed and am pleased to say that it is at an advanced stage.
We are debating the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. It could not be more topical. Today marks the start of the angling season for salmon on the Thurso, the Helmsdale and the rivers that flow into the Kyle of Sutherland. Tomorrow sees the start of angling on the rivers Halladale, Hope, Naver and Strathy. Next week, on 15 January, salmon anglers will gather on the banks of the Tay and the Ness.
The wild Atlantic salmon is one of Scotland's most precious resources. We are the envy of many others who once were fortunate to have salmon in their rivers but who now bemoan its loss. Scotland remains one of the last strongholds for salmon and we must strive to maintain that position. We must continue to take our duty to protect salmon seriously. The bill is testament to our determination to do so.
The bill was introduced in late September and has benefited from intense scrutiny by many since then. I pay tribute to the efforts of the Rural Affairs Committee, which agreed to accord the bill the urgency it deserves. I pay tribute also to the assiduous manner in which those in the wild salmon world—in particular the district salmon fishery boards—have addressed what the bill means for them. After all, they sought the additional powers and I know that they are as keen as I am that those powers should be put to best effect.
We have heard at every stage of the bill that there are many factors that affect the survival of salmon. Some are understood and, regrettably, some are still not. It is all too easy to be despondent about whether answers will be delivered soon. We have here a prime example of where adoption of the precautionary approach is essential. We would not be thanked by future generations for waiting until we had found out precisely why the last salmon died.
International research into finding the causes of marine mortality continues, and we will continue to play our part in that essential work. Nevertheless, there are actions that can be taken now in our rivers and on our coasts so that more fish survive to spawn to produce future generations. We must be prepared to take such action where and when necessary, not just to preserve the salmon but to secure a viable future for wild fisheries. Wild fisheries are extremely important to the rural economy—supporting jobs, attracting tourists and providing sporting opportunities for our own people.
No one should underestimate the scale or the importance of the task of those who manage salmon fisheries. Many of our major salmon rivers have provided models for others to follow: promoting catch and release, undertaking careful re-stocking and carrying out habitat improvement works. Fishery management is all about knowing the characteristics, or perhaps the idiosyncrasies, of each river and addressing its needs accordingly. That is why the flexibility afforded by the bill matches Scotland's river-by-river management structure so well.
The bill allows regulations to be made for different rivers, different parts of rivers, different seasons, and for salmon separately from sea trout. There is nothing prescriptive in its approach; it recognises that those on the ground are best placed to know what is needed. Fishery managers will now have more scope to control exploitation. However, the onus is firmly upon them to take early advantage of their access to new powers. This is an enabling bill: with it, we are enabling better management of salmon as the first step in giving Scotland's wild fisheries the profile and support they deserve.
The bill is a first step in a much wider agenda for freshwater fisheries. The other major exercise, "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries", should also be seen as part of the package of proposals that I outlined earlier. I look forward to setting those out in more detail to the Parliament later this year.
I would also like to pay tribute to the bill team. Indeed, they worked late into last night because of a large number of late amendments—that was a result of the bill's rather difficult time scale. I thank the members of the team for their hard work.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call Richard Lochhead to speak to and move amendment S1M-1502.1, in the name of Fergus Ewing.
I would like to begin by congratulating Rhona Brankin on steering through her first bill in her new ministerial role. I suspect that it was not her easiest journey. I would like to thank the clerks of the Rural Affairs Committee and the legislation team who have guided us all through the maze that is the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. I thank all the anglers, scientists and fishery boards for the advice that they gave to the committee and to the SNP. I commend all those members who have contributed to a tricky, yet worthwhile, debate.
The fact that Parliament has considered and debated salmon fisheries so early in its life is welcome, given the sector's importance to the nation. The SNP will be voting for the bill. The fact that catch figures for salmon are at their lowest since records began in 1952 and have been in constant decline since 1973 means that we have to take action urgently. However, it is a great pity that Labour did not act sooner. After all, the party was elected in 1997 with an angler's charter that promised the world. We know that the Nickson report has been left on a shelf in St Andrew's House to gather dust for the past three years. It took international pressure to embarrass the Government into introducing even the modest bill that we are debating today.
The SNP will vote in favour of the bill, but with a great deal of reservation because the only other option is to do nothing about the crisis that is facing salmon. Anglers, environmentalists and fishery managers throughout Scotland share our reservations. The bill represents a missed opportunity to do more about marine mortality. Ministers cannot simply bury their heads in the sand for ever.
The minister need look only at the debate that is raging in relation to salmon farming and the environment to see what happens when serious issues are swept under the carpet. In the interests of salmon conservation, the minister should turn her attention to that controversial debate, which would benefit both the salmon farming industry and the freshwater fisheries sector. The Scottish Government must face up to the many other threats to Atlantic salmon that fall outwith the scope of the bill, which, as we know, addresses only part of the problem.
More proposals have to be agreed with the sector and discussed in this chamber as soon as possible, which is why amendment S1M-1502.1 makes that plea. We have to address predation of our young salmon at sea and the impact of environmental change, industrial fisheries at sea and the drift net fishery off the north of England, albeit that particular issue has at long last been tackled. Of course, we also have to examine disease among salmon at sea, for example sea lice, which have been mentioned. Those are just some of the issues that require ministers' urgent attention.
We have to democratise Scotland's salmon fisheries. We have Victorian structures that have been subjected to nothing more than cosmetic changes over the years. However, I welcome the Deputy Minister for Rural Development's significant concession that a green paper addressing those issues will be published.
We must address the complexity of salmon legislation in Scotland. It is a dog's breakfast. I am delighted that, during the debate in the past few months, the Deputy Minister for Rural Development has acknowledged that fact. Let us tidy it up as soon as possible.
Despite our reservations, the bill has benefits. Despite its narrow scope, it is a tiny step forward. More significant, the bill has, for the first time, sown the seeds of a national policy on salmon and sea trout. It also acknowledges for the first time that the Atlantic salmon is a national asset and is part of Scotland's national heritage. It is a duty of Scotland's Government to protect the national interest and conserve our freshwater fisheries to secure the benefits for the environment and our rural economy. This must not be the end of the process, but simply the beginning.
The minister said in the stage 1 debate:
"The bill will secure the long-term future of wild salmon fisheries."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9,
c 337.]
I suspect that even the minister's most enthusiastic supporters agree that those words may come back to haunt the coalition some day soon. Having expressed what SNP members think are the benefits of the bill, as well as our reservations, we ask the Parliament to support the bill, taking into account the SNP's amendment, which we also ask the Parliament to support.
I move amendment S1M-1502.1, to insert at end:
"and notes that the measures for the conservation of salmon which the Bill will allow are limited in nature; urges the Scottish Executive to bring forward an action plan designed to conserve salmon in all phases of their life cycle, and recommends that, as the existing corpus of statute law relating to salmon fishing and conservation is both complex and fragmented, a Consolidation Bill be brought forward as soon as practicable."
The bill seeks to give the Executive unlimited power to control fishing. As far as we are aware, such power to control fishing—or any other privately owned activity—has never before been given to an Executive in the UK. There is no proposal to introduce any form of public ownership of fishing, so the Executive is seeking to exercise total control over it without assuming any of the responsibilities or costs of ownership.
Parliament should not be misled by the minister's statements on how she would exercise the power and the extent of consultation that would precede its exercise. If the bill is passed, no further recourse to the Parliament will be required, except to the extent of considering whether any regulations fall within the unlimited power that the Executive had been granted. The bill must be judged on the basis of what it says, not by the use that the minister proposes to make of it.
The decline in the salmon population was the subject of intensive research by the salmon strategy task force that was set up in 1995 and reported four years ago. As is now generally accepted, it found that the decline was due mainly to mortality at sea, not to anything that was happening on rivers and affecting spawning. It found no evidence of a deficiency of smolts leaving individual rivers, but recommended that that should be monitored.
The report did not recommend or even suggest that the Executive, except in cases of emergency, should be given any additional powers to act other than on an application by a board, let alone the unlimited power that the Executive is seeking. It is utter nonsense to suggest, as Rhona Brankin said in introducing the bill, that it
"will secure the long-term future of . . . fisheries."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 337.]
That future depends on effective measures being taken to arrest the causes of the decline, not on restrictions on the current activities of fishermen and the inevitable effect on tourism and local economies.
The Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill is concerned with the management of fisheries and not directly with conservation, in spite of its title. It seeks to amend an act that relates to administration, not conservation. Of course good river fishery management includes the adoption of methods of fishing that are consistent with the river's requirements and those of the locality it serves, but that is only part of good management. Equally—if not more—important is the protection of spawning grounds and juvenile stock from the effects of agricultural and forestry practices, pollution, predation, erosion and flooding.
The Executive raised the better general management of fisheries in its "Protecting and Promoting" document, but the bill does nothing to secure that. The bill prejudices consideration of issues that were expressly raised in that document and the minister's letter that accompanied it. Any restrictions of fishing should be introduced in the overall context of general management, not in piecemeal legislation such as the bill.
The minister stated her intention to exercise the power largely on the application of boards, which the bill allows to apply for regulations, but the bill makes no provision that restricts the ability of future Executives to confine exercise of the power in that way. The minister has said that boards asked for more powers and that the bill delivers what they need. That is misleading. What boards asked for is in the document that was issued in June 2000 and was the only basis on which any prior consultation took place.
That document proposed legislation to give additional powers to boards to apply for regulations that would restrict fishing in some respects. The document proposed no power for the Executive to introduce restrictions other than on the application of boards, except in an emergency. The bill gives the Executive unlimited power to prohibit or restrict fishing, whether or not the boards make an application. Boards and others have made unsuccessful attempts to persuade the Executive to restrict that unlimited power to what was proposed in the consultation document.
The Salmon and Trout Association represents all angling interests—unlike the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards—and has now sent a circular to its members to say that the bill could be extremely damaging for Scotland's micro-fisheries and that there is a danger that it will not receive the popular support of anglers. The Conservatives agree with that view and therefore oppose the bill. If it is passed, it will do nothing for conservation.
After hearing Jamie McGrigor's speech, I think that he should be a member of the Rural Development Committee. If he came to more of our meetings, he would understand the bill.
Will the member give way?
If Mr McGrigor gives me a moment, I will let him in.
Mr McGrigor made it clear several times that the bill gives the Scottish Executive unlimited power. I will quote from the bill about which Jamie McGrigor is so ignorant. New section 10D(1) says:
"Regulations under section 10A of this Act shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament."
What Jamie McGrigor has just said on behalf of the Scottish Conservative party is untrue. It relates not to fact, but to fantasy. The Scottish Conservatives would serve their cause better if they read the bill before they commented on it.
Fergus Ewing's amendment to the motion contrasts with Jamie McGrigor's speech. It suggests that the Parliament
"notes that the measures for the conservation of salmon which the Bill will allow are limited in nature".
Given that the member has only a few seconds left, will he discuss the Liberals' approach to the bill and their policy?
I am coming to that. We should not forget the SNP's strange amendment. A few moments ago, Fergus Ewing—in whose name the amendment appears—talked about unfettered power, when John Home Robertson intervened on him. Now, the unfettered power has suddenly turned into power of a limited nature. Come on. The SNP cannot have it both ways, although it tries to yet again.
I am happy to say that the Liberal Democrats are absolutely delighted with the minister's work on the bill. There were two themes of concern—that fisheries management and that consultation with district boards were not mentioned in the bill. As a result of today's amendments and of compromise, both those issues will be included. That is absolutely clear. I have no hesitation in saying that the Liberal Democrats fully support the bill, which will do great things for conservation and fishery management on our rivers.
Remember that the bill has a limited function. It is about the conservation of salmon in the freshwater phase of their lives. The bill is about taking action where we can, now. I am pleased that it has almost all-party support; I am not sure about the Conservatives.
At the end of the day, this is a practical issue. We are getting on with the practicalities—the Liberal Democrats are very much in favour of that. There is more work to be done, for example on fish farming and related issues—the committee will work on them—but I commend the bill, as amended, to the chamber.
As six members have asked to speak, and the Minister for Rural Development is still to wind up, I ask that speeches be kept tight.
Having heard a few moments ago from Fergus Ewing the mortality commissioner—an appropriate title—we now have Richard Lochhead the consolidator. He has spoken in support of an amendment that asks that
"as the existing corpus of statute law relating to salmon fishing and conservation is both complex and fragmented, a Consolidation Bill be brought forward as soon as practicable."
Consolidation means codifying and re-enacting all the Victorian legislation that we discussed earlier. I do not want to consolidate all that legislation; I want to consign it to history. I hope that we will be able to do so as soon as possible, in view of what the minister has said about the green paper.
The fundamental point about the bill is that over the years there has been an alarming decline in salmon and sea trout stocks in Scottish rivers. We have a duty to do everything in our power to protect those important species, primarily because salmon are an important part of Scotland's natural environment, but also because they are an important element in our rural economy—important for Scottish anglers, for visitors and for the tourism industry—and because we have a duty to play our part in international efforts to safeguard these magnificent fish for the future.
Earlier—and not for the first time—I registered my strong feelings about the composition of district salmon fishery boards and the need for fresh legislation to make them more representative, inclusive and accountable. I am happy to acknowledge the good work of many boards—and indeed of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards—but the fact remains that it is not tolerable in the 21st century to leave such responsibilities and such extensive powers in the hands of bodies that are dominated by landowners. That is why I was truly delighted to hear Rhona Brankin's announcement that a green paper will be published in the summer on the important issues covered by the consultation paper on protecting and promoting Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries. I pay tribute to the minister for acting on this matter as promptly as she suggests she will.
For the time being, the district salmon fishery boards are the only bodies available to implement the important measures covered by the bill. It would be truly appalling if we were to get to the stage where someone, somewhere, earned the distinction of being the angler who killed the last salmon returning to a Scottish river. That must not be allowed to happen and it is what the bill is all about. The bill includes provision for consultation with anglers and environmentalists and essential fallback powers for ministers to make regulations under section 10A(3).
The bill is absolutely necessary as a stopgap measure. It would have been very difficult to find time for the issue at Westminster. I do not remember any Scottish National Party member at Westminster introducing such a bill, so it is a bit silly for Richard Lochhead to say that the Government should have done it in the past. However, I congratulate Rhona Brankin on taking this important bill through Parliament. Having worked with some of the bill team in the early stages, I too know that they worked hard on it. Above all, I eagerly look forward to returning to the far bigger issues, when Rhona returns to the Parliament with her green paper in the summer.
I think that all members are in total agreement on the importance of salmon fishing for Scotland. It is essential for tourism and for the economy of many of the constituencies that we represent. We can therefore agree—and we have all agreed—that we all share the aim of conserving salmon, which is, in many ways, a symbol of Scotland abroad. The question is whether the bill achieves that aim. By acknowledging the bottom line that fewer fish are surviving the marine phase of their lives, the minister clearly acknowledges that that is where the real problem lies. We welcome the measures in the bill, although there are serious imperfections in the bill and although we are reliant on the good intentions of the minister of the day in exercising widely drawn powers in a responsible way.
I remind members of the comments of the director of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, who said that he wished
"strongly to emphasise that only some of the causes of reductions in salmon stock . . . can be attributed to the part of the life cycle over which Salmon Fishery Boards may exercise any control. The Association believes that many of the major drivers of salmon stock abundance are in the marine phase of the species' life-cycle".
Rhona Brankin acknowledged that in her remarks, and repeated that there are many bodies that give advice. However, I urge her to reflect on why, if everything is hunky-dory and if all those bodies are providing adequate advice, we have seen such a spectacular decline—85 per cent in four decades—in the level of salmon stocks.
It seems that the existing procedures are not operating correctly. That is why the SNP believes that there should be an action plan. Many of the Nickson report's recommendations should receive more careful consideration. That report was published five years ago. I was pleased to hear the minister confirm that there is an exercise to consolidate the existing legislation. To answer John Home Robertson's point, to reform the law one must first know what the law is at the moment. We obviously want fundamental reform of the existing law. In order to achieve that aim, we need to have a clear understanding of the many statutes that exist. I believe that most members recognise that.
It is absolutely imperative that an action plan be drawn up, and I hope that, however members vote today, the Executive will give my proposal serious consideration for the sake of conserving salmon.
In accordance with your previous instructions, Presiding Officer, I shall be brief. However, I ask your indulgence for one moment, as I should have declared an interest earlier in today's proceedings. I own a short stretch of a very unproductive river, and I hope that members will forgive me for not having said that earlier. In previous debates and committee meetings, I have always been scrupulous in declaring that interest.
I should also put in a word of defence for my colleague Jamie McGrigor against Mr Rumbles's completely unwarranted personal attack. My colleague is too decent to say so himself but, as the Conservative fisheries spokesman, he was present at every meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee at which the bill was discussed. Mr Rumbles would do himself more favours—
Will Mr Fergusson give way?
He would do himself more favours if he stuck to the facts and left off the rather unpleasant personal attacks.
Will Mr Fergusson give way?
Of course I shall give way—if only Mr Rumbles had the grace to wait until I had finished my sentence.
My point was that Jamie McGrigor was taking the view that the bill gave unfettered power to Scottish ministers. He had not even read the bill. It is made quite clear in the bill that that is not the case. He was completely unaware—
I do not think that we should labour this point much longer.
I shall not labour it any further at all, Presiding Officer.
I found the passage of the bill, both through the Rural Affairs Committee and through the Parliament, somewhat disturbing. It was introduced as a non-controversial bill that all of Scotland would welcome. However, controversy has increased as the bill has progressed. I find that worrying. That alone should set alarm bells ringing, but the bells should be all the louder when we are told, as I have been told increasingly, that the bill will do little for conservation and is really an attempt to transfer slightly increased power from the local river boards to the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive has tried its hardest to consolidate that power by resisting all attempts to make local consultation mandatory. In short, the bill is more about powers of river management than about conservation.
At stage 1, the Conservatives gave a cautious welcome to the bill. Our caution has been absolutely justified. It is to my great sorrow that we are unable to lend our support to the bill any longer. It is generally agreed that the Scottish salmon strategy task force report of 1995 contained many of the answers required to address salmon conservation effectively. The bill does not contain enough of that report's recommendations to persuade us that it is anything other than an inadequate piece of legislation, somewhat hurried through the Parliament, which seeks to empower the Executive, without expense, in a way that will do virtually nothing for the conservation of salmon in Scotland. This party will not lend its name to poor and ineffective legislation. Because of that, sadly, we will not support the bill.
We are all aware of the problems of the wild salmon fishery and of the reasons for the need for this bill so I will not repeat them. It is obvious that we need more research, but I am sure that some is taking place and the bill allows us to gather, consolidate and make use of that research.
The bill has been criticised as being too little, too late, because it addresses only rivers and is only enabling legislation, but I am sure that that criticism will be allayed by the minister's statement this morning of her intention to introduce a green paper. Others have complained that the bill is an infringement of their human rights because it allows Scottish ministers and district salmon fishery boards to legislate on the way that they fish. It has also been argued that the bill gives too much power to district salmon fishery boards and/or Scottish ministers—people can take their pick. The fact that all those arguments have been made leads me to believe that the balance between the powers given to each of the bodies has been struck properly.
A lot of the objections can be put down to suspicion of the unknown, because the measures that will be taken will not become clear until the secondary legislation is in place. The bill does allow the secondary legislation to address local circumstances. That is important, as a lot of the evidence that we have taken has shown that there are many reasons for the downturn in salmon stocks, depending on the river. The bill allows for local solutions to problems. Contrary to many rumours the legislation will be consulted on—everyone involved will have a voice.
I hope that by the end of the day the legislation will be in place and that we will have another tool to tackle salmon conservation. We must look forward to consider how the bill will be used. We must never forget that without salmon there will be no fishery. Those who feel that their interests are being affected by the bill should consider that—if there were no fishery, their interests would be severely affected.
We must also consider the way forward. Many issues that came up for discussion cannot be part of this bill. We need to consider the make-up and role of district salmon fishery boards. Not all rivers have boards and the make-up of boards is not uniform. Some boards are progressive and do a lot of good work; others are not and do not. We need to examine the legislation that governs them and ensure that best practice is put in place throughout the country. We must consider too the role of water bailiffs and whether their powers are relevant in a modern society. If they are, we must consider standardisation, training and accountability. If they are not, we must consider other options for policing rivers.
All those are questions that must be addressed in the future and that could not have been addressed under the bill. I urge members to support the bill and to put local solutions in place that will conserve salmon.
I am pleased to support the bill. It is a limited measure, but a useful first step. I want to thank ministers for their patience when we dealt with new section 10A(3A) and for the compromise that they accepted. Today's statement is helpful and clarifies that even within the context of the bill as it stands, a revocation can take place if stocks improve after a regulation is made.
The minister said that the focus of my amendment would switch from fish to fisheries. I remind her that section 10 will be inserted into a section of the Salmon Act 1986 headed "General regulation of salmon fisheries", but there we are. There will be enough what might be termed Pepper v Hart-type statements in the Official Report of today's meeting to satisfy those who had the concerns that I attempted to articulate.
The bill is a useful first step. I hope that a number of measures will be implemented at a later date. In particular, I hope that we will be able to return to the issue of habitat, because I believe that there are major opportunities in that area. I regret that I was not able to draw up an amendment that was effective enough for this bill. Salmon is a vital resource for Scotland and it is a major income earner. We must protect it and this bill sends out that signal to all. We can progress from here.
I was interested during the debate in the insistence of my constituent John Home Robertson—I see that he is returning—on the reform of district salmon fishery boards. I accept that there may be occasion to do that later and it may be valuable to do so. However, I remind him that not all district salmon fishery boards are proprietor dominated. The River Tweed commissioners are not exactly a district salmon fishery board, but the proprietors are outnumbered and outvoted on a number of occasions by angling club members, one of whose complement I am.
Interesting times are ahead. We have made a useful start today. I congratulate the minister on taking this bill through and thank her again for her patience and courtesy when dealing with section 3.
Presiding Officer, I first respond to your stricture on failure to give due notice of substantive points of order. I apologise for that. You are quite right that if one is going to raise a matter of significance, one should give due notice.
The Executive wishes to underscore the general support that has been given today for the objectives of the bill. Although some have contended that obstacles in the path of the bill might prevent it making a difference, I refute those assertions. What we have here is more than we have ever had before. This bill adds significantly to the ability of fishery managers to manage their resource effectively for the good of salmon and for the good of Scotland.
I do not believe that the SNP amendment adds anything to the matters under consideration. I am glad that Fergus Ewing noted that ministers have conceded that consolidation is under consideration. We will bring it forward, subject to parliamentary time. At no stage—neither at stage 1 nor at stage 2—have we pretended that this was other than a limited piece of legislation, which was intended to amend the Salmon Act 1986. We have never said that dealing with the problems of salmon did not require wider consideration. Therefore, statements of the obvious seem not to add much to our consideration.
This is an enabling bill. The details of any measures to be introduced will necessarily have to be tailored to meet the needs of the district where they will be applied, and those will be spelled out when regulations are made. I stress that any proposed regulations will be the subject of full consultation. The bill requires that, and it is only right and proper. That is the time for matters of detail to be considered.
I say to Jamie McGrigor that I am astonished, because I have not heard it before, that the Conservatives in this Parliament believe that the procedures for dealing with secondary legislation—the procedures for consultation, consideration before a committee and having a vote in Parliament—are so fatally flawed that the process does nothing more than give unfettered and unlimited powers to a minister. I put it to Jamie McGrigor that that is not the case. All those procedures mean that any regulation that is proposed under this bill will be subject to scrutiny. Ministers do not, under this bill, gain full and unfettered powers.
How much consultation was there on this bill?
It was subject to the usual pre-legislative scrutiny, which is part and parcel of the procedures of the Parliament. I regret that Mr McGrigor is unaware of that. I repeat that we will adopt that procedure for the introduction of regulations.
The Tories have now totally withdrawn their support for the bill. I find that equally surprising, because they did so on the contention that this bill should have contained more measures. Let us consider the marshalled list of amendments lodged by the Tories today and at stage 2. If one adds them up, even if they had been accepted they would have made no substantial difference to this bill in any shape, size or form. Here we have a party that lodges what are, no doubt, worthy and well-thought-out amendments at stage 2 and stage 3 of the bill's progress, which do not add up to provision of the substance that the Conservatives claim is missing from the bill. I am extremely surprised that the Conservatives are withdrawing their support for the bill.
Does the minister deny that the two purposes of the bill are to give the Executive power and to stop salmon being killed?
Well, yes. [Laughter.]
Minister, I do not want to hear long theological arguments at this point. I would prefer to be finished by 1 o'clock.
A self-denying ordinance on questions that ask questions and then repeat themselves is interesting. I will accept the Presiding Officer's stricture. I will not get into a theological argument, but I will move on.
We all recognise that Atlantic salmon face many problems. I repeat that the bill does not seek to address them all, not least because we have not identified all the problems. We must do that before we can think of ways to address them. We know about many factors that we in Scotland cannot address on our own. Some of the problems that beset our salmon occur when the fish are well outside our area of jurisdiction. We are active participants—part of the European Union delegation—in the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, and we will continue to make the case for Scotland's salmon to that body.
There are, however, some matters over which we can exercise some direct control. We know that there might be times when measures will have to be implemented to regulate the numbers of salmon that are being killed and we know that local managers will need access to information on which they can base their management programmes. The bill addresses those needs.
If I understood the minister's earlier remarks correctly, he supports the two parts of my amendment to the motion on the bill that say that the bill is limited in its scope and that there should be consolidation. The third part of the amendment says that there should be an action plan. Does the minister support that part of the amendment? If not, what does he suggest as an alternative? Will he apply the precautionary principle to the threats to salmon during their marine phase about which we have clear research?
We are already doing that. I have indicated that, in so far as all those matters were dealt with at stage 1 and stage 2 and are being dealt with today during stage 3, Mr Ewing's amendment to the motion adds nothing to our deliberations.
I conclude by saying that the salmon has been important to Scotland for as long as there have been people around to fish for it. We need only think of the salmon that are represented on the coats of arms of many of our Scottish cities and towns to recognise the place that is held by the species.
We want to ensure that the salmon remains important and that it remains in sufficient numbers to allow our long-established and hugely important salmon fisheries to continue. Today, we have the opportunity to endorse a bill that honours our obligations to protect Scottish salmon and which takes a first step in that direction. There can be no better start to our record of achievements in 2001. I call on Parliament to give its unqualified support to the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill and to reject the SNP amendment.