Freshwater Fish and Fisheries
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3021, on "Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries: Securing their future", in the name of Allan Wilson, and two amendments to that motion.
Contrary to some statements that have just been made, I believe that there is a deal of interest in the debate.
As I said last week in the debate on special areas of conservation, we in Scotland are blessed with a wealth of natural resources that are the envy of many. Not least among those resources are the fish that live in our fresh waters and the diverse fishing opportunities that they provide.
There is no reason why the Parliament cannot develop and improve those opportunities to the benefit of the people of Scotland. Such development must be sustainable. We must ensure that future generations of not only Scots, but the visitors whom we would like to welcome to Scotland, will be able to enjoy fishing in Scotland.
That calls for rational, informed and sensitive management. It also requires wide participation among the various sectors of the salmon and freshwater fishing community. That was recognised when my colleague John Home Robertson issued the consultation document "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries: A Review" and when Rhona Brankin followed that with the green paper that we are debating.
Scotland has a long history of salmon fisheries management—there is evidence of law from the 12th century. In 1997, the Scottish Office published the report of the Scottish salmon strategy task force, which was charged with considering salmon fisheries alone. It is now time to consider the bigger picture. How do we manage all our fish and fishery resources?
The consultation document's purpose was to document the position of freshwater fish and fisheries. Many responses were received from a variety of individuals and groups. How we manage our freshwater primary resource is of the utmost importance, and the green paper sets out how we should do that.
I am heartened by the excellent responses from a variety of interested parties, including members of the public, local authorities, district salmon fishery boards, angling clubs and associations, and non-governmental organisations that are interested in fish and the freshwater environment. That gives the lie to the belief that there is no interest out there in how we address such problems. It is heartening to know that the issue can generate such a high level of interest. It shows that people care—as I do—about Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries.
The green paper is part of a long-term strategy. It is a new start to the process of freshwater fisheries management in Scotland and recognises the interrelationships not only of different fish species, but of the variety of people and activities that can affect them. The paper was issued to provide anyone who is interested in protecting and promoting Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries with the opportunity to help the Executive to take management into the 21st century. I hope that this debate will also provide that opportunity.
The minister says that he wishes to take management fresh into the new century. His predecessor suggested that there was no prospect of legislative time to deal with the matter in the immediate future. Will the minister say whether he thinks that we need a legislative framework to allow progress to be made? If so, when does he anticipate that legislative time will be made available?
I will come to that shortly. Until the Cabinet meets, I am not in a position to discuss the next legislative programme. However, I accept the basic premise and will deal with it, as will my colleague Ross Finnie.
The paper recognises, as I do, that a wealth of knowledge and experience outwith the Scottish Executive should be harnessed.
I assume that members are aware of the broad range of issues that are covered by the green paper. I do not propose to provide a blow-by-blow account of everything that is in the paper, but I assure members that the Executive is fully behind its proposals. Some proposals can be put into effect only in the long term. If I may, I would like to concentrate on a few issues that we can and must address in the short term and the medium term.
When I looked through the document, I could not find any reference to the effect of acidity on fish stocks, which is a particular problem in Dumfries and Galloway as a result of a combination of high levels of forestry and the former power stations in Northern Ireland. Will the minister take that issue into consideration? Will he involve the Forestry Commission in discussions?
I have been assured that the issue is mentioned. If it is not, I will certainly ensure that attention is directed towards it, as the issue has been raised. In the consultations on the water framework directive, we are considering river basin management and flows from forestry and other agricultural production facilities. The short answer to the member's question, therefore, is that the issue will be taken into consideration.
I want to turn to economic analysis, about which I have an announcement to make. We know that angling is an extremely popular sport and that many hotels and guest houses, particularly in rural areas, depend on visiting anglers to extend their tourism seasons. We also know that many new fisheries, particularly for rainbow trout and coarse fish, have been developed in recent years. However, we do not know with any precision how important salmon and freshwater fisheries are to Scotland's economy as a whole. To remedy that, I am pleased to announce that an in-depth economic analysis will be undertaken by 2003. The terms of reference are being finalised and will be put out to tender next month, but finance has been secured to ensure that the economic analysis can take place.
The law relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland is complex. A draft bill to consolidate the existing Scottish salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation is at an advanced stage of development.
Over the past few decades, a number of fish species have been introduced into Scotland—five new species have appeared and are now established in Loch Lomond, for example. Undoubtedly, some species had adverse effects on the ecology of the loch. We need to take stock of what we have in Scotland and seriously consider how to regulate further introductions. That will be done this year through an appropriate order under the Import of Live Fish (Scotland) Act 1978.
Will the minister indicate what steps are being taken to measure the impact of the introduction of non-native species in places such as Loch Lomond?
Research has been done on that. It featured in the consultation documentation that was proposed by John Home Robertson, and we received several responses. There is now scientific data to establish the impact that the introduction of those species has had on indigenous species. That scientific data underpins our intention to make the appropriate order, under the Import of Live Fish (Scotland) Act 1978, to protect indigenous species.
To address the point that was made earlier, there is currently no legislation to regulate the transfer of native fish within Scotland, but it is clear that appropriate measures should be introduced as early as possible.
There will always be a requirement to move some fish. Where that happens, we must be sure that the fish are healthy. We will consider the scope for registration of fish farms and hatcheries that provide fish for stocking. Fisheries Research Services is producing guidance on stocking practice, with particular reference to restoration proposals.
On increasing angling opportunities, it is quite possible for anglers to fish without killing their catch—coarse anglers do that all the time. Many owners of salmon fisheries are promoting the adoption of catch and release. However, some anglers are still keen on killing as many salmon as possible, sometimes to cover their fishing costs and perhaps to look for a little bit more. There have been widespread calls for many years for a ban on the sale of rod-caught salmon to stop that practice. As the chamber will know, I have issued a draft Scottish statutory instrument for consultation and officials are now in the process of analysing the responses that have been received, with a view to introducing a Scottish statutory instrument to stop the practice.
A review of the Fisheries Research Services freshwater research programme has been undertaken to refocus work to reflect better the developing policy needs of the Executive, not least in so far as the introduction of alien species is concerned.
On the legitimacy of coarse angling methods, it is a matter of great concern to coarse anglers that every time they go fishing in Scotland they commit an offence if they use methods that are regarded as the norm elsewhere in the world. At the moment, the use of rod rests in Scotland is regarded as fishing by means of a set line. Changes in primary legislation will be required to rectify that situation if we are serious about promoting that branch of the sport, given its increasing popularity.
Scotland has great fishing, both for salmon and freshwater fish. Let us not underestimate the opportunity that angling provides to attract visitors here. I want to see fishing promoted as a major part of our tourism strategy. This country offers world-class angling and my officials are liaising with VisitScotland to ensure that fishing is to the fore in its promotional work.
There has been widespread criticism over the years of the system of protection orders made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. When ministers are satisfied that applicants will provide increased opportunities for fishing for freshwater fish, they may make protection orders making it an offence to fish without legal right or written permission from the owner of the right. Where there is no protection order, anglers still need permission to fish, but fishing without permission can be dealt with only in the civil courts. It is time to look afresh at the management of freshwater fishing in Scotland, and to establish a system that is designed to balance the needs of anglers and riparian owners.
I have taken three interventions, which I know has extended my address. I will conclude on an important point about the management of fisheries.
The most important issue to be considered in the green paper is how rational management can be achieved. No structure is in place to manage wild brown trout and coarse fisheries. The green paper made a number of proposals based on submissions that were made by Angling for Change. Meetings have been held with that group and further discussions are in prospect. A pilot project to establish how salmon, trout and coarse fishery management plans may be integrated is being discussed with Angling for Change, with a view to future implementation.
I commend the green paper to the Parliament and look forward to support for its proposals to develop this vital contributor to Scotland's economy, to provide enjoyment for Scotland's people and visitors, and to secure the future for Scotland's fish and fisheries.
I move,
That the Parliament endorses the Scottish Executive's commitment to the future conservation and management of salmon and freshwater fish and fisheries in Scotland, as set out in its consultation paper Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries: Securing their Future, and welcomes the firm intention of the Executive to work in partnership with the users and owners of these resources to ensure better management and sustainable fisheries.
I apologise to the minister for having to hurry him along, but we lost almost nine minutes of the debate in dealing with points of order. I will do my best, but I am afraid that perhaps as many as three members who have requested to speak may not be called. I will apply stringent time limits to all speeches.
I welcome today's long-overdue debate. The SNP is delighted that the Parliament has finally got round to debating the future of Scotland's freshwater fisheries sector. I was surprised that the minister began with what was potentially a new announcement. I have to tell him that on 26 July 2001, Rhona Brankin announced that there would be an economic impact study of the value of angling to Scotland. Unfortunately, there were few new announcements in the minister's speech.
Despite the green paper's good intentions, there is no timetable for legislation. I reiterate Brian Adam's concerns and appeal to the ministers to present a legislative timetable. If they do not give us such a timetable today, the debate will simply raise false hopes among those people who want to see substantial change in our freshwater fisheries sector. There are many challenges facing the sector and a radical overhaul of the complex and confused regulatory regime is long overdue.
In the dark days of Westminster rule, all that ever happened was that Governments in hock to the landowning classes were able to push through legislation that would protect only their interests. From the Tory amendment, it is clear that although the rest of us have moved on and seek to address the real challenges and opportunities that face the sector, the Tories are content simply to protect the interests of the landowning classes. Westminster has left Scotland with a fragmented and piecemeal management regime that has seen the decline of the species that are managed whereas the species that are not managed are left to wither on the vine.
It is the task of the Parliament to modernise and democratise the management of wild fish stocks in Scotland. Today, we are talking about Scotland's rich natural heritage as well as angling, a popular sport and economic activity that pumps millions of pounds into the rural economy each year. The assessment of the economic value of angling tourism to Scotland is long overdue.
We should not get too bogged down in the economics. Scotland's rivers are inhabited by many unique and world-renowned species, which maintain the health of Scotland's river systems. We need a freshwater policy that maintains biodiversity through healthy and sustainable native wild fish stocks and which recognises and boosts the contribution of angling tourism to the rural economy. We must develop an effective, fair and democratic management regime for our freshwater fisheries. We need a national policy to help achieve those objectives. I hope that today we are beginning the process of creating a national policy.
Although I accept that the Atlantic salmon is one of Scotland's most famed and valuable species, we must create a policy that serves all species, communities and anglers. As many submissions to the Government's review pointed out, it is time to adopt a holistic view of our rivers. It is folly to regulate migratory species but ignore everything else. We need to manage whole freshwater river systems and the totality of our fish stocks on a natural catchment basis, rather than what we had before, which was on a single-species basis.
It is essential that any policy is ecologically sound. We welcome the proposals mentioned by the minister to regulate the introduction of non-native species to rivers and the transfer of species between catchments throughout Scotland. If we do not regulate that area, biodiversity can only be compromised further and our ecosystem will be disrupted. It is ludicrous that, given the raft of regulations already in place, such matters are ignored. That sums up the mismanagement of Scotland's fisheries by Westminster down the years.
Although the SNP supports a presumption in favour of native stocks, we urge the minister to take on board the concerns of all the coarse anglers who have been in contact through the review. They want clear definitions of non-native species and they want decisions to be based on science. We also favour the regulation of stocking, hatcheries and the use of live baits to ensure that the biodiversity and integrity of our rivers come before any commercial interests.
Thankfully, the salmon farming industry is starting to get its act together in protecting wild fish. As has been discussed many times in the Parliament, there is a crying need for on-going research on the impact of salmon farming on wild fish stocks. The loss of migratory fish during the marine phase of their life cycles also remains a mystery and that, too, should be the subject of on-going research. It is essential that all fisheries management is based on robust science.
As far as protecting fish stocks is concerned, we welcome moves to protect river habitats.
Does the member agree that the fish farming industry must be given the tools to deal with the sea lice problem that affects wild fish?
I agree that the salmon farming industry needs assistance from the Government. I welcome the fact that various partnerships involving all the sectors have recently begun to provide that assistance. We must ensure that research is being done, and the Government has a key role in funding that research.
We must recruit all land users and owners with land adjacent to rivers, especially farmers. Only two days ago, a slurry spill threatened the life of 40,000 trout in one of the rivers in the north-east of Scotland. We must use the land management contracts that are in the pipeline to help recruit farmers and pay them for helping to improve river habitats.
The SNP favours a national policy, but it is extremely important that any such policy is delivered locally and through representative bodies that cover each catchment area in Scotland. We support the idea of area management committees that bring together all the various interests. However, once the committees are up and running, we should review the role of the district salmon fishery boards, which will have to be assessed once the new management regimes are introduced. In the meantime, the boards should be democratised and modernised, and we urge the minister to introduce proposals to ensure that a wide range of interests, especially local community representatives, serve on them. Our national policy must be socially just; our rivers and wild fish stocks are part of our national heritage and all people, not just the wealthy, should benefit from them.
The SNP believes that, as we move towards holistic management of our river catchments, the next logical step may be a single umbrella body to manage all our fish stocks. At the moment, a plethora of agencies and bodies is involved in managing our rivers and wild fish stocks, and the SNP does not believe that we will be able to deliver an effective national policy with so many organisations.
For the sake of biodiversity in our rivers and our rural economy, it is important that we use this opportunity today to strike a balance between conservation and exploitation. If we get the balance right, Scotland's environment, heritage, economy and people will reap the benefits for centuries to come.
I move amendment S1M-3021.2, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:
"welcomes the development of a long-overdue national freshwater fisheries policy; recognises that such a policy must be ecologically sound, regionally appropriate and socially just; calls on the Scottish Executive to publish a legislative timetable for the achievement of such a policy and calls for the publication of an annual report on the health of the sector including its economic value to the rural economy, and recognises the need to address the number of agencies and the complex legislative framework involved in the management of freshwater fisheries."
I draw members' attention to my fisheries interests in the register of members' interests.
I support the green paper's general aims and welcome the commitment to an economic survey that would undoubtedly show the importance of Scotland's freshwater fisheries including not just salmon and sea trout, but brown trout, pike, perch and grayling. Frankly, such a survey is long overdue and the recommendations of the excellent Scottish salmon strategy task force report of 1997, most of which have been accepted by the Executive, should be enacted. The Hunter report of the 1960s, which also provided an excellent blueprint for successful fisheries, should also be closely re-examined.
That is all the more important as Scotland's fisheries will shortly be highlighted as a very important European resource, which means that Scotland will be under the spotlight. We must show ourselves to be capable of excellent management of our fisheries resources.
As far as managing a very important resource is concerned, does the member share my view that access to that resource ought not to depend on how much one can afford to pay but on a desire to take part responsibly in a legitimate sport?
As much angling as possible should be made available to the general public at as low a cost as possible.
The Executive's aims seem to be very confused. On the one hand, it seeks to protect, promote and secure the future of Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries. On the other hand, however, it supports part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was proposed by its Liberal partners. Far from encouraging investment in fisheries, that part of the bill will have precisely the opposite effect, as it will be detrimental to fisheries investment and employment and therefore disastrous for fish stocks.
Even more confusing is the statement, in the second paragraph on page 2 of the green paper, that
"the Scottish Executive's policy is not to intervene in willing buyer/willing seller arrangements."
How can the Executive say that and in the same breath state that it favours compulsory purchase? The extension of compulsory purchase powers to contiguous fishings undermines security of title. For example, public sector groups that supply housing improvement grants will not fund a project if the applicant in question does not have a secure tenancy.
Will the member give way?
Yes, as long as the intervention is not too long.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill explicitly provides that anyone applying to acquire a fishery has to produce an approved plan showing that that fishery is sustainable. How can that possibly be at odds with the objectives that the Executive is setting out in today's debate?
I do not have time to answer that question at the moment, but my colleague Alex Fergusson will answer it later.
How can river managers secure investment if there is no security of title? Some £3.2 million of investment money that was due to be spent on fishery improvement and enhancement in the Highlands has already been put on hold. How will the fisheries managers and the new trusts that were recently set up to improve Scottish fisheries be able to find the funds? Will the Executive supply the money? Everyone involved in river and loch management, especially those who are at the coalface—or should I say the fish face—such as river managers and ghillies, are against compulsory purchase. They are worried that many jobs will go and that much of the estimated £140 million that Scottish fisheries bring into local economies every year will be lost. Furthermore, they see it as a measure that, far from securing Scotland's freshwater fisheries, will decimate them. It is shameful to sacrifice successful, well-managed fisheries on the altar of community land ownership. It is a bridge too far.
Fisheries bodies are asking when the salmon consolidation bill will be introduced. It is necessary that whatever replaces the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 covers the whole of Scotland. Good management of fisheries should be based on scientific advice and local knowledge, as the two go well together. More attention should be paid to the value and promotion of Scottish brown trout fishing. The coarse fish anglers are looking for more recognition and sensible regulations, and I agree with them. Scotland has good coarse fishing, but there is no point in making regulations that cannot be policed before a new management structure is in place.
In my view, local fishery boards have done well in Scotland so far and have cost the public nothing. That should be borne in mind by those who want to replace them. They must say what they would replace the boards with and how the replacements would be financed. I know a little bit about protection orders, as I am still the chairman of the Loch Awe Improvement Association, which manages the protection order on some 80 miles of fishing on Loch Awe and Loch Avich. There are some anomalies, but they could easily be put right.
When Rhona Brankin was the minister with responsibility for fisheries, she paid a visit to an Angling for Change meeting held on Loch Awe and I believe that she was impressed. From an original bank account of £300 in 1992, we now have an income of more than £50,000 per annum, generated by 20,000 fishing days for anglers. We employ four contract wardens and Loch Awe holds all the records for big fish. We employ a fisheries scientist and a project officer in conjunction with the Argyll Fisheries Trust, which was founded by the Loch Awe Improvement Association. We have a committee that is truly representative of all stakeholders, including the Scottish Anglers National Association.
Many think that salmon farming has been detrimental to wild salmon and sea trout fisheries because of predation by sea lice, but I am encouraged by the new co-operation that is going on. In many places on the west coast, runs of salmon have improved and sea trout are showing signs of recovery.
To conclude on a positive note, I am delighted that the Linnhe, Lorne, Loch Etive and Sound of Mull area management agreement is being signed on Monday, with Ross Finnie in attendance. I believe that that truly is a step in the right direction.
I move amendment S1M-3021.1, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:
"agrees that there should be a commitment to the future conservation and management of salmon and freshwater fish and fisheries in Scotland; further agrees with the general aim of the consultation paper Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries: Securing their Future, but notes with concern the substantial harm that the Scottish Executive's Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will do to the future of Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries."
I am glad that I am following Jamie McGrigor in the debate, because I cannot let his outrageous comments go without setting the record straight on the impact of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill that is currently going through the Parliament, and to which his amendment refers. A great deal of nonsense has been spoken about that bill, with vested interests—particularly in the Conservative party—spreading misinformation and alarm throughout rural Scotland.
Jamie McGrigor and I are both members of the Rural Development Committee and have been involved in that committee's detailed scrutiny of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I will remind Jamie of what we said in the committee's report:
"The Committee agreed … that the right to purchase contiguous salmon fishing rights should remain included in Part 3 of the Bill".
The report went on:
"the Committee considers that the criteria for Ministerial consent in section 71 are rigorous and adequate to ensure appropriate stability for investment."
Let us consider for a moment what those criteria involve. Section 71 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill states that the criteria for the exercise of the right to buy must be
"compatible with the sustainable development of the subjects of the application."
The minister made that point in his earlier intervention, with which Jamie McGrigor could not cope.
Section 71 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill also states that the crofting community must obtain
"sufficient croft land to enable those subjects to be exploited",
and that the crofting community must be "an appropriate crofting community". However, the most important criterion is that ministers must consider the purchase to be "in the public interest."
In addition, a community must jump through many hoops to ensure that its application to buy is appropriate. The final purchase will be at market value. The Scottish Land Court will determine whether land and fishing rights can be purchased against the consent of the owner. Whether a purchase is essential to sustainable development of a crofting community will be only one of the considerations.
Why should fisheries in particular be compulsory purchased? Why not compulsorily purchase golf courses, for example?
I refer Mr McGrigor to what I just said, which is that the crofting community must obtain sufficient land for the crofts to be properly exploited. There must be a connection between the two—that is the point.
Jamie McGrigor might recall that the Rural Development Committee was completely unconvinced by those who argued that jobs would be lost and that damaging uncertainty would be created. The Tory amendment states that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will cause
"substantial harm … to the future of Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries."
What absolute nonsense.
I am a member of the Rural Development Committee, as is Mr Rumbles. Does he suggest that the people who, in evidence to the committee, told us plainly that investment would dry up and that jobs would be lost were not telling the truth?
I thought that Mr Fergusson, as convener of the Rural Development Committee, would appreciate that different people gave different evidence to the committee. It is up to the members of the committee, including the convener, to weigh up that evidence. Everybody on the committee—except for two members who voted against it—agreed with the statements that I made earlier, which were from our report.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will, because it is concerned about sustainable development in the crofting counties, develop sustainable employment opportunities. The bill will give greater security to those who are involved in the salmon fishing industry.
The most important element of the Executive's motion is its commitment to
"work in partnership with the users and owners of these resources to ensure better management and sustainable fisheries."
The Executive is taking seriously Scotland's freshwater fishing industry. The River Dee is in my constituency so I, too, understand well the importance of the industry to Scotland. There are real concerns about the decline in salmon and sea trout stocks that have occurred over a number of years.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute, I am afraid.
In some areas, there is concern that salmon numbers have fallen to levels at which the salmon's survival cannot be assured. Indeed, those concerns prompted the River Dee board, among others, to introduce catch-and-release measures between 1994 and 1998. The total rod-and-line catch of salmon and sea trout caught and released has increased from just 9 per cent to 22 per cent throughout Scotland.
rose—
Mr Rumbles is in his final minute.
I know that the River Dee board has been at the forefront of progressive conservation measures because it was quick to appreciate the fact that a vibrant stock of fish is essential to the tourism and fishing industries in the area. Many jobs and the economy of much of rural Scotland depend on a successful and vibrant freshwater fishing industry, which we must ensure.
I have been disappointed by the attitude of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency in regard to the incidence of environmental pollution from discharge into the River Dee, which was highlighted this week in the north-east media. SEPA must react far more quickly to address such incidents if we are to maintain the highest standards.
I particularly welcome this debate and I welcome the Executive's action in producing a review of Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries in 2000. I also welcome the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Act 2001 and the green paper that we are debating today. The Executive recognises the importance of fisheries conservation. I urge members to support the motion and to reject both amendments.
We have only 29 minutes for open debate. I will try to get everyone in. That will be achieved if speeches are kept close to three minutes.
The common law position in Scotland is that fish in free-running water or in an open loch are not the property of anyone, but become the property of the person who catches them, whether or not that person owns the fishing rights or has permission from the owner. The common law is often over-ridden by statute law, particularly the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. I was a member of the House of Commons when that legislation was introduced. I warned the Government at the time that the bill would be a retrograde step. The declared aim of the bill was protection in return for access, but in reality the legislation has meant less access for ordinary anglers, who now colloquially refer to the so-called protection orders as "exclusion orders".
It is now a criminal offence for anglers to fish protected waters without permission.
rose—
Will the member give way?
I give way to Euan Robson.
I acknowledge that Dennis Canavan has given what might be a common view in certain parts of Scotland, but does he agree that the protection orders have facilitated access on rivers such as the River Tweed, where over 90 per cent of fishable water is available to any angler, whether local or visitor?
I do not accept that the protection orders have facilitated access. I am sure that the many anglers from central Scotland who want to go down and fish the Tweed and the Eye would agree with me rather than with the member who has just spoken.
Even when anglers apply for permission, they often find that the price is prohibitive and that there are still many restrictions on where and when they may fish.
Will the member give way?
I give way briefly.
Does the member accept that, on Loch Awe, one can get a full day's fishing in beautiful surroundings for the price of two pints of beer?
If that is correct, I welcome it. However, that is by no means the situation throughout Scotland for areas that are covered by protection orders. The 1976 act has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. I am pleased that the Executive has at long last given a commitment to repeal that legislation.
What are the alternatives? A free-for-all would be in nobody's interest. Many responsible anglers would like a Scottish anglers trust to be established to determine a fair regime for freshwater fishing in Scotland. Such a trust should be democratically constituted with representatives of anglers, riparian owners and environmental interests. Ordinary anglers would be able to elect their representatives through their clubs. The trust would decide policy on matters such as access, charging, conservation and stocking. The trust should also be empowered to acquire fishing rights.
In terms of participation, angling is one of Scotland's most popular sports. Angling is also a huge contributor to the economy, especially in rural parts of Scotland. It is unfortunate that some landlords have adopted a rather exclusive attitude to access to fishing and it is about time that the Parliament took action similar to what we have done in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Having ensured a statutory right of access to the countryside, we should take similar steps to ensure a fair and responsible right of access to freshwater fishing, while ensuring conservation and improvement of some of Scotland's greatest natural assets.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
I want first to deal with fishery management. When the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill was passed, many welcomed the legislation because everyone could see the need to conserve salmon stocks. In my speech for the stage 3 debate on that bill, I said that we needed to look at the make-up of the district salmon fishery boards. That issue is as important now as it was then. Although many fishery boards are forward thinking and are moving with the times, others are stuck in the dark ages and will not change voluntarily.
The progress of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill has provided insights into the mindset of some of the landowners who run many of the fishery boards. They said that crofters could not be trusted to run a salmon fishery because crofters do not have the relevant expertise and would end up damaging the salmon stocks. Such views are complete nonsense and show the ignorance of that minority.
Will the member give way?
I am struggling for time—that is why I am speaking so quickly.
One thing that came out loud and clear during the passage of the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill was the need for land managers to work with the salmon fishery boards to ensure that farming practices are not detrimental to fisheries. Crofters must have a place on the salmon fishery boards because many of the land managers are crofters. I suggest that we now have the perfect opportunity for reforming the membership of the salmon fishery boards so that they contain representation from the crofters, farmers and the communities in which they operate. Such membership would also enhance the relationship between fishery owners and crofters, which has been so badly damaged by ill-informed statements.
Land reform provides opportunities for conservation. We are all well aware of unmanaged rivers where more could be done to enhance the fishery. Crofting communities will now have the opportunity to purchase their local fisheries, manage them and use them to provide jobs and tourism in the area. That is one of the main benefits of the fisheries right to buy under the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which will allow communities to invest in and capitalise on their natural resources.
I welcome the analysis that is to be carried out into the contribution of angling to the Scottish economy.
Will the member give way on that point?
I am sorry—I am struggling with the short time that is available to me.
We all know from anecdotal evidence that angling contributes greatly to the economy; building up a more precise picture of angling activity will be of great assistance.
I welcome the continuing discussions with VisitScotland to ensure that angling is given the prominence that it deserves in marketing. We must ensure that everything possible is done to promote every aspect of Scotland. I appreciate that the Minister for Rural Development is not directly responsible for the matter, but I ask him to work closely with his colleagues to ensure that angling is actively marketed by VisitScotland.
I hope that the debate and the responses to the consultation will allow the Executive to introduce proposals that will ensure the long-term growth of freshwater fisheries. I urge members to support the Executive motion.
As other members have said, freshwater fishing is one of the things for which Scotland is rightly famous the world over, and I was pleased to note that more than 110,000 tourists come here for angling. It is vital to Scotland, and I welcome the minister's announcement. We need more information to be available at every level, including at local authority level, so that people know the value that angling brings to their local economies.
I support everything that Dennis Canavan said in relation to the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. The price of two pints of beer might get me on to Loch Awe, but it would not get me on to the Rivers Findhorn, Lossie or Spey, which are close to my dwelling place.
On a separate point, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—NASCO—came before the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries in Brussels when I was an MEP. I am proud to note—not many members seem to be so—that Scotland houses an international organisation that covers the interests of other countries in the matter. I know that NASCO was consulted in the course of the massive consultation, which I was fascinated to read and for which I congratulate everyone. Could we get representatives of that body to come and give us a presentation? It was clear to the Committee on Fisheries that NASCO alone had been carrying out definitive research on why, how and when salmon find their way to a particular river—or why they fail to do so. Its representatives told the Committee on Fisheries that it would need 15 years of tagging fish at Greenland Gap before it could come up with any answer to the mystery of salmon. Is it perhaps time that we asked that organisation to come before us to inform us on how it is getting on in solving that mystery?
There is a morass of managers and organisations, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, or SEPA; the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department, or SEERAD; Scottish Natural Heritage, or SNH; the police; the water bailiffs; local authorities; and in some areas there are district salmon fishery boards, although there are no district salmon fishery boards in others. It is clear that we require legislation to establish one system for the whole of Scotland, as long as that includes a major local element, so that people can feel involved.
Our amendment discusses the need
"to publish a legislative timetable",
which I agree with. It also
"recognises the need to address the number of agencies and the complex legislative framework involved in the management of freshwater fisheries"
and the need to find a better system by which to protect our magnificent resource.
There is far greater democratic access in Wales than is generally the case in Scotland. The Welsh have tremendous access to fishing rivers through local authorities. It is perhaps time we examined how they manage the affair, apparently fairly painlessly.
I agree with what Richard Lochhead said about biodiversity. We must always take care to work with ecologists, because so many mistakes have been made. We know that salmon are not the only fish in the rivers.
I turn finally to the question of riparian owners and the recent flooding. There is no doubt that the withdrawal of grants to farmers for maintaining banks was one of the essential causes of that flooding. Perhaps it is time that we reconsidered giving farmers an incentive to keep banks clear. Is it not also time that, as we try to find out who owns Scotland, we also build up some sort of chart of who owns Scotland's fisheries and make that public?
I speak in the debate as a boyhood angler, but one who has never actively fished for salmon—although I am open to offers.
We are discussing a significant national asset that is under threat. In the few minutes that are available to me, I want to highlight some of the problems that freshwater fish and fisheries face, and to suggest some solutions.
The Scottish salmon strategy task force calculated as long ago as 1995 that the net economic value of salmon board fisheries to Scotland was £350 million a year. In that year alone, the Tweed fishing was worth £12.5 million to the Borders economy. Scottish salmon fishing contributes enormously to the tourism industry and its charm and excitement attract high-spending fishermen from all over the world. However, we should it bear in mind that, primarily, fishermen need fish in order to pursue their sport and that they can pursue their sport anywhere from British Columbia in the west to Russia in the east. Unless we attract and keep those customers in a competitive world market, we will quickly lose them. Indeed, unless we do all that we can to protect and support salmon rivers, we could lose a valuable national asset.
There are many threats to our freshwater salmon. First, there is the coalition Government, whose Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is already reducing the continuous investment that is needed in Scotland's rivers. Those misplaced reforms will do more to destroy the industry than any other threat. Other problems to be faced include seal predation, which has not yet been adequately addressed. Perhaps the establishment of a seal commission, similar to the Red Deer Commission, would go some way toward addressing that. Mink also pose a threat, as do poachers. The only reason why poaching is not a bigger threat is because of the problem of low-cost farm salmon.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Fish farm escapees that interbreed with wild salmon pose another problem to wild fisheries, as do sea lice. I welcome the new mood that is abroad to address that.
As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee and a contributor to the rolling aquaculture inquiry, I hope that the establishment of critical carrying capacities for sea lochs and of maximum sea lice burdens, adoption of area management agreements and encouragement of best practice will go a long way toward resolving the threat that salmon farming poses to wild salmon fisheries. Combined with a policy of appropriate relocation of fish farms, those measures should bring resolution of the problems closer.
In my area, the salmon in the River Ayr fishery are under threat from the difficulties surrounding the Catrine dam. There, the fish leap needs to be redesigned and the dam needs to be repaired, but money cannot be found for either task. The fish stocks are suffering and will continue to do so. The problem of the Ayr illustrates my point that wild salmon fisheries are a fragile asset. Unless balanced but proactive regimes are in place, those fisheries can easily be put under threat or, in the worst case, lost altogether.
At the moment, the biggest threat comes from a lack of on-going investment because of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. All those who are involved day to day in sustaining and managing Scotland's salmon rivers agree that it is a bad bill. The equilibrium and the balance that previously existed and which created sustainable fisheries is being lost. Despite the Executive's fine words, one must question what the coalition Government's intentions are. Perhaps the in-depth analysis that will be provided by the document, "Securing Their Future", which is to be published in 2003, will give us a clearer indication of the Government's intentions. I look forward to reading it.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a speech on a matter that is of considerable importance to my constituency—I mention my entry in the Register of Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament, which states that I am the secretary of the Kelso Angling Association.
The 1996 Deloitte Touche study into the angling interests in the Borders economy, which has been alluded to, showed that the sector was worth £13 million to £14 million a year and created 520 full-time equivalent jobs. It is responsible for about 75 per cent of activity tourism in the Borders. Any new arrangements must protect that important economic interest. If they do not, the minister will hear from another Government department—apparently, about £1.5 million in VAT is received as a result of angling in the Borders.
As the minister knows, the Tweed is in a unique position as a Scottish river that runs through England for part of its course. We must be sure that, under any new arrangements, one management system covers the whole river. A fragmented management system for the river must be avoided.
One-size-fits-all legislation for the whole of Scotland could damage the interests of one or another river system. I hope that any legislation that is drafted will be flexible and will show understanding of the arrangements for different rivers, which are often unique.
A centralisation of management—some kind of quango that covers the overall management of fisheries in Scotland—is unacceptable.
Will Euan Robson give way?
No, not at the moment.
I welcome what the consultation document suggests on area fisheries management committees. A very important point about AFMCs is that they should include major input from anglers. Perhaps the best model is the River Tweed Commission, in which proprietors are in the minority. There are more local authority representatives and angling association representatives than proprietors. John Home Robertson, who is a constituent of mine, shakes his head, but the latest figures are 43 non-proprietors to 38 proprietors, which demonstrates the point.
On stocking practice, I hope that, when legislation is considered, the minister will examine the powers that he has in regard to fish farms that are situated on important river systems. There is a proposal to introduce a salmon-rearing unit near Selkirk. Any escapes from that would be fundamentally detrimental to the pristine state of the Tweed. If the minister does not have sufficient powers, it would be very helpful for him to consider acquiring them.
It is true that, as Dennis Canavan says, protection orders have not worked in many parts of Scotland. However, the protection order system contains important ingredients that will be of benefit if they are continued. Local people must have the opportunity of managing the system. They must have such input.
Dennis Canavan is wrong to say that there are excessive charges on the Tweed. For example, it is possible to fish for brown trout and coarse fish for an entire season for £20. That is far less than any football season ticket. If that is not the case in other parts of Scotland, it should be replicated. Any reform should bring that about.
I concur that a number of the proposals in the consultation paper should be welcomed. I welcome the speeches from Richard Lochhead and Euan Robson for their references to the importance of river basin management. However, I question the Executive's commitment to making progress with the required urgency. For example, the paper states that
"freshwater habitats and associated fish species will benefit significantly"
from
"proposals to improve … management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest … and to strengthen measures which protect rare and endangered species"
as laid out in the Executive's "The Nature of Scotland: A policy statement". Since "The Nature of Scotland" was published last autumn, there have been no apparent moves from the Executive to implement the suggested changes. That leads me to ask when the Executive will find the parliamentary time to introduce the changes it proposes.
The fisheries consultation document refers to the impact of developments in aquaculture and their role in conserving freshwater fish. It is believed—with good reason—that the inappropriate siting of salmon farms may have a significant impact on native salmon stock as a result of the transfer of diseases and parasites and the interbreeding of escaped farm fish with wild salmon. However, I have heard rumours that the Executive has no plans to introduce legislation to reform the control of aquaculture in Scotland for several years. I believe that it is not even proposed to include legislation to transfer to local authorities responsibility for planning control for salmon farms on the Crown Estate in the forthcoming water environment bill. That move would improve substantially the environmental control of salmon farms—and do it timeously to boot.
The Executive may have made some worthy suggestions in its document, but if it is not prepared to act in reasonable time, those suggestions remain purely rhetorical. We cannot possibly wait for three, four or five years for effective legislation to control marine aquaculture, given the damage that could be done in the intervening years. There are many arguments about and reasons why salmon and sea trout stocks are declining. There is no argument about whether fish farms play a part in that process. The only argument is about the extent to which they are responsible for it.
Will the minister include early marine aquaculture legislation in the water environment bill? Will he go for joined-up Government, as the Executive keeps saying it will? John Scott mentioned a horizon for the measures. I suggest that that horizon is a bloody long way off.
I welcome the Scottish Executive's commitment to the conservation and management of salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland. I wish the ministers well in this very important work. Like other members, I welcome the fact that there is now to be an in-depth economic analysis of the impact of angling. We appreciate that angling is a very important sport.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time to take an intervention.
Angling is very important in my constituency. I am sure that the fisheries there will feature prominently in the analysis that is to take place.
Other members have mentioned the proper promotion of angling. I am happy to report that Visit Hebrides is working very sensibly with VisitScotland to do that on behalf of the Western Isles.
I turn now to the issue of district salmon fishery boards. I urge ministers to undertake an urgent review of the work and composition of those boards. Sadly, many boards are an extension of the offices of the landowning classes. I associate myself with Rhoda Grant's comments on the fishery boards and with what Dennis Canavan said about access.
When the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was published last autumn, a bogus group calling itself the Highlands and Islands river association was established. Three men, none of whom lives in the Highlands and Islands, set it up, and its remit was to destabilise the land reform legislation. As part of its recruitment campaign, the Highlands and Islands river association used the offices and chairmen of the district salmon fishery boards, because—rightly—it saw the fishery boards as the political wing of the Scottish Landowners Federation. District salmon fishery boards are an anachronism and every one of them should be disbanded.
Will the member give way?
Three-minute speeches do not lend themselves to interventions.
District salmon fishery boards have quasi-public body status. They appoint water bailiffs—individuals who have the same powers as the police service. Water bailiffs must be the only example in the United Kingdom of a private police force—a force that is not subject to the normal criteria to which the public police service is subject. Through the ages, there have been many examples of individuals who have been appointed as water bailiffs, with the powers that I mentioned, who would never have been recruited by a responsible police authority.
The salmon boards are unaccountable, unrepresentative and undemocratic relics of another age, and they should not be permitted to continue further into the 21st century. I hope that the minister will comment on that when summing up.
I note with interest, although not with surprise, that the Tory amendment claims that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will do
substantial harm ... to the future of Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries."
That statement is as flawed as it is insulting. Jamie McGrigor and his Tory colleagues happily ally themselves with those who claim that crofters are incapable of managing, nurturing and developing fisheries.
That is absolute nonsense.
Sit down.
The Conservatives' opposition to our land reform proposals strengthens the case for reform.
I seek an assurance from the minister that he will work closely with a representative group that was established a few weeks ago in the Western Isles, involving the council, the Western Isles Fishermen's Association and Scottish Natural Heritage. The group is considering the impact of seal numbers on fish stocks. I urge the minister to work sensibly and constructively with that group. Does he accept that, following in-depth analysis, we may have to discuss the realignment of seal numbers around the Western Isles?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During his speech, Alasdair Morrison indicated that members are unable to take interventions during three-minute speeches. Is that in the spirit of the debate and of Parliament's procedures?
It is entirely for the member speaking to decide whether he wishes to give way. It is unfortunate that we are taking further time away from the debate by contending about such issues.
I welcome this debate because, for many decades, Scotland's salmon and trout fishery was one of the largest and most diverse of the Atlantic salmon resources in Europe, with some 400 rivers supporting many hundreds of genetically distinct populations, including our native brown trout. That led to Scotland's justifiably being recognised as a provider of some of the most important commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in the world.
The present situation is not quite so encouraging. There are justifiable concerns about the critical decline in salmon and sea trout stocks, particularly on the Scottish west coast. In some areas, there are concerns that salmon and trout populations have fallen to levels at which their survival—and, certainly, the survival of commercial fishing interests—is in jeopardy. I am aware that several river systems in Wester Ross are almost devoid of sea trout and salmon. For example, until 1995, Loch Maree, which is considered by many anglers to be Europe's premier sea trout fishery, produced an annual recorded average catch of 2,700 fish in excess of two pounds in weight. Unfortunately, one could count last year's catch on the fingers of one hand.
There is no doubt that the situation is serious and requires all those interested in the promotion and sustainability of our wild fishery to co-ordinate a joint approach involving community groups, angling associations, fishery boards and proprietors, with Government backing to support an integrated management structure.
Not only are catches going down, but anglers are travelling to the Baltic states, Russia and even as far away as Patagonia for decent fishing. I welcome the efforts that were made over the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Act 2001 and the intentions in the green paper that we are debating today. However, I hope that there will be less talk and more action in future, otherwise not only will we lose the fish, but we will most certainly lose our angling customers.
For many decades, many fishery proprietors—both public and private—were quite happy to lease salmon sweep net stations in sea lochs and river estuaries, which accounted for the killing of many thousands of returning fish. In years past, that practice may have been sustainable, but I suggest that it should immediately be restricted, especially in or close to river estuaries.
We hear of, and have our own opinions about, the reasons for the decline of our wild fish stocks. We hear of predation, overfishing and pollution, but we need irrefutable, factual evidence, not just speculation. I commend the motion and the green paper as a way of identifying—and correcting—those reasons. Unless we do so, we will find that the honourable pursuit of angling—and one for the pot—will disappear from our culture forever.
This has been an interesting debate, which has demonstrated widespread consensus in the chamber in favour of radical reform of the legislation, with the Conservative party as the only exception.
Reform presents us with exciting opportunities. We have inherited a large and complicated body of legislation on freshwater fish. Much of that legislation originated in the House of Lords. It is a well-known fact that the House of Lords has always represented its constituents very effectively, so it is no surprise that the rights of riparian owners are well protected in the existing body of salmon legislation. To start with, we have the district salmon fishery boards, which are largely, though not entirely—I acknowledge that for Euan Robson's sake—dominated by landlords. Those boards run the most valuable fisheries—the salmon and sea trout fisheries. A body of common law covers brown trout, but far too little attention has been paid to what are disparagingly described as coarse fish—that is, species that are of great interest to increasing numbers of anglers who believe that they should be given more consideration.
Meanwhile, fish stocks, the environment and habitats in our rivers and lochs are facing serious threats from pollution, introduced species, damage to water courses and spawning grounds and losses of salmon at sea. I note that John Scott and Alasdair Morrison referred to seals, which are certainly a problem in some areas.
There is a tendency in such debates to concentrate on high-profile salmon rivers, such as the Spey, the Tay and the Tweed. Better management could benefit freshwater fisheries all over Scotland. I make no apology for citing the example of the River Tyne, which is in my constituency. During the past year, I have been working with the East Lothian Angling Association, East Lothian Council, the local National Farmers Union of Scotland branch, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Forth District Salmon Fishery Board and the Tyne Trust to tackle some of the problems on the Scottish Tyne.
The Scottish Tyne is a small river, but it has considerable potential as a sea trout river and could be a tremendous asset for local anglers and for tourists who visit my constituency. A series of obstructions at old mill sites on the river prevents the fish from being able to get up the river to spawn and makes them easy prey for illegal fishing.
The Tyne represents a good example of the problems that exist on many potentially valuable fishing waters in Scotland. We want the Executive to help local angling associations to protect and develop the fisheries and to create opportunities for angling for local people and for tourists. There needs to be a structure for the improvement of fisheries and the local angling associations need access to environmental and lottery funding.
The existing legislation is complicated. Much of it is outdated and too much of it is based on inappropriate entrenchment of the interests of landowners. The 1976 act has been referred to; it is an example of what can go wrong. It established the right of landowners to restrict access to fisheries by protection orders, if they increase the overall availability of fishing permits. Experience on the Whiteadder river, which rises in my constituency and is a tributary of the Tweed, shows that it is possible for landowners to offer better access to get the protection order, but to renege on that undertaking when the order is in place. That gives rise to problems.
Angling is one of the most popular sports in Scotland and it has immense potential as an attraction for tourists. However, we must make a better job of protecting all our native fish species, especially salmon and sea trout. The Scottish Parliament must extend its land reform agenda to establish a better framework of legislation and a more inclusive management structure that will help local angling associations throughout Scotland to improve access to fishing opportunities. There is no point in consolidating clapped-out legislation. I urge the minister to forget about all the legislation that we have inherited from the House of Lords and to introduce a new freshwater fisheries (Scotland) bill that will advance the agenda for better conservation and for genuine social inclusion on our lochs and riverbanks.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of interests and I dissociate myself entirely from the remarks that Alasdair Morrison made.
We are at the end of another debate in which members of the Government parties warmly congratulate themselves on a job well done and tell us that all will be well, as long as we leave everything to them. Sadly, that is not the case with fisheries, just as it is not the case with many other issues. Although, as our amendment suggests, the consultation paper contains much that is to be applauded, it has many holes in it—as many as are in a poacher's net—and in some areas it is as crafty as the poacher.
For example, page 5 promises:
"The new Rural Stewardship Scheme offers payments to farmers and crofters to support the creation, management and protection of a number of aquatic, riparian and wetland habitats."
It does not forecast that the funding that was available for the rural stewardship scheme would have to be spread so thinly that the minister would have to shift the goalposts for the scheme by removing altogether the scheme's capital spending elements, thus negating almost all the beneficial effects that it might have had on freshwater fisheries—however spurious they might have been in the first place.
As Jamie McGrigor pointed out, the extraordinary statement on page 2 is far worse. It boldly declares:
"the Scottish Executive's policy is not to intervene in willing buyer/willing seller arrangements."
On that basis, I assume that part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will be withdrawn, as that part removes the willing seller concept altogether. I am well aware that the Conservative party is the only party that is opposed to part 3 of the bill. Our opposition is based on a genuine concern about the future well-being of our freshwater fisheries.
In answer to Ross Finnie's intervention during Jamie McGrigor's speech, we have consistently warned that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will lead to—and, indeed, has already led to—the cessation of considerable inward investment by fishery owners.
If that investment is to continue following the implementation of the community right to buy, it can come only from the state. Given that the Executive has chosen to fund the land reform proposals through the lottery, how can we have faith that proper investment will continue to be put into fisheries when the sum available from the Community Fund has dropped from £700 million at its peak to £270 million per annum now? I was made vividly aware of the issue last night at the multiple sclerosis reception. I was told that charities are reeling from the Government's hijacking of lottery funds for political purposes. In many ways, the fact that the public is unaware that those policies are to be funded at the expense of charitable good causes is nothing short of disingenuous.
That is our principal concern. The Executive's grandiose and grandstanding position in part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill cannot be delivered financially. The result of that will be the exact reversal of the aims set out in the green paper, which we generally support.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have not got time; I am sorry.
I turn to another aspect, which Alasdair Morgan mentioned, which relates specifically to my region of the South of Scotland: acidification of rivers and lochs. Scant attention is given to that issue in the paper and yet it is the major problem in the south-west. The submission of the West Galloway Fisheries Trust brought proper attention to the matter. The passing mention of it in the paper is not enough.
Until the Executive is prepared to take a firm grip on such major issues, the paper is fine as far as it goes, but I believe that there are many in the industry who would argue that it does not go far enough. It is disingenuous to say that some of its main recommendations will require legislation, but that the time cannot be found for that legislation, as Brian Adam intimated.
There is a fear that the outcome will be to remove fisheries management from local, knowledgeable hands and pass it to the centre and the Executive. If that was not so, why did the Executive reject my amendment 13 to the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill, which would have made it mandatory to consult district salmon fisheries boards? We will firmly resist such a move to the centre but we are content to support the overall aims of the consultation paper, despite the differing messages that the Executive continues to give out in different pieces of legislation.
Fishing for pleasure has been around for at least 4,000 years. The first reference to rod angling is in Greek texts in Macedonian times. "The Compleat Angler" is still a subject of controversy. Apparently Jeremy Paxman disagrees with many of the recommendations in Izaak Walton's historic text.
Fishing is important. We know that. Even the Financial Times has an angling correspondent. In 1792, William Pitt the younger joined the first angling club to be formed.
In introducing the debate, the minister said that the Executive has planned few activities in the short to medium term. In responding to the debate, I hope that Mr Finnie will tell us about some of the specific things that will happen in the short term because, sure as heck, we need them. Just to reinforce something that came up earlier in the debate, research into the Scottish economic impact of salmon and sea trout was announced on 29 July, to Mike Rumbles. It is time that we got off the pot and got on with it. We welcome the early introduction of a ban on the sale of rod-caught salmon.
Jamie McGrigor said some quite astonishing things. He felt that part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was deficient in applying only to the crofting counties in the Highlands and Islands. I agree with him. We should have exactly the same rights as are being proposed in part 3 of the bill across Scotland, to recover derelict fishings for the public good.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have no time.
Of course, we could follow the example of many across the Highlands and Islands and acquire those derelict fishings for the public good by confiscating them, as so many of the landowners did in the first place. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is far too moderate in that regard.
I share Mike Rumbles's disappointment that some of the environmental agencies are not acting to the extent that they should be in protecting water quality and hence the environment for freshwater fish.
Dennis Canavan made an interesting point in relation to the common law. Looking across the chamber, I can see that the gamekeeping fraternity is represented. I will not point to where the poaching fraternity is represented, but I am confident that it is.
If Alasdair Morrison will forgive me, I will forgive him. I was once a water bailiff, when I was a student. Would that I had been suitable for the police force, I could have followed another path.
Rhoda Grant made points about fishing management. If we bring crofters in the Highlands and Islands into fishing management, we will see an improvement and derelict fishings will return to making effective economic returns.
Winnie Ewing made the point about research on where salmon come from when they migrate. The fact that we need 15 years of research indicates how urgent it is that we start now. We cannot wait.
Like John Scott, I was a fisher as a boy—for brown trout—but unlike him, I have fished for salmon. Alas, I have never caught one. The key point is that we have seen a decline in the salmon fisheries since the 1960s. That tells us that reform is urgently needed. Alasdair Morgan tells me that he has seen a picture of a salmon—so have I.
We need a new bill to protect our freshwater fisheries, and we need it urgently. I would like the Executive to tell us when it wishes to make progress on that. Please protect some of the historic terms that are used in the existing legislation. I have in mind gaffing, hang nets and, of course, sniggering. We will not snigger at the Executive's proposals if they are worth listening to.
It will be strange to those who have been listening closely to the debate to hear that the biggest compliment paid to the Executive came from the Conservatives' closing speaker, who said that the Executive's policy has holes in it. He said that it had
"as many as are in a poacher's net".
Those members who know anything about poaching will know that poachers' nets have no holes. I am deeply grateful to Alex Fergusson for that backhanded compliment.
The debate opened with a remarkable degree of unanimity between this bench and Richard Lochhead. Indeed, one or two members left in astonishment at that, but I see that having drawn breath, they have returned for the closing stages. To be serious, we set out a range of measures and there was a remarkable degree of unanimity about what needs to be done and the problems that face us. There was one singular exception—the Conservative party.
I will take head on the issue of land reform and investment. Why is it that when people who purport to be concerned about investment in salmon fisheries are confronted with a bill, the prime criterion of which is sustainable investment, they are suddenly to be found running under the benches? What is the problem with that? Who is the problem? Or is it that those who purport to be concerned are concerned that people who have an interest in their local community might actually wish to exercise that interest? They will have to come up with a better argument than telling us, "We are not interested in sustainable fisheries, because that is not the objective of the policy." I suspect that a different interest, which is not necessarily declarable in the register of members' interests, governs the position.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you.
Before we lose sight of it, I want to deal quickly with a second point, which was made by Winnie Ewing and was, as always, interesting. She referred us to the role that NASCO has played in the development of the issues on an international front. I did not wish to intervene on Winnie Ewing, but I assure her—perhaps she is unaware of this—that Scotland is represented on the European Union delegation to NASCO. I advise her that a proposal to hold the next NASCO council meeting in Edinburgh is under consideration. We may be able to address some of Winnie Ewing's constructive and helpful suggestions when NASCO comes here.
Many members talked about whether any reform of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 might result in an over-concentration of powers. Euan Robson and Mike Rumbles made equal points, using the Tweed and the Dee as examples. The Executive recognises the diversity of farming interests. Any new legislation will have to provide an overarching framework that draws on the elements of the existing regulations and orders that work. However, we must accept that, as Dennis Canavan said, such legislation is not working in Scotland as a whole. The 1976 act needs to be reformed.
Will it be repealed?
The 1976 act will be reformed and repealed. It will have to be replaced. However, elements of the act can work for some rivers. We must consider that when we build new legislation that gets rid of the restrictive practices to which Dennis Canavan eloquently referred.
Rhoda Grant talked about fishing management and the promotion of angling. Members will recall that Allan Wilson said that incorporating such concerns in the fishing strategy and the tourism strategy must be at the heart of the debate. He said that we must promote such an extraordinarily valuable interest.
Several constructive speeches were made, not least of which was that made by former minister John Home Robertson, who talked about how we tackle and incorporate the diversity of the industry. John Farquhar Munro and Robin Harper also talked about that. Alasdair Morrison asked me to take account of the new group that has been established in the Western Isles. I assure the member that we will work closely with that group and that we are interested in the outcome of the work that it will do on the balance of ecology between freshwater fisheries and seals.
All those points show the breadth of the problem.
Among at least three of the four main parties, there is a deal of consensus to get some change, but one difficulty is that the motion says nothing. It does not contain a commitment to introduce legislation to implement the changes that we have discussed. Will the minister outline the legislative timetable for the changes that we have discussed?
That is the same question as my colleague Allan Wilson took in an intervention. I believe that his first answer was that the First Minister would announce the legislative programme, which is correct. I may have been elevated to a position that I do not hold, but I appreciate that and I am grateful for the confidence in me.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I did not.
Action will be taken by legislation, which we must balance in the round. Never mind the date of the announcement, the fact is that, next year, the economic analysis will be available. This year, the legislation to consolidate our salmon and freshwater fisheries will be produced. We will be able to consider the introduction of transfers of non-native species under a statutory instrument.
Action is being taken. We can increase angling opportunities, and a draft Scottish instrument has been issued for consultation, as my colleague Allan Wilson made clear. We are undertaking a review of the fisheries research programme and we intend to introduce legislation to deal with the matters that have been discussed.
We have proposals for the immediate term and the short term that will support this important industry. The Executive is keen to ensure that our freshwater fisheries are given the importance that they deserve. We are working to secure that.
I commend the motion to the chamber.