Chamber and committees

I do not know. IFMI is the one that is closest to my mind, so I think that it is my new favourite.

It is the responsibility of all parts of Government and all relevant authorities to undertake island communities impact assessments when it is believed that there would be a disproportionate impact on those communities. That work is very much undertaken.

The Government is vast and I have a cross-co-ordination role in relation to which I am supported by the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity. We are supported by a team of islands officials who embed that work across Government and with different departments to ensure that our island communities are always taken into consideration.

I do not think that it is fair to say that my portfolio cares about islands and others do not. You have picked a specific example, and I do not have all the figures on that, but my portfolio is not the only portfolio responsible for investing in islands or, in fact, in rural communities. I mentioned climate funding earlier. Funding for that sits with the NZET portfolio and will be transferred to the transport portfolio, which has specific projects that are set to benefit rural and island communities as well.

There are funds right across Government, in other portfolios, for undertaking and delivering. The work that is undertaken through the national islands plan is really helpful in pulling all of that together, because it is about showing other parts of Government what we are doing across Government to deliver for our island communities. The work that we are taking forward on the refresh of the national islands plan, which ensures that we have identified the most pressing challenges for island communities and that we are taking action to address them, is really important.

I expect island communities impact assessments to be part of the work that Government does. When there is a disproportionate impact, those impact assessments should be undertaken, much in the same way as we do BRIAs and equality impact assessments and provide fairer funding. I expect that it forms part of what portfolios are looking at.

I do not have them in front of me, but I expect that they have been done. I can follow that up with the committee and provide confirmation.

It would make the early season unlawful, so it would not be able to take place. I do not know whether there is any further information on the specifics of the economic impact that you mentioned in your first question, but the business and regulatory impact assessment, which has been published as part of the regulations, picks up on some of that.

If the regulations were not to go ahead, I would be concerned about the impact on the Annan, as well as about the wider issues of wild salmon conservation.

I completely appreciate your point. I point out that that word is being used specifically in relation to the regulations, but I acknowledge the point that you make. The issue is not about exploitation; it is about how we ensure that the species recovers. That is exactly where we want to be. Salmon is an iconic Scottish species, and we want to enhance it and reverse some of the trends that we have seen so that the populations grow. That is the ultimate goal, and that work is broadly covered by what we are trying to achieve across the wild salmon strategy. We know that no single issue is causing the decline in populations. The issue is multifaceted, which means that we need a broader approach.

As I said, I will provide the committee with further information. I hope that you will find it helpful, as it will allow you to see the action that we are taking across a number of areas to address the pressures where they exist.

I thank committee members for the points that they have raised.

There are a number of issues bound up in this. We have talked about the data and about working from the best evidence that we have. As Dr Middlemas outlined, some of that takes more time to build up and develop. This is not necessarily about resources that we can easily put in place to fix things; it requires time and constant improvements to the methodology and how we assess that evidence.

We have to look at the bigger picture and the wider context of the work that we have talked about today—the wild salmon strategy and the implementation plan. I have already said that I am happy to write to the committee and provide more information on that, so that you can see—

I would be happy to follow that up and to set out in writing the figures that I outlined to the convener.

Discussions on the annual delivery plan are about looking at priorities for the coming year and how to best allocate resources within that year. We have had discussions on this previously, convener, and I have not received final advice in relation to potential next steps for the proposal. As we have said in previous conversations, it would feature in the wider discussion that we will have about overall priorities. However, it is important for me to be in receipt of that advice first.

I appreciate the discussion that we have had and the questions that committee members have asked.

As far as withdrawing and resubmitting the instrument is concerned, we would have to look at the basis of that, first of all, and then I would have to take advice to see what the timescales would be. After all, we cannot forget the other part of these regulations, which relates to the Annan. That will come into effect for the early season, which is from 25 February, so I do not think that we would have the time to take the instrument away and resubmit it. Again, the question is, what would be the basis for our doing that and what information would we base that on?

As I have mentioned in my comments to committee members, we are aware of 18 fisheries on the Endrick. We updated what we had on the back of information that I believed we had received from Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association. As for the association having further evidence and feeling that the information that we have is not correct, we have not, as I understand it, received any further information from the association in spite of our asking for it.

I have serious concerns about the motion being annulled today. Much of that concern has been outlined by Fisheries Management Scotland, because such a move will affect a number of rivers. As I have mentioned, 12 rivers are due to be downgraded, but it would also affect the three that would no longer have mandatory catch and release, and there would also be the impact on the Annan and the economic impact of not implementing the instrument.

That is why I urge the committee not to support the motion to annul today. We are working with the best evidence that we have, and it is vital that the regulations proceed.