Chamber and committees

You have raised a number of hugely important points, and there are a few things that I want to touch on.

The presentation of the figures has not helped in any way. What looks like an overall budget cut is based on the budget revision. When you compare it with the original 2024-25 budget as it was published, you see that there has been a 1 per cent increase in the funding—I want to be clear on that point. It is more of a presentational issue, because of the changes in the way that the budget has been presented.

I visited Aberdeen recently to see the marine directorate—I have visited it previously—and I understand the committee’s concerns about the site in Aberdeen. The directorate carries out vital functions for us in relation to science, compliance, enforcement and a number of different areas, as well as all the work that is being undertaken in relation to the marine environment. I believe that the directorate undertakes that role very well, and we are continuing to invest in the marine directorate as a whole.

I will touch on some of the particular issues that you raised. In the pre-budget committee evidence, we covered in some detail committee members’ concerns about the estate in Aberdeen. At that time, I outlined the establishment of a project board to look at short-term measures for some of the issues at the site as well as at the medium-term and longer-term plans. That work is still very much under way.

It is important to highlight that, as challenging as the estate in Aberdeen is, there has been significant investment over the past few years. Around £9 million has been spent on the estate, but further work is planned over the course of the coming year as we work towards longer-term solutions on the site. I listened carefully to the evidence that the committee received and to the concerns from a variety of stakeholders, and we are continuing to invest in the marine directorate because of the vital functions that it undertakes.

We seek to maximise income from those areas where we can. I do not have specific figures on that in front of me. Iain, do you have that information to hand?

We have an overall allocation for the marine directorate and there are different budget lines within that for the initial allocations. Iain Wallace will be able to give more detail, but at the moment there are indicative allocations, which are the starting point for business planning to look at the key priorities and decide where resources can best be placed. As I have said, we will be happy to provide the committee with further information about the internal allocations across each of the portfolios within the marine directorate if that would be helpful.

We have listened to those concerns, and we have shown that we have responded to them. Can we solve all problems that have been identified for all rivers? Potentially not, but, as we have highlighted, we have changed assessments where we have had that information or where the methodology or the data that we have received has been queried. That shows that we do listen and that we do respond.

On your second point, I think that there is no way that I could commit to that without getting legal advice or seeing what resource and so on would be required. Also, what would be the basis for doing that? If the instrument were to be annulled, would the basis of the information and my advice from officials change? I do not believe so. We could just end up in a similar position. I am concerned about the timescales; they are increasingly tight, and I would be concerned that we would not be able to do this in time.

I am sorry, convener, but can you remind me of your first question? Oh yes—it was about Jackie Baillie and the concerns of her constituents. Jackie Baillie has written to me on behalf of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, and I, of course, take that correspondence seriously, just as I take all the correspondence that I receive seriously and consider the points that are raised before issuing any response. I know that officials have engaged directly with the association, too, which I think shows that we are engaging and listening.

I ask officials to comment on some of those points, because they have more of the detailed information.

You have touched on a really important point, particularly in relation to the River Annan. You are absolutely right about what Fisheries Management Scotland has said. If the motion to annul was passed, there would be a big economic impact, particularly on that area, because it would mean that the early season would be unlawful, which would have a significant impact. That is another vital reason why the regulations need to proceed. I hope that the motion to annul is not supported today.

I am sure that officials can provide more detail on that. When it comes to wild salmon conservation, a number of pieces of work are under way. I mentioned in my opening comments the wild salmon strategy and its implementation. Over the past few years, we have invested nearly £5 million in actions as part of that strategy, including those relating to the counter network.

You raise a really important point. As we have said, we work on the best available data. Of course, wherever we can improve it, we would like to do so. You have just heard about the investment that is taking place in the counter network. Dr Middlemas touched on the fact that part of the methodology that we use will be peer reviewed, but he also pointed out that the methodology and the way that we use the data that we have hold up internationally. We look forward to the outcome of the peer review process, and, where there are recommendations for areas of improvement, we will consider them.

Some of those issues are picked up only through scrutiny of the instruments. The issue here is one fishery, but a number of river systems are covered by the regulations, and it makes sense for us to bring them together in the round. We might be in a position where another fishery contests the data that we have put forward, but, as I have outlined, where such issues arise, we try to address them at an early stage. Indeed, that information and the work that we are doing have already resulted in the gradings of two river systems being changed.

Can we say categorically that everyone will be happy with the assessment of a river system? Of course not, and there is no saying that we will not end up in such a position again. That is why the work that we are doing on the data and the peer review work that is being undertaken on the methodology are important. Given that work, and given what Dr Middlemas has outlined to the committee today, I am confident—as much as I can be—that the methodology stands up to international scrutiny and is in line with how this activity is carried out elsewhere. It is really important to bear that in mind.

As committee members have pointed out, we have to do what we can to protect this iconic species for Scotland. That is exactly what the regulations set out to do, which is why it is vital that they are approved by the Parliament.