Chamber and committees

The member mentioned my amendments about salmon. If a salmon is accidentally killed by someone who is fishing for salmon, any investigator would have to reasonably suspect that that had been done with the purpose of doing so illegally. My point is that reasonable measures can be taken to assess whether it was accidental.

I press amendment 48.

I will speak just to my amendment 48 in this group, because I do not want to delay proceedings by addressing other amendments.

Amendment 48 will amend the national park aims by introducing

“encouraging sustainable and regenerative agriculture”

to those aims. I believe that it is vital that we do everything that we can to promote and support sustainable and regenerative practices in our national parks. In particular, I recognise the important role that traditional farming systems have played in shaping and maintaining our landscapes. They are essential for managing those special places sustainably while supporting food production and enabling rural communities and businesses to thrive.

During the consultation on establishing a national park in Galloway, concerns were raised by some farmers, including dairy farmers, about how a national park would impact their businesses. Amendment 48 will demonstrate that we understand that sustainable and regenerative agriculture is really important to have among our aims and that farming is an integral part of our national parks. The amendment is about recognising those facts and signalling that integrated land use in national parks needs farming and farmers. We have already seen good examples of that understanding in the establishment of the Cairngorms future farming initiative and the resilient farm network initiative in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. For those reasons, I ask members to support amendment 48.

I move amendment 48.

Amendment 34 relates to the conservation of populations of wild salmon, which, as I have previously noted, are at a crisis point across their native range and are now considered to be an endangered species. I thank Dr Alan Wells of Fisheries Management Scotland for his education, his support and his advice on the amendments that I presented at stage 2, and I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their support and assistance ahead of my amendments at stage 3.

The motivation behind amendment 34 is to increase financial penalties for the most serious offences against salmon on summary conviction either to the statutory maximum of £10,000 or to £40,000 for the most damaging activities, which would bring offences in line with other wildlife crime and enable certain financial penalties to be issued on a per-fish basis. The amendment would also allow penalties to be determined on a per-fish basis when an offence results in the taking and/or harming of more than one fish.

As I noted at stage 2, the most recent wildlife crime statistics show that fish poaching is the most common category of wildlife crime, but it has the lowest level of fines on average. Fines by category range from £349 for fish poaching to £2,813 for offences against badgers. The amendment would not introduce new offences; it focuses on financial penalties for activities that result in the harming of wild salmon and their habitat.

At stage 2, I agreed to withdraw my original amendment on the issue to take time to discuss with the cabinet secretary the effect that such an amendment would have across all rivers in Scotland. As we heard at stage 2, offences against salmon sit across a number of pieces of legislation covering the River Tweed, the River Esk in the Borders and the rest of Scotland respectively. Amendment 34 relates to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003, which covers all rivers in Scotland except the River Tweed and the upper River Esk.

It is vital that we take the opportunity to amend the 2003 act now, while the Scottish Government addresses the situation with the Tweed and the Esk, which requires working with the UK Government to align penalties across all rivers in Scotland in order to avoid disparities. I have discussed those matters with the cabinet secretary—I thank her for meeting me—and she has made a commitment that the Scottish Government will work with the UK Government to request the necessary amendments to other relevant legislation. We also discussed a couple of technical issues with the withdrawn amendment, which have now been resolved. The commencement provisions in the bill allow for amendment 34 to be brought into force once arrangements have been made for the River Tweed and the River Esk, in order to avoid disparities among Scotland’s rivers.

I know that the Government is working with partners, under the Scottish wild salmon strategy, to ensure the protection and recovery of this iconic species, and that is welcome. Amendment 34’s uplifting of financial penalties for salmon poaching offences and offences related to salmon conservation would bolster work that is being done in that crucial area and reflect the conservation importance of wild salmon.

I ask members to support amendment 34.

Yes.

As I set out during stage 2 proceedings, I am keen that we recognise the wide and complex range of circumstances in which deer exist and are managed in Scotland. It is also important to recognise—and I know that the minister does—that there are more than just red deer in Scotland. Roe deer numbers, for example, are increasing in Scotland, including in urban and peri-urban areas.

I welcome the contact from and engagement with one of the South Scotland deer managers, David Quarrell, as well as other local deer managers. David highlighted to me the local challenges of managing deer in urban and peri-urban areas. Different approaches, for example, in relation to habitats and species, need to be considered when creating a national deer management plan. I thank the minister for his comments and for meeting me to discuss my wishes for the amendment.

Management solutions must be flexible and locally driven rather than part of a one-size-fits-all national plan. Many deer managers are volunteers or recreational shooters who can and do contribute significantly to control efforts. As the minister mentioned, there are different approaches in the Highlands and the Lowlands to deer management.

It has been raised with me that the requirement for equipment and other associated costs to be self-funded may be a barrier to engagement in lowland deer management, and also for young people who may wish to enter deer management. I am pleased that the minister has lodged amendment 20 to create a national deer management plan that seeks to address those concerns. My amendment 33 is intended to complement that amendment and to set out the kinds of information that I am keen to see included in that national plan, and I urge members to support it.

It is clear that colleagues have worked with the cabinet secretary, as did I, to lodge amendments—that is, my amendment 48 and amendments 71 to 74—to the aims of national parks and to the advice before making proposals for a national park.

The original legislation on national parks is two decades old. I acknowledge Mr Ewing’s views, and I witnessed concerns and questions during the consultation process on the potential new national park in Galloway. I support the aim of helping our food producers, because food production is the primary reason for farming. However, we need to recognise that “sustainable and regenerative” requirements should be added to the aims of national parks in this part of the bill.

Do I need to move my amendment, Presiding Officer?

There are other funding streams out there. On Friday, I visited the dairy nexus at the Barony campus at Parkgate, which has received £8 million—£4 million from the UK Government and £4 million from the Scottish Government. I heard about lots of innovation that is happening, and lots of skills, as part of Digital Dairy Chain. That is funding that is being put into innovation.

The Farm Advisory Service is another route for giving farmers support and advice. Will you talk a bit about other funding streams and opportunities that are out there?

Cabinet secretary, £1.3 million is being invested in skills for regenerative and sustainable farming and food production. Can you tell us what that funding will deliver in practice?

You mentioned Women in Agriculture. I think that Digital Dairy Chain is funding Women in Dairy. Has money come from the Scottish Government to support the Women in Dairy network?