Chamber and committees

I represent communities that are served by both the A75 and the A77, so I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement that work will progress to adjust speed limits for HGVs on single and dual carriageways. I have raised that issue previously with transport ministers. Will the cabinet secretary outline an indicative timescale for that work? Does she anticipate any changes being implemented on the trunk roads?

I am happy to support and speak to the motion, and I congratulate Rona Mackay on securing this debate on aphasia, which is a hidden communication disorder that affects many lives in Scotland, as Rona Mackay highlighted well in her opening speech. I, too, welcome everyone to the gallery.

Aphasia arises when the language centres of the brain are damaged, most commonly due to stroke but also through brain injury or neurological disease. It impacts a person’s ability to speak, understand, read or write and text, yet it leaves intelligence intact, which leads to misunderstanding and stigma.

In Scotland, the incidence of aphasia following someone’s first stroke varies across regions and affects approximately 54 people per 100,000 each year in NHS Borders. Given that a third of stroke survivors have aphasia, there could be as many as 128 new cases in Dumfries and Galloway annually. That means that, across the country, thousands are entering a world of sudden silence. Nationally, an estimated 350,000 people in the United Kingdom live with aphasia: nearly two-thirds of stroke survivors, which is more than those who are affected by Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy. However, nine out of 10 people have never heard of the condition, which is exactly why we are here today, so it is worth having this debate.

I have heard of aphasia, because I have been a registered nurse since 1988. In my work, over many years, I have looked after many people with aphasia and I have witnessed not only the challenges that are faced by the person who is affected but challenges to my ability to interpret and provide the best care.

Without visible signs, many people with aphasia are dismissed as confused or even drunk, as Rona Mackay has stated. However, all that they need is for us to have patience and take a wee bit of time to understand them.

The consequences of aphasia can be profound and include isolation, loss of confidence, difficulty in work and relationships and mental health challenges. After my close friend Mike—who we sadly lost a couple of years ago—had a severe stroke, he was left without speech. We could see how frustrated he was, because he knew what he wanted to say, but he could not get the words out.

A research report that was published by Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland describes the devastation that is felt by people who are not able to communicate, which leads to feelings of isolation and loneliness and to mental health issues. We can and should do better. Thankfully, inspiring initiatives are emerging here and across the UK. Last June’s rocking aphasia campaign saw painted pebbles left in public places, with each stone holding a story, urging finders to learn more, speak slower and listen with intent. Similarly, City St George’s, University of London collaborated with Aphasia Re-Connect to use music in storytelling concerts, underscoring how much remains behind the silence.

What can we do in Scotland? First, we must raise awareness. We must share aphasia facts, such as the fact that the condition affects up to a third of stroke survivors and that society often misjudges those experiencing aphasia. We need public education campaigns during stroke and dementia awareness weeks. We can promote the use of simple communication tools, which include picture boards, written cues and supportive care packs, such as those offered by the Stroke Association.

Secondly, we must support speech and language services. Organisations such as the Aphasia Alliance, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and Dyscover provide essential therapy and specialist aphasia support and run community groups. Funding those services must be a priority, particularly in rural and island communities where provision is uneven, including Dumfries and Galloway and the rest of the south-west of Scotland.

Thirdly, we need community inclusion. Councils, transport providers, retailers and public services can take simple steps to adopt aphasia-friendly practices, such as using slower speech in announcements and displaying appropriate written signage. A wee bit of patience can transform lives.

Finally, we must listen to lived experience. People with aphasia know best what helps, which can involve everything from adaptive therapy sessions to everyday social events. They should be at the heart of policy conversations.

Let me leave members with this: aphasia is not rare. It is common, disabling and deeply isolating. However, with education, training, support and inclusion, we can give voices back to those who are silenced by aphasia.

The evidence is clear that Scotland’s NHS is turning a corner, with downward trends across nearly all waiting list indicators. To suggest otherwise does a huge disservice to our fantastic NHS staff. I suggest that Jackie Baillie and her colleagues think twice about the impact of their scaremongering about our health and social care system in Scotland and the effect that that is having on the wider population—and perhaps also reflect on the dismal record of their colleagues in Wales and England before turning to our record. [Interruption.]

Can the First Minister advise how the Scottish National Party Government is working to deliver our health service in Scotland, continue to drive down waiting times, and invest in a well-funded and well-supported NHS for those who need it?

I had a good long conversation with a member of the senior leadership of West Coast Sea Products in Kirkcudbright, in your constituency, convener, which is part of my South Scotland region. I learned about how shells are being transported to the Netherlands for poultry farming and to Ireland for freshwater filtration. There are uses for them, but there is a lot of detail in the amendment. I am not opposed to it, but I am interested in finding out more about how those measures would be taken forward, especially if further consultation and affirmative legislation were needed.

Are you saying that, because my amendments do not cover rivers such as the Tweed, we would need to work with Westminster if we wanted to alter legislation to bring the provisions for the River Tweed into line with my amendments?

In the interests of time, I will not say anything other than that it has been recognised that there are differences with the River Tweed.

I am content to work with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3, because Fisheries Management Scotland is keen to ensure that the drafting is correct. I am happy to withdraw amendment 273, to not move the other amendments in the group and to work with the cabinet secretary.

I have concluded.

All the amendments in this group are in my name. I thank Dr Alan Wells from Fisheries Management Scotland for assisting me with them.

As the committee is aware, wild Atlantic salmon are at crisis point across their native range and are now considered to be an endangered species. Amendment 273 would ensure that offences resulting in the killing of salmon and sea trout carried penalties reflecting the species’ conservation importance. I have two alternative approaches. One would cover all the proposed changes in a single amendment, which is amendment 273. In the other, I have lodged separate amendments that relate to individual offences in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003. Those are amendments 272 and 274 to 283. If amendment 273 is agreed to, there will be no need to consider the others.

Fish poaching has one of the highest conviction rates of all wildlife crimes—the rate was 81 per cent in 2023—but the average penalty recorded is only £349. Amendment 273 would increase penalties for fish poaching offences to either the statutory maximum, which is currently £10,000, or, for the most damaging activities, to a maximum fine of £40,000, which is in line with penalties for other wildlife crimes. The amendment would not introduce any new offences and is focused on activities that result in the killing of salmon. It would also allow fines to be imposed on a per-fish basis, which would ensure that penalties were commensurate with the harm caused and might help to deter future offending.

Section 1 of the 2003 act makes it a criminal offence for any person to fish for or take salmon in any inland waters, except by prescribed legal means. Illegal methods of fishing include indiscriminate and highly damaging methods such as gill nets, which are walls of netting that catch fish by their gills, spearing or setting unlicensed traps.

All the amendments would modify offences related to fishing in the 2003 act. Amendment 274 would amend section 2 of the 2003 act, which makes it a criminal offence for any person to fish for or take freshwater fish other than salmon in any inland waters except by prescribed legal means.

Amendment 275 relates to the criminal offence committed by any person who

“uses any explosive substance with intent to take or destroy fish in any waters ... puts any poison or other noxious substance in or near any such waters with intent to take or destroy fish ... or uses any electrical device with intent to stun or destroy salmon or freshwater fish in any such waters”.

All those methods of killing fish are indiscriminate and extremely damaging to the environment if used in the context of fish poaching.

Amendment 276 relates to the criminal offence committed by any person who

“without legal right or written permission ... fishes for or takes salmon in any waters.”

The amendment would not change the current level of fine for fishing without permission unless the act of fishing without permission resulted in wild salmon being taken.

Amendment 277 relates to the situation where two or more persons acting together carry out any act that would constitute a criminal offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the 2003 act. The provision recognises that, where poachers operate as a team, often with a strong commercial drive and sometimes associated with serious and organised crime, the damage that is caused can be significantly greater.

Amendment 278 relates to the criminal offence committed by any person who carries out any act for the purpose of preventing salmon from passing through a fish pass or taking any salmon in its passage through that fish pass.

The provision recognises that any pinch points in the migration of salmon are particularly vulnerable to illegal activity and/or predation, and therefore require specific protection in such circumstances. It also recognises the vital importance of ensuring free passage of migratory fish, so that they can access their spawning grounds unimpeded.

Amendment 279 seeks to update section 19 of the 2003 act, which makes it a criminal offence for any person to buy, sell, expose for sale or be in possession of any salmon roe. Scotland’s conservation gradings are based on ensuring that enough salmon survive to spawn, with the calculations based on egg deposit rates in each river. Any activity that illegally removes eggs from the river will have a direct impact on that river meeting its conservation limit.

Amendment 281 relates to the criminal offence of being in possession of salmon that have been illegally taken, killed or landed. That offence is important, as it does not have to relate to the person who caught and killed the fish. Instead, it is a means of placing criminal liability on persons or organisations that receive such fish, including for commercial purposes.

Amendment 282 is designed to protect juvenile salmon and their freshwater habitats. The original provision relates to poaching, and makes it a criminal offence to take, injure or destroy, or to buy, sell or expose for sale or be in possession of juvenile salmon. It also sets out important protections relating to access to salmon habitat and makes it an offence to place any device or engine for the purpose of obstructing the passage of juvenile salmon; to injure or disturb any salmon spawn; or to disturb any spawning bed or any bank or shallow on which the spawn of salmon may be present. Protecting those important habitats is vital for the protection and restoration of wild salmon populations.

Amendment 283 relates to the criminal offence of intentionally introducing any live fish or live spawn of any fish into inland waters, or being in possession of any live fish or live spawn of any fish with the intention of introducing it into inland waters. Introduction of any fish into Scotland’s rivers should be carefully considered and undertaken only with appropriate authorisation. This important provision would prevent the introduction of non-native species of fish, which have been introduced in the past for angling.

There are also a minority of anglers who use live fish as bait, and such fish are often discarded into the river. They include non-native fish such as minnows, which have a negative impact on native species, including Atlantic salmon.

Finally—you will be pleased to hear, convener—amendment 280 relates to section 38 of the 2003 act, which allows Scottish ministers to make salmon conservation regulations if they consider it necessary or expedient to do so for the conservation of salmon. Currently, it is a criminal offence if any person acts in contravention of, or fails to take any action required of them or to comply with any requirement imposed on them by, regulations made under section 38. Conservation regulations, where used, are an important regulatory measure for the conservation of salmon, and compliance with their requirements is therefore vital.

I know that I have set out a lot of detail in describing the amendments, but I am happy to hear directly from the cabinet secretary on them. I hope that their drafting is acceptable—I know that there are a lot of them, but I am willing to work with the cabinet secretary on them, if necessary.

I move amendment 273.

Yes, absolutely. In my engagement with Fisheries Management Scotland, I have heard feedback that it has engaged with the Tweed Forum folks. The people involved in the rivers that we are managing in the south-west of Scotland and in the south, including the River Tweed, are all very much engaged with one another. Everybody is quite good at working together, as they are all professional.

I will conclude there.

Amendment 273, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 272 and 274 to 283 not moved.

Amendment 284 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].