Chamber and committees

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].

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendment and the much-needed detail that it provides. Her amendment and the motion mention the A77 and the A75—two roads in the south-west of Scotland that need major investment. Mr Carson has highlighted well the number of lives lost and families affected. The A77 connects Scotland’s central belt to Ireland via the port of Cairnryan and is economically vital to Scotland.

I want to highlight the good work that is under way by Transport Scotland on the Crocketford and Springholm bypass design development, which, when complete, will mean that every settlement along almost 100 miles of the A75 will have been bypassed. The A77 Maybole bypass was completed three years ago and has been improving travel since it opened. Investment has been made of more than £100 million on improvements along the two roads since the SNP came to power, along with more than £300 million on maintenance, but that is still not enough.

I will not take an intervention. I usually do, but I have only four minutes—apologies.

Like everyone in Dumfries and Galloway, I want to see more investment, and the quicker the better. It does not help that successive UK Governments have squeezed and squeezed Scotland’s capital spending budget in the name of the economic disaster that is austerity. We need continued investment in transport in the south-west, as the cabinet secretary rightly noted in her amendment. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s work with the south-west Scotland transport alliance and the A77 action group.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendment highlighting the need for improvements to rest stops for freight drivers, which Sue Webber’s motion also mentions. I want to focus the remainder of my time on rest stops. I recently met the Road Haulage Association. One of the main items that came out of our discussions was the need for better facilities for HGV drivers. HGV drivers are the hidden heroes and heroines of our economy, which we saw especially during the Covid lockdown. The entire logistics system that keeps almost everything in our society supplied and stocked can only function with them working safely and efficiently, so the working conditions that they operate under are hugely important.

Unfortunately, the level of provision that is currently in place on our trunk roads does not match that level of importance. None of us would accept being told that there were no toilets in the building where we work, yet, while Scotland lags behind with the rest areas that are provided, that is, in essence, what many HGV drivers are being told. The second strategic transport projects review specifically noted that investing in lorry parks and rest facilities for drivers would

“significantly improve working conditions for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) drivers”,

and that

“Improvements to facilities would, therefore, also help support the Scottish economy and its growth”

by supporting and enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of key supply chains.

Motorways have service stations that operate privately but are regulated and controlled by Government and that provide a basic level of facilities for all drivers, free of charge. However, trunk roads have no such regulation and no such facilities, except where private operators have set them up of their own volition. I wrote to Transport Scotland asking whether there were plans for some provision of rest facilities along the A75, either as part of the Crocketford and Springholm project or somewhere else on the route. I was disappointed to hear recently that the answer to whether it would pursue that at this time was no. I ask the cabinet secretary to perhaps nudge her officials in Transport Scotland into thinking again and to look to Europe and at some of the incredible facilities that it has for its road hauliers.

Today is 10 December, which is human rights day, commemorating the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948. I would like us to support our HGV drivers and their human right to dignity. They need facilities in which to take a break, have a shower and use the loo. The men and women who keep our shops, hospitals, supermarkets, chemists, factories, farms and everything else stocked 365 days a year deserve nothing less.

Laura Boyce mentioned IT systems. I am a former NHS Dumfries and Galloway nurse. When there was an adverse incident, we entered it in Datix, which has been replaced by InPhase. Would there need to be some kind of tracking mechanism for reports of issues where somebody’s safety has been compromised?

Good morning. Before I ask my substantive questions, I want to follow up on the point about dermal fillers not needing a prescription. Is that because—I raised this with the previous panel—hyaluronic acid is a medical device, rather than a medication? Does that need to change?

Does the financial memorandum accurately reflect what you think might be required in terms of investment, including for the delivery of the transition?

Given the public advice that has been issued about the proposed new process for the regulation of non-surgical procedures, does the financial memorandum cover what might be required in providing wider information to the public about what is coming down the line?

Okay—thanks.

You have kind of already answered this question, Jacqueline. We have heard about fizz and filler parties, and I have seen videos on YouTube. People drink alcohol at them, although you shouldnae really consume alcohol during any procedure. Will the bill help to address that and reduce the ability to have fizz and filler parties?