Thank you for inviting me to open the debate, convener. The past 90 minutes have been extraordinarily interesting and very educational in many respects.
I will begin by repeating the context that Mr Cowan put to us in the previous discussion. Under the proposals, 83 fishery districts will become mandatory catch and release. Across those fishery districts, 82 per cent of the average catch is released, so at the end of the day, as we were told, we are talking about the life expectancy of 20 fish per affected fishery district.
I am not against salmon conservation measures and limits—I really mean that. I am very much aware that they are successfully used in other countries and that the model is by no means new, even if there are specific differences to bring in given the unique Scottish circumstances. However, I remain very much against the way in which the Government has gone about introducing the proposals. The Government maintains, and has repeated today, that it is under considerable pressure from the EU, and infraction proceedings are now apparently live, although today we have discovered that they focus only on SACs.
I am not aware that, for example, Scotland’s Members of the European Parliament have been asked to rally to the call and to put a case for a further delay or a deferral of the implementation of the measures, as they surely could have been. Therefore, I am afraid that I am not persuaded that the Government has done everything possible to make that case, as I was told last week. Clearly, the Government may not consider that a deferral is in any way desirable. I will set out briefly why I consider it to be desirable. I must say that everything that I have heard this morning has convinced me that a deferral is not just necessary but required.
First, I do not accept that the scientific basis for introducing the categorisation of our rivers is accurate enough for the purpose to which it is being put. Rod and catch returns, even taken over a five-year period, are not the most reliable of statistics—they are unscientific and unworthy of forming the basis for the proposed restrictions. Indeed, two of the five years that have been taken into consideration were exceptionally dry, as highlighted by the figures that Elaine Murray gave, which I think were for the Nith or the Annan.
In a dry year, there is considerably reduced fishing effort, with a consequential lower annual catch, which, according to the science of rod and catch returns, means that there would be a less healthy salmon stock, but that is not necessarily the case at all. The illogicality of that argument was well summed up in a post that I saw on a salmon fishing online forum. I think that the wording was, “No need to worry, lads—I intend to catch 500 salmon this year, and if we all do the same and put that in our returns, all will be well.” Of course, that is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion, but it rather sums up how flawed rod and catch returns are as a basis for legislation.
My second concern is the timing with which the measures are being introduced. I understand that they were consulted on for some months but, until the final proposal of any consultation is published, those who make submissions to it would hope that those submissions might well be taken into account, acted on and even make a difference to the final outcome. After all, that is what consultation is supposed to be about. Indeed, the first consultation on licences to kill had that result—changes were made as a result of the consultation.
The proposals that were consulted on the second time round and that we are considering today were confirmed by the minister only a few short weeks ago, forcing angling clubs, proprietors, hotels, holiday cottage businesses and the many others who rely to one degree or another on angling to make a living to have to change their focus and their policy for 2016. They have faced cancelled bookings, reduced fees and in some cases a complete lack of inquiries for the 2016 season, all without any compensation at all.
The Newton Stewart Angling Association, which is the closest angling club to where I live, is already £2,000 down on 2016 advance ticket sales compared to the same stage last year. I know that the minister has announced £100,000 over two years to help, but I have yet to speak to one angling club—and I have spoken to several—that think that the money will make any substantial difference to their medium to long-term plans.
What about the netsmen, of whom we have spoken quite a lot this morning? The few large commercial netsmen that remain and the many smaller netsmen—what I would call marine crofters—that still exist along the Solway coastline and elsewhere across the country must surely be due compensation for the abrupt cessation of their business, yet that does not appear to be the case.
Much has been said about haaf-netting, and I am pleased to hear that exploratory discussions are taking place to try to ensure that that cultural and historical activity may be able to continue. I hope that that will be the case, and I await the outcome with interest.
Finally, I remain very concerned that any measures looking at salmon conservation simply must—at least, I do not see how they cannot—refer to what I understand to be the two main causes of salmon decline. The convener mentioned one of those causes, which is seal predation. The other cause is the impact of sea lice. Both those predators, if I can call them that, inhabit the marine migratory path of wild salmon.
NASCO, which, along with the EU, has been critical of the Scottish Government’s lack of efforts on salmon conservation, is even more damning of the Government’s lack of action on sea lice. Despite new legislation in 2013, which this committee scrutinised, sea lice numbers continue to rise. They appear to be poorly reported and even more poorly controlled. No one doubts that their impact on wild salmon is immense, as is the impact of the growing and heavily protected seal population, yet it is Scotland’s anglers and netsmen who are being asked to bear the brunt of the Government’s proposed conservation measures.
I am asking, through the motion to annul, for a delay in the implementation of the Government’s proposals, which would allow several empty boxes to be ticked. First, the Government has again said this morning that it has brought together a group of biologists to assimilate the science that exists on the health of salmon populations on a river-by-river basis across almost all rivers in the country through the work of the many excellent fishery trusts that we have.
I must refute the cabinet secretary’s assertion that, to date, proper and robust science does not exist, because it does. It is a question of bringing it all together, as the Government has said that it intends to do within the next year. That would allow a proper river-by-river categorisation. That is proper science. As I was told in a meeting with Dr McLeod last week, the hope is for that to be assimilated within a year, so let us delay the implementation for a year until that proper science backs up the measures.
Secondly, a year’s delay would allow time for angling associations, clubs and the others that I have mentioned to adjust and for their clients to adjust similarly. From their perspective, we are talking about dramatic behaviour change. We have often talked about behaviour change in this committee, and in a variety of circumstances, but I do not think that any of us in our wildest dreams expects such change to happen overnight, yet that is what is being asked in the legislation.
Thirdly, and most important, a sensible delay would achieve the buy-in of all stakeholders. That buy-in is far from universal at this time, but it is essential if the policy is to be successful, as it surely needs to be. Without that, salmon will continue to be killed, even if that is illegally, because the proposals are almost unpoliceable. If that is the result, the measures will turn out to be virtually worthless.
Why do we not harness our MEPs? Let us encourage them to earn their apparently meagre salaries by making a case on Scotland’s behalf for a sensible delay—if only for one or two years at the most—to ensure that the measures work, that all stakeholders buy into them and that they achieve what we all want: salmon populations increasing sustainably for the benefit of, principally, our environment but also our angling interests. The proposals in their current form will not achieve that outcome.
We had it clarified that the instrument will not come to the chamber unless the committee turns it down today. The measures in it are serious, with a huge impact across Scotland. I genuinely believe that they deserve to see the full gamut of our democratic processes behind them. They deserve to be brought back to the chamber. I hope that the committee will back my motion—I appeal to it to do so—if only for that reason alone, so that the instrument is seen to have the full democratic process behind it.
I move,
That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Conservation of Salmon (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/115) be annulled.