Seòmar agus comataidhean

I guess that the problem with data is that you can constantly keep collecting it and not doing things. Of the recommendations in the salmon interactions working group report, which is on interactions between wild and farmed salmon, I think that only one has been completed. Dr Middlemas talked about a period of two years, which is quite a long time. Is there any way of speeding things up? We want the species to recover and we want better management of it. My worry is that we will delay and delay while we get more and more data and that we will not actually push forward.

Maybe I picked you up wrongly.

We have had some interaction with people who are not sure how the information that they feed back to you guys is being utilised when it comes to the regulations. The talk of fish counters sounds promising, but we probably need to roll out more of them. Ultimately, all of this has to feed into the protection of the species so that we see more fish. How do we do that? How do we get that done on the ground?

My slight problem is that, although I agree with Elena Whitham that there is a danger if we annul, I, like Rhoda Grant, do not like to be put in a position where I feel that things are being compromised. That worries me. I am hearing that the people on the ground are saying that they have submitted data but Marine Scotland is saying that it has not received that data. That feels odd. What is going on? I go back to my earlier question about the promise. You are probably right, cabinet secretary, that you do not have time to bring the instrument back, but, if I do not vote to annul it today, what guarantee is there that we will not be in the same situation next year?

Thank you for those comments, cabinet secretary. On multiyear funding, I have spoken to a number of bodies about the issue and I know that it was a massive ask, not least from the National Farmers Union Scotland. Can you not just put in a caveat?

You are absolutely right in saying that, if you are going to have a five-year or seven-year—whatever it will be—ask of the agriculture industry in the rural support plan, we need to be protected as we move forward with that. Is there a reason why you could not say, “The Scottish Government will promise to deliver this funding for five years, with the caveat that we get the money from the United Kingdom Government”?

Thank you, Mr Burgess.

At the moment, there is a lot of talk in Europe about bureaucracy, red tape and the depth of the application process. I suppose that I want to make a shout-out. I ask you to consider ensuring that, whatever grant mechanism you come up with, the application process is not a very complicated one that new entrants have to spend thousands of pounds in consultants on in order to access the grant.

I have a quick practical point, cabinet secretary, for confirmation about the AECS. One of the slight barriers to accessing the scheme that I have heard of in the past is capital costs for things such as fencing, for example, if you want to manage an area of ground for grazing grass that is, at the moment, one big field. Is there an ability to access capital works, if needed, in this year’s application process?

If I have got it right, we have a target of planting 200,000 hectares by 2032, but the work is only about 25 per cent complete. From the emails that I have received, I know that the industry took quite a big hit last year. As the committee’s briefing papers note, and as I have heard from the industry, some of the big companies are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. It is not cheap to put in the processes to extract or grow timber, and it takes a long time.

One graph that I have seen shows that production will increase slightly over the next few years and then drop off significantly. Potentially, that situation was made worse by last year’s significant budget cuts. In hindsight, do you regret the fact that the money was cut from the budget, given that that has contributed to the industry’s current lack of confidence?

On that point, cabinet secretary, I go back to the convener’s point about the timeframe for changes. Jackie Baillie has written to you. Would there be the option of further engagement following the passing of the regulations, perhaps during the spring or summer, with the bodies that have responded, including the one that Rhoda Grant mentioned, and with Jackie Baillie’s constituents, to ensure that, by this time next year, we are all absolutely on the same page about how data comes into the marine directorate and to ensure that nothing gets lost? Would you commit to ensuring that such engagement happens in the next year?

Good morning, and thank you for your helpful remarks. There is no doubt in my mind that salmon is an iconic species and one that we want to protect. I had not seen the regulations before, because I am pretty new to the committee, but I had an email ping in about them while Dr Middlemas was speaking.

As has been touched on, there seem to be some issues with how we collect and utilise the data. For clarity, I ask you to explain what the promise is. If we agree to the regulations today, how do we improve the data collection and ensure the right outcomes for our rivers with respect to closed periods and so on?

Can I ask a question on the back of that one, convener?