Seòmar agus comataidhean

The suggestion is, therefore, that the information on the number of owners—whether we call them owners or fisheries—is incomplete.

No, thank you.

I am grateful to you, convener, and to the committee for affording me time to speak to the Conservation of Salmon (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. I do so with a heavy heart, because I believe that everyone around the table shares a desire to conserve and—dare I say it?—regenerate salmon stocks in Scottish rivers. I believe that that also applies to the cabinet secretary and to the anglers in my constituency. However, we must do that on the basis of accurate data.

Those of you who know me will appreciate that this is not my specialist subject, but it is not the first time that I have had to raise concerns from my local community about such regulations. In this context, I have been contacted by the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, an organisation in my constituency that I believe is approaching its centenary, which means that it is safe to say that those anglers know the local rivers well.

My first such outing on the subject was back in 2017, and I came before the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee—of which this committee’s convener was a member—in March 2018. The story now is remarkably similar, so today feels a little like groundhog day. The data has not improved in eight years. I will be absolutely clear: the problem is not with the methodology but with the data that is gathered and used as the basis for the regulations.

The cabinet secretary promised to make the best use of information and data, but we have been providing local information since 2016-17 and that does not appear to have been taken on board. In 2017, the issue was the lack of data and evidence on which similar regulations were based. If we roll forward eight years, we find ourselves here with a new set of regulations but the same problems with a lack of data.

The members of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association are not shy and have been in dialogue with the Government for a long time, so to suggest that they are not providing information is slightly remiss. I say at the outset that the association has no desire to stop the provisions that relate to the Annan salmon fishery district, nor does it wish to criticise, object to or endorse proposals for any other rivers or their catchment areas, because we do not know the details of those. However, I note that 46 per cent of respondents to the consultation had concerns about the data used by the marine directorate.

The association’s concerns relate specifically to the Endrick Water special area of conservation, which is linked to the adjoining Loch Lomond catchment area. Those concerns were first raised in 2016. Meetings with marine directorate officials followed, and there have been letters to the cabinet secretary over the years. Most recently, the association emailed officials about the regulations, which resulted in a meeting in October 2024. The cabinet secretary is aware that I wrote to her in November and December 2024 to outline those concerns, in the hope that they would be listened to and that the regulations would be amended before publication.

I take a moment to note that the association does not allow salmon to be retained until 1 May and for the whole month of October—which is more than is required by statute—in order to protect spring salmon, fish nearing spawning and late-running fish. This is not about stopping the conservation or regeneration of salmon but is quite the contrary, as the association’s practices demonstrate.

At the heart of the problem is the lack of data. The cabinet secretary rightly talked about best evidence and data, but the best evidence and data in this respect is poor. The association reports the data about salmon catches on the stretches of the Endrick that it owns but, until 2017, the marine directorate did not appear to have much knowledge of fishery owners on other stretches of the Endrick. The association helped by supplying that information, but it is clear from the earlier evidence that the marine directorate does not know all the fisheries that are operating, which means that the data is incomplete.

Unfortunately, very few fishery owners supply catch information, despite there being an existing legislative requirement to do so. It is also clear from the evidence that the committee has just heard that no enforcement action is in place regarding owners who do not supply information. A freedom of information request revealed that, in 2016, only two returns of catch data were submitted by fishery owners and that one of those came from the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association. In 2017, there were three returns, one of which was from the association. There are many more fishery owners on the Endrick, but the marine directorate does not appear to have pursued them for catch data. The association also contests that nil catches were declared. Its water bailiffs have seen and recorded catches from other stretches of the Endrick not in the association’s ownership, where owners have declared nil returns.

All of that information has been shared in great detail with the marine directorate since 2016 right up to now, but it does not appear to have resulted in any substantial change. I am interested in hearing whether there are any plans to put a counter on the Endrick, given the number of times that I have had to appear at this committee, making the case for local data.

In summary, I understand that 99 per cent of the fish recorded on the Endrick are returned, but its poor grading would mean that Loch Lomond itself, the River Fruin and the River Leven, which are classed as moderate, would drop to poor, too. That is the detrimental impact of having flawed data.

I ask the committee to invite the Government to withdraw the regulations. It can resubmit them, removing the change to the Endrick’s grading until it has evidence for that, and it can do so at pace, so as not to affect the provisions in the regulations that members support. It has done so with regulations in other circumstances in a matter of days; it should do the right thing here and withdraw the regulations. However, if it fails to do so, I hope that the committee will support my motion to annul them.

I move,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Conservation of Salmon (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 be annulled.

Thank you, convener, and thank you for your kind words, which I hope will be sustained throughout the meeting.

The petitioners are calling for a public inquiry, born out of frustration at the on-going lack of progress. Discussion about the A83, never mind the petition, has been going on for years. It strikes me that, at this rate, the planning will take longer than the building. I and others look forward to the draft orders at the end of the year, but seeing is believing.

In May, Transport Scotland promised at the A83 task force meeting that a permanent fence would be constructed to protect the road from falling rocks and that the road would be returned to two-way use in the autumn. Clearly, autumn is a loose concept. We are now in November, and there is no fence or two-way road use. I could paper my office with emails advising that the old military road will be used because of bad weather.

The petitioners remain unconvinced that the best solution is being progressed in the short, medium or long term, and they feel that money is being wasted on activity that has not succeeded in opening the road to two-way traffic. They also point out that, at the most recent task force meeting, the cabinet secretary said that the Government was committed to funding the project. However, as you rightly pointed out, convener, Transport Scotland is nervous about the fact that decisions are made only on an annual basis and wonders about future commitment. Therefore, it would be helpful to know whether the Scottish Government is truly committed to the project. I invite the committee to keep the petition open until we are clear about that point.

I have a final comment. If rural Scotland is to thrive and survive, it needs infrastructure to avoid depopulation. Whether it is about ferries or roads, it seems that rural Scotland is being left behind.

If it will bring you out to the A82, I will promise sunshine for you, convener.

Thank you very much, convener. Of course, since you previously considered the petition, the number of prostate cancer diagnoses in Scotland has increased. Although that is very welcome, some notable people in Scotland have had a diagnosis, including Sir Chris Hoy.

Not all men have symptoms in the early stages and they are often not diagnosed until much later on, so there is a need to do something. We know that catching symptoms early is key to increasing survival rates, and a screening programme would help to catch more diagnoses sooner rather than later. The Scottish Government says that it will consider recommendations made by the UK National Screening Committee. That is welcome, but it acknowledges that there is a duty to ensure that as many early cases of prostate cancer as possible are picked up in the intervening period.

I understand that the review of the Scottish cancer referral guidelines will include PSA testing and will be published in spring 2025. The cabinet secretary has written in support of prostate cancer screening to the UK National Screening Committee, which is still considering the matter and has yet to report on the review and further testing. However, given the seriousness of the condition and the need to do something and not wait, will the committee consider writing to the cabinet secretary to ask what the Scottish Government will do to improve diagnosis between now and when it gets information from the UK National Screening Committee?

I welcome John and Anne Urquhart to the public gallery; their presence shows the importance of the petition to the local community.

I have invited the committee to enjoy a sunny day at Loch Lomond to have a look at the situation. I cannot promise the sunshine just now, but I think that such a visit would be instructive. The offer of a guided tour is still very much on the table and would help to illustrate to the committee the damaging implications for the local and wider economy that the Scottish Government’s planned upgrade to the A82 would have.

As you have said, convener, the Scottish Government has reiterated its view that the STAG-compliant assessment has already been completed, but so much time has now passed between the costing and design work that the petitioners feel that the assessment is out of date and irrelevant.

There is a continuing feeling that Transport Scotland should carry out a full and proper STAG appraisal, but, at the very least, an update of its existing appraisal would be preferable. If Transport Scotland will not do that, the petitioners feel that the Parliament should conduct an inquiry into the issue.

Thank you, convener. I do not know whether the collective noun is a suite of MSPs. I thought of a posse of MSPs, but I like your description even better: a galaxy of talent. We will settle for that, convener, thank you very much.

We are joined in the public gallery by Monica Sheen and Colleen Murphy, and by Alfie, who is probably the most well-behaved baby that I have ever seen. They have come specifically in support of this petition and they are joined in that support by many others who simply could not be here today. I also convey apologies from Mark Griffin. You will know that he has experience of the neonatal unit. He had another meeting, otherwise he would have been here today.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this petition. I am not sure whether this is the first time that there have been so many MSPs engaged in the same subject at committee, but it shows how important the issue is. The number of signatures collected on the public petition and the Scottish Parliament petition is also significant.

My colleagues and I will set out a number of reasons why the proposed downgrading of Wishaw neonatal unit is unsafe. As you have said, the rationale for downgrading Wishaw and keeping three units open in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen is set out in the Scottish Government’s demand and capacity modelling of NICU services. However, the data that was collected for that report on which these critical decisions are being made is, frankly, inconsistent. Different timeframes are used throughout: sometimes data taken over a year is compared to data taken over three years, and there is no rhyme nor reason to it. I understand that the exercise was rushed but it is so arbitrary.

The review that was initiated by the Scottish Government, which we welcomed, acknowledged that the data was flawed, but nothing has been done about it. Therefore, people are proceeding at pace to implement proposals that we know are based on flawed data. I find that astonishing, given that this Parliament and the Scottish Government assert that decisions are all evidence based. They appear to have fallen at the first hurdle here, and there is little wonder that people have very little confidence in the report and its implementation.

The report also fails to give consideration to maternity capacity. There is no analysis or consideration of workforce requirements. Although the report states that workforce data has been collected, the results of the analysis are not included. I have no idea why you would not put such a significant element into the report. I will come back to staffing in a minute.

In 2017, the Scottish Government published the “Best Start” report, which stated that three to five neonatal units should be developed, supported by something like 10 to 12 local and special care units. That is fine. Since then, however, the Government has simply fixated on developing only three. There is no explanation why the number is not five or four. It is our contention and the petitioner’s contention, based on the data and the volumes of people being cared for, that there should be four units in Scotland, and that Wishaw should be one of them.

Wishaw neonatal unit is the third busiest neonatal unit in Scotland. The critical mass of neonates exists within the central belt area. We know that Wishaw neonatal unit accepts the highest number of in-utero and out-of-utero babies, which clearly shows the skill set and the capability in the unit. There are transfers from other board areas all the time. Wishaw was named the best service in the UK last year, information that clearly has been ignored by the Scottish Government.

My colleagues will explain that there are real concerns from staff and patients that level 3 neonatal units in Glasgow and Edinburgh are already facing staffing pressures and will not be able to cope with demand once Wishaw is downgraded. I recently uncovered statistics that show that health boards across Scotland, in particular in the central belt, with the knowledge of the Scottish Government, have cut paediatric and maternity vacancies. Let me stress that the numbers are not frozen, they are not still there; they have simply been cut from the complement of what was required. I therefore worry about safety due to the lack of staff. The staff shortages will also add to pressure on neonatal services and force mums and premature babies to be transferred not to Glasgow or Edinburgh but to Aberdeen. We are talking about the very sickest babies, and just think about the distance that that would involve.

There is clearly appetite and scope for Wishaw neonatal unit to remain in place alongside units in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen as part of the best start strategy. I would be grateful if this committee would take this petition on—because I know that you have run with petitions before—and invite the minister or the cabinet secretary to explain why the Scottish Government is ignoring the evidence and putting at risk the safety of mothers and babies at Wishaw.

They were sounds of approval, convener.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the petition.

I share many of the petitioner’s frustrations. I think that the petition is born out of frustration, given that the community council has attempted to engage meaningfully with the planning system in Argyll and Bute, sometimes to little notable effect. A useful piece of context that is noted in the petition is the fact that Helensburgh is closer to Edinburgh than it is to many other parts of Argyll and Bute. As members will know, Argyll and Bute is a very rural area that includes 20-odd islands, so it is not without its challenges.

The petitioner’s experience has been that the very reasonable suggestions that the community council has made have been considered by committees of councillors who simply do not have any relationship with or understanding of the community of Helensburgh. Often, those councillors are representatives of rural and island areas, whereas Helensburgh is predominantly an urban population whose travel-to-work area is in greater Glasgow, so there is a different context there.

Let me give you some of the examples where the community council has engaged and that engagement has resulted in absolutely nothing happening. In all the examples that I will give you, the community council did not oppose the application but suggested a different way of doing it or some conditions that should be applied based on its local knowledge.

In the first case, the community council was clear that housing could go ahead on the former Ardencaple garden centre site but that the number of houses was well in excess of the number specified in the local development plan. That was a case of the community council saying “Yes, by all means, put houses there, but not in the quantity that is being squeezed into a very tight site.”

The second example is a care home in the former works depot of Hermitage park, for which one of the community council’s concerns was the scale of the development, which might have impacted on a war memorial that was right next door to it.

The third example is the leisure centre, which is beautiful but is on the pier at Helensburgh on infilled land, which is prone to flooding. The community council therefore had an eminently sensible suggestion of moving the centre away from that area, but it was completely dismissed.

The petitioner is proposing not that community councils take all these decisions over but that their local knowledge is somehow inserted into the planning system, so that we get better decisions that are not about stopping development but about ensuring that it is right for the right place in their community.

I am sure that the committee will have ideas. Writing to the Royal Town Planning Institute or Planning Aid, which will have experience of these types of applications, might be an option.