Seòmar agus comataidhean

Not specifically in relation to the NatureScot budget. Obviously, there are areas that impact my portfolio, as I have outlined. I do not have the overall portfolio responsibility for NatureScot, so it is hard for me to answer in any detail as to what the implications would be.

We have had an increase in the peatland restoration funding that is available, and we pay a number of different agencies, including the national park authorities and NatureScot, to carry out that work on our behalf. We will see an increase in the funding that is provided for peatland restoration over the coming year, which will enable us to restore more degraded peat. Over the past year, we have restored around 10,000 hectares, and we have a target of restoring around 250,000 hectares. The funding that we have available over the coming year will lead to potentially around 16,000 hectares being restored.

I know that the committee has scrutinised that issue over the past few years. It is important to know that we have listened carefully to all the recommendations that the committee has made on the back of that scrutiny on how we can improve our allocation of that funding and the make-up of the programme board. We have very much listened to, taken in and acted on that feedback.

It is always difficult when considering whether to use a direct allocation model or a competitive bid model—there is no getting around that. If you directly allocate, that naturally means that there is not as much money—that is, smaller pots might go to different islands, which means that bigger projects might not be able to go forward because the level of funding will not be there to support them. That is just one of the trade-offs that there are when the two different models are considered.

We have retained the competitive bid model and have refined it over the past couple years. Although I completely understand that some local authorities can see that they might lose out in one round, we believe that that model allows bigger projects to proceed that might not have gone ahead otherwise. I think that our competitive bid model enables a greater variety of projects, too. The Scottish Futures Trust has undertaken a lot of work, including with local authorities, on preparation of those projects and on looking at the wider pipeline.

I believe that we have acted on the advice that we have received from the committee. Our competitive bid model is the most appropriate at the moment, but I am more than happy to take on board and consider any specific feedback from the committee on the matter. Some of the projects have been big and hugely important, and we probably have the right model in place.

You are absolutely right—those are a vital component of our important compliance and enforcement work. The committee will be aware that we have three marine protection vessels, two marine research vessels and, of course, aircraft and inshore patrol vessels.

Investing in that fleet is hugely important. Like any vessel, our vessels will reach an end-of-life stage. The two that are closest to that are the MRV Scotia and the MPV Minna. We are looking at a procurement exercise for those vessels and at what that might look like. I want to give an assurance that we are acutely aware of the issue and are trying to prepare for the future.

As I touched on in a previous answer, this is also about how we can best utilise new technologies. The pilot that was undertaken with the drone was very important. It is a really vital capability that we could well bring forward. It could very much help with compliance and enforcement, because we have a vast marine area to patrol. Looking at those other capabilities and at where we can best utilise new technologies will be really critical, as will maximising our resources. I give an assurance that that is very much at the forefront of our minds and that we are constantly looking to adapt and to add to our capabilities.

Yes—to investigate its use. We have already undertaken the pilot, so the evaluation of that pilot work will, of course, be important in how we take that forward. I do not have any concerns about the budget allocation that we have available for that. There is also a long lead-in time, initially, when it comes to vessel procurement. I do not have any concerns about our being able to take forward that work in relation to the new technologies.

You are absolutely right. Everything approaches its end-of-life period, and that is what we are planning for at the moment.

Of course, there are other costs that we also have to bear within the budget. Some of the biggest increases that we have seen relate to fuel costs, which have risen dramatically. To give the committee an idea of the impact of that, which can be very big, if fuel goes up by 13p a litre, that is an extra £50,000 a month in fuel costs for the vessels. That is a cost that we have to control and manage while we plan for new vessels as the vessels that we have approach their end-of-service years.

I will have to ask Iain Wallace to provide more information on that.

I would be concerned if the motion to annul was agreed to, primarily because that would mean that the regulations that were passed in 2023 would apply. Some of the changes that we are introducing through the regulations that are before the committee—12 river systems will fall one grade and nine of those will be subject to mandatory catch and release, while four will rise one grade and three of those will no longer have mandatory catch and release—would not apply, because we would rely on the regulations that were passed in 2023. Ultimately, if the motion to annul was agreed to, rod-caught fish would be killed in some of those rivers. Given the precarious state of the species, I would be seriously concerned about that if the committee agreed to the motion to annul.

Absolutely. What you said is right. I alluded to that in my opening comments and mentioned some of the rivers that have practised catch and release for a long time anyway. However, we need the regulations in place, given the evidence and data that we have and the assessments that we have undertaken that show that the status of the populations has changed in some areas. It is not just about some rivers going down a level; others are moving up, which means that mandatory catch and release would not be in place for some rivers.

I believe that anglers genuinely want to do the right thing for the species, and it is in everybody’s best interests that that happens. That is why it is important that the committee does not agree to the motion to annul. We need to work on the best available evidence and data, which is what has been put forward and is why we are amending the previous regulations in the way that we are today.

Good morning, convener and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 2024 salmon regulations and outline their vital importance to the protection and conservation of that iconic species.

First and foremost, I want to make it clear that the regulations are designed to sustainably manage the exploitation of salmon. They allow anglers to pursue their hobby and enable fishery owners to earn an income from selling fishing permits.

The regulations are key to delivering the wild salmon strategy. Scottish rivers have healthy populations of wild salmon. Wild salmon management is evidence based, and the environmental and socioeconomic benefits that arise from wild salmon are maximised. Using the best available data, marine directorate scientists have identified, as they have in previous years since 2016, the river systems in which salmon are most at risk and in need of protection through mandatory catch and release.

I realise that some people see that as a deterrent for anglers and are worried that the income from selling fishing permits might decrease, but the opposite is the case. The majority of anglers in Scotland have long recognised that the health of our salmon stocks is more fragile than ever, which is why many areas already operate a voluntary catch-and-release regime, such as has been practised on the River Dee for the past 30 years. More recently, there was a unanimous vote for the introduction of the same approach on the River Tweed.

Overall, the rate of catch and release of wild salmon practised in Scotland has steadily increased in past years, and it was at 96 per cent in 2023. That reflects the forward-thinking nature of those who enjoy fishing for salmon.

However, the wild salmon strategy and the associated implementation plan do not focus on anglers alone; they also aim to tackle the wide range of pressures in rivers and at the coast over which we have some control. The delivery of the wild salmon strategy depends critically on actions taken at national and local levels by the Government and by fishery managers and anglers.

The conservation regulations and associated gradings use the best available evidence and data. In the case of the River Endrick, catches have declined in recent years, and the proposed mandatory catch and release is required to support the recovery of stocks in the river. We cannot allocate gradings to rivers that do not reflect the data that we have on salmon, and it would set quite a dangerous precedent not to provide the salmon in the River Endrick special area of conservation with the protection that they need.

I believe that the regulations are a much-needed contribution to our collective efforts to reverse the fortunes of wild salmon, which is a magnificent species that is iconic for Scotland. It is therefore our duty to conserve our wild populations for future generations.