Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have listened to those concerns, and we have shown that we have responded to them. Can we solve all problems that have been identified for all rivers? Potentially not, but, as we have highlighted, we have changed assessments where we have had that information or where the methodology or the data that we have received has been queried. That shows that we do listen and that we do respond.

On your second point, I think that there is no way that I could commit to that without getting legal advice or seeing what resource and so on would be required. Also, what would be the basis for doing that? If the instrument were to be annulled, would the basis of the information and my advice from officials change? I do not believe so. We could just end up in a similar position. I am concerned about the timescales; they are increasingly tight, and I would be concerned that we would not be able to do this in time.

I am sorry, convener, but can you remind me of your first question? Oh yes—it was about Jackie Baillie and the concerns of her constituents. Jackie Baillie has written to me on behalf of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, and I, of course, take that correspondence seriously, just as I take all the correspondence that I receive seriously and consider the points that are raised before issuing any response. I know that officials have engaged directly with the association, too, which I think shows that we are engaging and listening.

I ask officials to comment on some of those points, because they have more of the detailed information.

You have touched on a really important point, particularly in relation to the River Annan. You are absolutely right about what Fisheries Management Scotland has said. If the motion to annul was passed, there would be a big economic impact, particularly on that area, because it would mean that the early season would be unlawful, which would have a significant impact. That is another vital reason why the regulations need to proceed. I hope that the motion to annul is not supported today.

I am sure that officials can provide more detail on that. When it comes to wild salmon conservation, a number of pieces of work are under way. I mentioned in my opening comments the wild salmon strategy and its implementation. Over the past few years, we have invested nearly £5 million in actions as part of that strategy, including those relating to the counter network.

You raise a really important point. As we have said, we work on the best available data. Of course, wherever we can improve it, we would like to do so. You have just heard about the investment that is taking place in the counter network. Dr Middlemas touched on the fact that part of the methodology that we use will be peer reviewed, but he also pointed out that the methodology and the way that we use the data that we have hold up internationally. We look forward to the outcome of the peer review process, and, where there are recommendations for areas of improvement, we will consider them.

Some of those issues are picked up only through scrutiny of the instruments. The issue here is one fishery, but a number of river systems are covered by the regulations, and it makes sense for us to bring them together in the round. We might be in a position where another fishery contests the data that we have put forward, but, as I have outlined, where such issues arise, we try to address them at an early stage. Indeed, that information and the work that we are doing have already resulted in the gradings of two river systems being changed.

Can we say categorically that everyone will be happy with the assessment of a river system? Of course not, and there is no saying that we will not end up in such a position again. That is why the work that we are doing on the data and the peer review work that is being undertaken on the methodology are important. Given that work, and given what Dr Middlemas has outlined to the committee today, I am confident—as much as I can be—that the methodology stands up to international scrutiny and is in line with how this activity is carried out elsewhere. It is really important to bear that in mind.

As committee members have pointed out, we have to do what we can to protect this iconic species for Scotland. That is exactly what the regulations set out to do, which is why it is vital that they are approved by the Parliament.

I would be happy to—

Apologies, I did not mean to interrupt you.

It would be completely irresponsible of me to commit to funding that I do not yet have. As I have said, the UK Government is expected to outline what funding could look like over a three-year period. Of course, we would very much welcome such a multiyear settlement, but it would be irresponsible of me to commit to a multiyear funding package when I do not yet have assurance of the moneys that I will be receiving from the UK Government.

I am aware of those concerns—again, I have met with various stakeholders in relation to the proposals for a new national park.

There are differences in some areas. For example, agricultural policy inside and outside the national parks is different. To come back to one of my previous responses, I talked about the ability of farms in the park areas to access new programmes and, potentially, other avenues of funding, which is important.

There are some differences in relation to permitted development rights—for example, the size of sheds that people could have within and outwith a park area. I understand that there are some concerns about that. However, in general, the overall policy is not different inside and outside the park. The funding mechanisms are exactly the same in that regard.

Again, I am in discussions with stakeholders and I am trying to listen to and address those concerns as far as possible. I recognise that farming is key to Galloway—I have visited a number of farmers in the area, and that is what the area is about. The dairy industry there is critical, and we would not want that to change.

It all comes back to the fact that people need to be able to have their say in the consultation process and make their views known about what they want to see.