Seòmar agus comataidhean

There will certainly be a big peak if farmers feel that the scheme is going to close at the end of February and not reopen. For clarification, it is likely that the PSF will reopen, although we are still waiting for clarification about when that will happen, and carbon audit funding will not be available through FAS—is that correct?

We will move to our second theme, which is forestry.

You say that we are now on a positive trajectory, but that is only after last year’s hugely damaging cut to the budget. Do you think that increasing the budget by significantly less than what the industry is looking for is a positive move? Does it not send the message to the industry that forestry is not a Government priority? We are still seeing funding that falls far short of what the industry needs.

We heard from Tim Eagle that some of our major industry players are looking outwith the UK to ensure stability for their businesses. Is an increase in this year’s budget, after last year’s massive damaging cuts, adequate to turn around the oil tanker, as Elena Whitham referred to it?

I have a question that was raised when the committee visited the marine directorate’s science laboratories in Aberdeen. It is about how priorities are identified in the annual delivery plan. I understand that the annual delivery plan is being formulated and will be published in due course.

Cabinet secretary, you will be delighted to hear that I am going to raise the topic of cockles, for which we have a fishery whose work on stock assessment has, up to now, been almost entirely funded via UK grant schemes and facilitated by local fishermen and scientists. At the moment, it is quite clear that there is an economically viable cockle fishery based on vessels in the Solway. The missing element is the stakeholders, including South of Scotland Enterprise, which is interested in the economic sustainability of Dumfries and Galloway as a region. How do we trigger an investigation into possibilities such as the opening of a new cockle fishery in the annual delivery plan, given that, based on the information that I have seen, which is in the public domain, it would be cost neutral and potentially generate more than £3 million for the economy that the fishery would border?

Before I bring in Rhoda Grant, I have a question about vessel replacement off the back of that. If you run an organisation that has a minibus, you know that, after a certain time, it will need to be replaced. Every year, you build up a reserve so that it is there when the time comes and it needs to be replaced. Given that we have a static capital budget of £7.3 million for costs such as the marine labs and vessel running costs, is there a contingency fund or pot that has been built up with a view to the vessels being replaced when the time arises?

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We know that you are under the weather today, and it has been a bit of a mammoth session with salmon and the budget, so we appreciate your efforts and those of your officials. Thank you very much for attending.

That concludes our business for today.

Is there any evidence that there is widespread killing of fish, or is it taken that, no matter the grading of the river, anglers are as conscious as anybody of the precarious position that salmon are in? Is catch and release not the adopted practice now, whatever the status of the river?

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2025 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Please ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent.

I inform committee members that Colin Beattie has resigned his membership of the committee. We thank him for his contribution to the committee’s scrutiny work. We will have a new member next week.

I welcome Jackie Baillie, who will take part in agenda items 1 and 2.

Our first item of business is consideration of a negative Scottish statutory instrument: the Conservation of Salmon (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. I welcome, remotely, Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and I welcome, in person, her officials: Antje Branding, marine environment, and Dr John Armstrong and Dr Stuart Middlemas, science evidence, data and digital, from the marine directorate.

I ask the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

One of the difficulties is that the regulations are in two parts. If we do not like the part that sets the categories of the rivers and we annul the regulations, we will be, by default, rejecting what appears to be a move that we would welcome—amending the annual closure times—and that would have an impact on the River Annan. It is rather difficult to look at those points and consider annulling the instrument, because that could have unintended consequences for something that the committee would, on the face of it, support.

I will ask one more question before I bring in Jackie Baillie. In the past, there were concerns about the methodology and the data that was collected. Data is only as good as the people who provide it to us. One of the commitments from a few years back—I think that it was when the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee dealt with the issue—was to have more fish counters on our rivers, because that would take away some of the uncertainty over fishing effort by looking at how many people have been fishing the river, and the model could consider whether salmon had entered a river, whether that had to do with a dry summer or exceptionally high tides, and so on. A range of things affect fish coming to a river.

Has there been an increase in the number of fish counters? That would mean that some of the uncertainty over fishing effort and so on could be removed and we would know the actual number of fish that were entering a river.

Would anyone else like to take on that question?