Hansard

Amendment 16 would establish a commission on salmon mortality, which would enable advice to be provided to Scottish ministers on causes of freshwater and marine salmon mortality. The amendment has been drafted in a way that does not prescribe who should serve on the commission; it deliberately states that

"Scottish ministers shall consult such persons or bodies as they think fit"

before appointing persons to the commission. That does not restrict the Executive on the membership of the commission, but simply acknowledges the need for such a body.

On 7 November, the minister drew attention to the scale of the problem that we face in salmon conservation. She pointed out that, in 1960, 1,443 tonnes of wild salmon were caught in Scotland; last year, that figure was 198 tonnes, which is an 85 per cent decline. That is close to wipe-out. The figures for sea trout were smaller, but no less alarming—there has been a decline of nearly 90 per cent from 224 to 36 tonnes. For every 10 wild salmon and trout that were swimming in our rivers in 1960, there is now only one. Why?

This bill is called the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. At the previous meeting, the minister lodged an amendment that would have limited the scope of section 1—although not of the overall bill—in relation to measures dealing with freshwater conservation. The commission that I propose will apply to both freshwater and marine mortality. Members who are interested in that point will perhaps argue that there should be other measures to preserve conservation in the marine phase.

I am also aware that the minister has said that the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 contain measures to deal with the predation of seals and the control of birds through shooting, subject to the issuing of licences in tightly controlled circumstances. Although I have no quarrel with that, I have questions about how widely those powers have been exercised and whether they should be exercised more widely. Alex Fergusson commented on that in the recent general debate on fishing and expressed the view that he was making a brave speech. I do not know whether my speech is as brave as his, but it is sincerely meant. The scale of the problem that the minister identified is so severe—and the evidence so overwhelming that the existing measures at the marine phase are insufficient—that it is abundantly clear that some action must be taken.

My proposals might be criticised as being too timid, as I have suggested a committee—I call it a commission—of experts with suitable experience to bring together advice about all the threats to salmon and trout. At stage 1, we heard evidence from Mr Walter Davidson of the Salmon Net Fishing Association, who said that

"the provisions of the bill will largely be wasted unless measures are taken to protect salmon from predators, mostly in the marine phase or as salmon move towards the marine phase. We would also like more research to be undertaken at sea."

Jane Wright, of the Scottish Anglers National Association, referred to the problem of sea lice and said that her organisation regarded the lice as

"predating on salmon and sea trout stocks, particularly on the west coast of Scotland north of the Clyde".

She went on to say:

"In the 1950s, a Government committee decided that 34,000 or 35,000 represented a healthy population of seals. The number of seals has now reached between 120,000 and 130,000."

According to my arithmetic, that is around four times the population that the Government in the 1950s regarded as healthy and sustainable. What has changed since then?

Mr Jeremy Read of the Atlantic Salmon Trust stated:

"There is a great deal that we do not know about the life of salmon once they leave the coast. We need to know more about their feeding habits, predators and the possible dangers from fishing, particularly in the near-surface zone in areas such as the north Norwegian sea."

Mr Colin Innes of the Salmon and Trout Association endorsed the comments that I have just read, but also raised

"the issue of the north-east drift-nets, which remain a problem for the east coast of Scotland."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 7 November 2000; c 1267-68.]

I am mindful of the remarks made by the Deputy Minister for Rural Development on 23 November, during the stage 1 debate in the chamber, when she stated:

"Drift nets were banned in Scotland in 1962, and that ban remains in force."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 335.]

There has been no ban in England for 38 years. That seems an awful long time for appropriate representations to be made to Whitehall—obviously not long enough.

Let me return to the witnesses' evidence at the meeting on 7 November. Robert Williamson of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards said that the association was

"concerned about the reduced control of predators such as seals and goosanders over the past 15 or 20 years. Consideration of predators is as important as the reduction in exploitation by humans."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 7 November 2000; c 1269.]

I am sorry to have quoted at such length, convener, but this seems to be a particularly important issue, which we should not duck, even if—or because—it is controversial. Given that all our witnesses said that the bill was insufficient, we should, I think, accept their evidence and take action.

Paragraph 19 of the committee's stage 1 report recommends

"that the Executive continue to undertake further research into all other causes of salmon mortality"—

not just into freshwater-phase causes, but into all causes. If we draw a distinction between the freshwater phase and the marine phase, we are balkanising the problem; we are making an artificial distinction between two categories of the problem. The two phases must be considered together or, as I believe is the buzzword these days, holistically. I am not certain what that word means, but it seems to be popular, so I add my support to it—which probably means that it will not be used again.

The case seems to be put beyond any shadow or whisker of a doubt by Andrew Wallace of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, who, in a letter to the Scottish Executive rural affairs department dated August 2000, stated:

"The Association believes that many of the major drivers of salmon stock abundance are in the marine phase of the species' life-cycle and that further Government resources need to be applied to resolving these problems . . . In some cases Government action (e.g. sanction/action to reduce the population of predators) would deliver far greater benefit to the conservation of salmon and sea trout than would application by DSFBs of the enhanced powers covered within this consultation paper".

It is highly significant that the words "far greater benefit" were the only words to be underlined for emphasis in the whole of Mr Wallace's submission.

Amendment 16 is a modest provision. It would require advice on all possible causes of mortality. It seems not to involve any cost implications to the Executive, other than the attendance of people at meetings and, perhaps, the commissioning of research—I note that, in the stage 1 debate in the chamber, there was an assurance of

"extensive and detailed research . . . being carried out."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 356.]

I hope that the amendment finds favour with the minister. If it does not, I would like to know what the Executive will do about the problem.

I move amendment 16.