���˿���

I am sorry, but I am finished.

I completely agree. Ultimately, as I hope I was able to outline earlier, I agree with what Ross Greer is trying to achieve. The only point that I was making was that his amendments were piecemeal and that it is important that we consider the issue as a whole. When looking at these two sets of amendments, it is easy to think that we are comparing like with like, but we are most definitely not—we are talking about very different situations. I believe that, ahead of stage 3, we can work on the specific amendments in this group.

We have already committed to doing a piece of work on penalties. Given the points that were made earlier, I appreciate that some people believe that that work is not being done quickly enough, which is why I committed to work with Maurice Golden on his amendment to ensure that we get a workable timescale.

Yes—I am happy to do so.

I appreciate the concerns that have been highlighted. If there are areas for us to reflect on, I am happy to do that. However, the decision has ultimately been made and the new memorandum of understanding is now in place, so I do not see the benefit in repeating a review that has already concluded.

Again, it is about the overall approach. I think that there are particular issues with the amendments, and I am more than happy to follow up with Ross Greer on those and to have a conversation about Maurice Golden’s amendments. However, we need to consider the issues in the round, which requires a lot more work.

Amendment 156, in the name of Sarah Boyack, would duplicate existing legislation, such as the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, which already enable the management of fishing activity as envisaged by the amendment. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary or appropriate, and it further clutters the legislative landscape. For those reasons, I ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendment 156.

On amendment 265, ministers already possess the powers to take action if the evidence base indicates that that is needed. However, as we have outlined in the recently published “Scottish Blue Carbon Action Plan” and as Tim Eagle highlighted earlier—another of his points that I agree with—there are significant uncertainties about the impact of bottom trawling on seabed sediment carbon stores. This is an area that we are actively investigating, given the need for any policy intervention to be evidence based. Amendment 265 is therefore unnecessary.

Finally, on amendment 301, in the name of Ariane Burgess, we manage all fisheries on the basis of the best available evidence. We need flexible structures that adapt to emerging evidence rather than rigid primary legislation. The wild wrasse fishery is not open access—the marine directorate controls it through annual vessel-owner applications. There are limited participants operating under strict spatial, temporal and technical restrictions.

The 2025 fishery operates from June to November. Before opening this year, we published an assessment of wrasse fishery interaction with the MPA network, and we introduced new spatial management measures that prohibit fishing in relevant SACs and near kelp and seaweed communities in the relevant MPAs. Therefore, amendment 301 is unnecessary, because licensing is the appropriate approach to take.

The proposed amendments to the seasonal dates contradict the best available scientific evidence on protecting spawning fish and could put stocks at considerable risk. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the committee not to support it, too.

The issue is more that there would be disparity in the offences, because the amendments apply to only one specific piece of legislation. We need to consider other river systems, to which a broader range of legislation applies. I want to ensure that we have the same offences and penalties across the river systems in Scotland, so I would be looking to work with Emma Harper to address that issue.

I have finished, but I will take the intervention.

First, I want to say right from the start that I completely understand and support the motivation behind all of Emma Harper’s amendments in seeking to increase the financial penalties for the most serious offences against salmon, in order to bring particular offences into line with other wildlife crime and to enable certain financial penalties to be issued on a per-fish basis.

However, as drafted, the amendments apply only to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003, when there is actually a range of legislation on salmon poaching offences covering the River Tweed, the River Esk and, indeed, the rest of Scotland.

Given that the amendments do not extend to cover the equivalent offences that are set out in other regulations, agreeing to the amendments would mean that there would be significant disparity in penalties for offences in relation to salmon across the different rivers in Scotland.

I absolutely agree with Emma Harper’s intention, so, if she is willing to not press amendment 273 and to not move her other amendments in the group, we can work together ahead of stage 3.

First of all, I can tell you generally what that paper will set out, and I think that it will help with that understanding. However, if individuals have any queries about their own specific applications, I encourage them to go to their RPID office and try to garner that information.

I appreciate those points. As I have said, what we have set out in the 2024 act, I believe, offers more transparency.