Sea Cage Fish Farming
Item 4 is the protracted issue of sea cage fish farming and consideration of petition PE96. A great deal of material on the matter has been circulated for this meeting, including the paper on the work that has been undertaken by the reporters over the summer. Members should refer to the paper setting out options for our further consideration of the issues and of the Executive's work on the matter.
I take this opportunity to thank Robin Harper and Bristow Muldoon for their hard work over the summer recess on the committee's behalf. As they were the reporters, I invite them to comment first, after which I will be happy to invite other members to express their views.
Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to report back. The work in which we were involved over the summer was both informative—it broadened my understanding of the situation that fish farming is in and of the wider issues surrounding aquaculture—and enjoyable, in that it took me round some very scenic parts of Scotland.
As members will have seen from the papers, Robin Harper and I met representatives of a wide range of interests. I have met the petitioner, as has Robin, I believe. We visited a number of fish farms and heard views directly from the people involved in the industry. We visited the institute of aquaculture at Stirling University and the Fisheries Research Services in Aberdeen. We met Executive officials and attended meetings of the Highlands and Islands aquaculture forum. Robin also attended a meeting of the tripartite working group. We have therefore been fairly busy in gathering information and views.
Having been through that process, I think that my understanding of the issues facing the industry has increased, although I am not entirely sure whether there is a definitive answer to some of the concerns raised by the petitioner and others who are concerned about the industry's impact.
During our visit to the Fisheries Research Services, we discussed issues surrounding the decline in wild fish stocks. The scientists there, while not discounting the possibility that fish farming is a contributory factor in that decline, believe that a range of other factors contribute to the problem and are worthy of further research. Areas that they identified included climatic changes—which may be affecting the salmon feeding grounds—including increased rainfall at the times when the salmon return upstream. The impact of coastal predation by seals and other predators of salmon was mentioned, as was the impact of trawlers catching salmon with mackerel or other catches. The scientists at the marine laboratory identified several of those potential impacts as worthy of further research, although some of that research may be expensive and require international co-operation if we are to come to conclusions.
We have to do further work in some areas; one of the gaps in the work that we have carried out so far is that we have not had a face-to-face meeting with representatives of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. It would be useful for Robin Harper and me to have that meeting if the committee believes that further work by the reporters is necessary. A number of the concerns expressed by the industry and by people who are concerned about the environmental impacts of the industry relate to whether SEPA has adequate resources to perform its role in the aquaculture industry.
I do not want to talk for too long because, given all the work that we have done, I could turn my contribution into a Fidel Castro performance.
The committee should consider further a number of issues relating to the subject. The forthcoming water environment bill will be an opportunity for the Executive and the Parliament to upgrade the way in which the industry is regulated and dealt with. The Executive's intention is that that opportunity will be taken. The committee should play a part in influencing the content of the bill. Many interested parties in the industry will already have responded to the consultation, which ended officially at the end of last month, on the regulations governing aquaculture in Scotland. The committee might consider responding to that. I suspect that the Executive would accept a response from the committee even if it is made after the date on which the consultation formally finished. The committee clerks could liaise with the Executive on that.
There is on-going work for the reporters to do both in the areas that I have mentioned—such as SEPA—and in ensuring that progress is made on various aspects of the Executive's work and that that work is transparent.
The other issue that is worth raising with the Executive is whether there is a need for the scientific research that is taking place to be drawn together under some form of research co-ordinator. A lot of the scientific evidence is conflicting; it is difficult for people who are not qualified in the field to come to a conclusion about the balance of the evidence. The Executive might find it worth while considering the appointment of a research co-ordinator to draw all the evidence together. If such a move were made, the committee would have a role to play in ensuring transparency so that people in the broader Scotland could be confident that the work was being carried out in a thorough, open and accountable manner.
Those are my initial comments, although I would like to reserve the right to come in later in the debate.
Thank you for that full report, which raises a number of big issues.
I will pick up on a few of the points that Bristow Muldoon made.
The summary of on-going scientific investigations shows that the majority of them are about fish health and fish diseases—they are industry-based. One major scientific investigation, which has been running for three years and will continue for a further two years, is on the general environmental effects of sea cage fish farming. We need to focus on that and, rather than wait for another two years before getting definitive information, at least ask for the beginnings of where the scientists think that the research is going.
As Bristow Muldoon mentioned, there are areas that we were not able to cover during the recess. SEPA is the principal group that we have not met, but there are individuals whom we have not managed to listen to yet. I am not suggesting that we need to visit Norway, but we could invite a Norwegian scientist here or converse by e-mail with the Norwegian Government, which faces the same problems that we do and is addressing them. We need to draw on both the Norwegian and Canadian experiences and that evidence should come before the committee.
During the investigation in the recess, I raised the issue of a parliamentary inquiry. I did not presume that the committee would favour such an inquiry, but I asked the best way forward should it do so. There was a view that a parliamentary inquiry linked to the progress of the tripartite working group, the aquaculture forum, research and what SEPA is doing, for example, could be useful. I—like many in the room, I hope—believe that the discussion must be conducted in the open. Many people have been concerned about the lack of public debate. The great advantage of a parliamentary inquiry would be that the progress of what the Executive has put in motion will be monitored publicly over at least the next year. I am aware of the constraints that are imposed on us by the number of bills that we might have to consider over the next two years, but a progressive inquiry in which we would return to the issue regularly might be the best way of dealing with the matter. We should be able to fit that in with our work load.
I would like to say much more, but I will leave time for other members to chip in.
I would like some clarification. I am comfortable with the idea of on-going scrutiny of the process, but a number of big issues have arisen. One is the speed of the Executive's response to the work programme for research, which to many people does not seem quick enough. Another issue relates to transparency. Both issues, together with the science and evidence, could be dealt with by giving committee reporters an on-going role. They could report back regularly and, drawing down from the Executive, give the committee an opportunity to discuss matters openly. I think that that would be a good way forward, but it would not be an inquiry; there would be an on-going committee remit to monitor what the Executive is doing and the relevant science.
Do I understand you properly, Robin? Are you suggesting on-going committee work as opposed to a formal committee inquiry? An inquiry would be a different route and it would involve different mechanisms.
I am talking about a staged inquiry in which we would call in the right people at the right time rather than allocate four or five weeks, for example, to an intensive sea cage fish farming inquiry. I raise the issue for debate so that the committee can decide the most productive way of proceeding and whether that would be a staged inquiry in which we would consider the most urgent matters first and perhaps other matters that are further down the line later.
The aquaculture industry is important. It provides many jobs in the Highlands and Islands and on the whole provides a good-quality product. We want the industry to be sustainable. We also want the shellfish industry and the wild fisheries to be sustainable. Obviously, environmental implications must be considered.
We do not need to be told what the problems are. We could hold an inquiry, but we would not learn anything more about the problems. As Bristow Muldoon has said, the scientists do not yet have solutions to those problems. The Executive and other bodies are doing research into various areas. Bristow's idea of having some sort of co-ordinator to draw the research together is a good one.
The Executive is carrying out a review of regulations and we need to feed into that and link it to our deliberations on the forthcoming water environment bill. We need to monitor the Executive's research, especially in areas of environmental concern. Obviously, reporters from this committee, after deliberations with the researchers and with the research co-ordinator, will make that monitoring public. Everything will be in the public domain and therefore transparent. However, everything will have to be drawn together before we deal with the water environment bill, so that what we learn can be fed into that bill.
I largely agree with Maureen Macmillan. With the water environment bill, we have a window of opportunity that we must not miss. Others are much more knowledgeable about these matters than I am, but we must do whatever it takes to ensure that we make an intelligent input to deliberations on that bill. We owe it to the industry to do so. The industry is very important to remote and fragile areas—I have no doubt that John Farquhar Munro will talk about that.
We must help the Executive to formulate a clear strategy on how to nurture the industry and how to help it in future. The industry faces enormous obstacles. If it is not, as it were, adequately cherished, it could very well disappear. However we do it, we have to do what we can to support the industry.
The committee has to tell the Executive that we think that it is failing by not answering the petitioners and instituting a public inquiry. The Executive has the necessary staff, resources and funding, but it has made it quite clear that it will not do those things. Responsibility therefore falls to us.
We have heard from our two reporters—Bristow Muldoon and Robin Harper—and I thank them for the masses of evidence. It is obvious that all the multifarious investigations sponsored by the Scottish Executive are industry based. The results of many of them are not transparent.
For more than 20 years, the environment has been degraded. This committee needs to say that, although we want the industry, we want it to be a sustainable industry in a sustainable environment. I would therefore like two committees—the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee—to hold inquiries. There would be two distinct remits: the Rural Development Committee would consider the sustainability of sea cage fish farming, or aquaculture in general; this committee would consider whether it is a sustainable industry in a sustainable environment. The two committees should hold inquiries with tight remits. John Scott suggested that we could help the Scottish Executive and give it a steer, but I think that it is time we held those inquiries, made recommendations and insisted that the Executive take them forward.
By happy coincidence, the water environment bill is coming up. We will have to consider the effect of the industry on the local water environment.
I disagree with Fiona McLeod's proposal to hold not one but two committee inquiries. We must be conscious not only of the time constraints on this committee's work but of the limits of the committee's ability to consider highly technical areas. I do not see what the added value would be of going through a conventional inquiry process with evidence taking. We asked the Executive to conduct an inquiry because it is better equipped than a parliamentary committee to undertake that work.
I agree with some of the comments made by Maureen Macmillan, Robin Harper and others. This is an important issue that must be dealt with. In the interests of transparency, we have to set a time scale for dealing with the issue, particularly because of the water environment bill that we plan to introduce next year. With that in mind, the best route forward is to suggest to the Executive that we want it to appoint a research co-ordinator who can draw together the various strands of research, with a focus on identifying the areas that are under-researched at the moment. Robin Harper was right to say that a lot of research is industry focused and that if we are to see the whole picture more environmental research must be done. The committee should work positively with the research co-ordinator, who should have meetings with our two reporters.
The date that we set for the research co-ordinator to present a report to the committee should coincide with stage 1 of the water environment bill. That report should be supported by further work by our two reporters. We must be seen to be dealing with this important agenda and we must ensure that information is gathered for us in the best possible way so that we are well informed when scrutinising legislation on the matter. We must do everything in our power to ensure that all the information can be brought into the public domain.
Like others, I want there to be a sustainable and viable salmon farming industry on our coast. We should dispel the perception that the committee is anti-salmon farming, as we never have been. Salmon farming and related activities employ about 6,500 people up and down the coast. That is a significant number of employees in remote and rural parts of the country.
I am disappointed that the Executive did not accept the suggestion, offered by this committee and the Rural Development Committee, of an independent inquiry into fish farming, but that is the situation we find ourselves in and I accept that even if we resubmitted our suggestion we would return to the same situation. While we toss such issues back and forth, time is passing—almost a whole year has passed without much happening. We hear that much research is being done into the activities that take place in our salmon farming industry.
I want to sustain the salmon farming industry, but not at a cost to the environment. We must be protective of our environment. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that the environment is being harmed to one degree or another. When we suggested an inquiry into the activities of the fish farming industry, it was quite happy that it would be able to demonstrate once and for all that its activities are appropriate for the sustainability of the operation. I am surprised that the Executive did not consider that when it refused our request to hold an inquiry.
Our reporters have been working diligently throughout the summer recess and will continue that exercise. I am glad that there is a level of agreement that a research co-ordinator should be appointed to advise the committee and the reporters on how progress should be made. That is a significant step forward. I would like some clarification of how the research co-ordinator is to be appointed. Will the Executive appoint the co-ordinator from its current staff or will the appointment be external and of someone with the appropriate skills and expertise?
I welcome the suggestion and hope that, having gleaned the information that we are seeking, we will be able to support the industry and other marine activities in the months and years ahead. I receive much information and many reports from the shellfish industry, the scallop industry and the prawn fishermen, particularly on their concerns about what is happening around our coast. I do not need to tell the committee of the tremendous decline in the number of wild salmon and sea trout. My area is closely associated with the salmon farming industry and there are four sporting rivers within five miles of where I live that have produced almost no salmon or sea trout this year.
I want to clarify my proposal, which was that we go to the Executive and suggest strongly that a research co-ordinator be appointed. The Executive should appoint the co-ordinator—it should not be the committee's research co-ordinator. I would expect the Executive to appoint someone who is a scientific expert in the relevant areas. We should have access to the research findings and the product of that co-ordination work and they should fit in with our work on the water environment bill. Perhaps the reporters could have a continuing liaison role with the co-ordinator. We do not necessarily want to appoint our own researcher, but we must ensure that an independent professional expert is appointed to take the matter forward.
I want to try to draw the discussion together.
I kept my initial remarks brief so that I could come back into the discussion. I would be very unhappy if the committee relied on me and Bristow Muldoon to find further information and with the idea that that would be a sufficient public airing of the issues. We must press for an official parliamentary inquiry. The timing of that is up for debate, but however we go about it we must go about it. My principal concern is that if we go for a parliamentary inquiry we might be told that we cannot have a full-scale inquiry until the middle of next year, which would be far too late. That is why I introduced the concept of a staged inquiry that would start as soon as possible.
I considered Fiona McLeod's suggestion that, given the work load of this committee and the Rural Development Committee, both should take a view on the issue. Mature consideration suggests that we could be making the same mistake as some people think the Executive is making by considering regulation and strategy separately. They should be considered together; we cannot do one without the other. We should keep them together by having one committee to conduct the inquiry.
I want to draw some conclusions from the various views that members have expressed. If members are not happy with those conclusions, I am sure that they will not be slow to speak up.
I would like to reach a consensus on the issue. We all agree that this is a vital industrial matter as well as an environmental one and that that is something we need to bear in mind. Although the Executive is doing a lot of work on some of the issues, there are still questions about what has been missed out, about the speed of the process the Executive is engaged in and about the scrutiny and transparency that is being brought to bear on the Executive's activities. Another thing that I have to bear in mind is—for want of a better phrase—committee capacity, by which I mean our ability to do everything members want to do.
Bearing all those factors in mind, I see the situation as follows, although I am happy to hear members' views. It has been proposed that a research co-ordinator be appointed. Des McNulty expanded on that. General consensus seems to be forming on that matter. As regards reporters, the committee must have a continuing role in the consultation that has now closed and in the work that needs to be done with SEPA and other organisations. We are also building up towards the water environment bill, so we will need to keep our skills and awareness to the fore.
I am trying to establish where the consensus on an inquiry lies. I do not think that Robin Harper and I are far apart on this. We do not have the resources or the time to carry out what I would call a full-blown inquiry, but we could use the research co-ordinator to examine what is happening in the Executive with regard to legislation and the industry. It would be a rolling inquiry and we would have a monitoring role. The big question is how we achieve that. The difficulty lies in establishing the need for evidence taking and the role of reporters.
I could happily support the principle of taking a rolling monitoring role and inquiring into the development of the matter, whether the Executive is quick enough and is conducting the right research, and what the industry, the environmental organisations and lobbyists and the scientists are saying. That could be part of our work, but if we try to go down the normal inquiry route, we will encounter intractable problems with timetabling, resources and members' time and availability. That is just my view, but it is derived from listening to what members have been saying.
I would like the clerks to write a paper that draws in some of the aspects of an inquiry that Robin Harper mentioned. I would like the paper to recognise that such an inquiry would be an on-going process for the committee, although we would need to set some parameters. We should ask the Executive to appoint a research co-ordinator to whom we have access for information and scrutiny. We should also build that work into the arrangements for the water environment bill, which will be coming our way. We will co-ordinate all that work through the committee, but we need members of the committee to volunteer now to take on the task of examining and scrutinising what is going on in the Executive and elsewhere with regard to the scientific aspects of the matter.
That is how I see the situation. I am trying to draw together the points on which there is consensus. I will put it bluntly: I appreciate that that proposal does not meet the needs of a full-blown inquiry, but it identifies the key issues and gives us a reasonable expectation of what we can achieve. It would also ensure that the activities of the Executive and others are well scrutinised.
It has been said repeatedly that we cannot hold an inquiry because of difficulties with timetabling. Is the committee's forward timetable for the period from now through to next Easter being drawn up on the basis of weekly or fortnightly meetings?
We are currently on a cycle of weekly meetings.
All the recommendations that you have made relate to things that have to be done anyway. In my view, the big issue is the water environment bill. A great deal of work has already been done in this area—the scientific evidence has been gathered and the views of the different sides have been sought. We could have a short, sharp, focused inquiry. We could invite folk here to give us evidence, which would form part of the evidence that we will need when considering the water environment bill. I do not think that the committee should abdicate responsibility for this issue, even though the Executive has. That is my bottom line.
I agree with Fiona McLeod. I would be very unhappy if the science co-ordinator were to come from within the Executive. We should appoint someone from outside with scientific credentials—a person with the status of Andrew Cubie. When I was thinking about who might co-ordinate a public inquiry, his name occurred to me.
As Fiona McLeod said, the water environment bill is extremely important. We should at least ask the marine laboratory to provide us with an interim scientific report, detailing its investigations so far. That is the only science on which we can depend as far as the lochs of the north-west of Scotland are concerned. I am also keen to carry on with the work that I have been doing over the recess.
That is good to hear.
We have talked about co-ordinating research, but the industry urgently needs the Executive to take a strategic view. The Executive may want first to take a preliminary view, or the research co-ordinator may want to start by drawing up a wish list of how he would like the industry to develop, before building on that. Whatever approach the Executive takes, developing a strategic view is the key to dealing with this issue.
The development of a strategic view would be part of the research co-ordinator's role. The committee would also require access to that facility.
In my view, the person who is appointed research co-ordinator should not be a civil servant, but someone with a scientific background in this area. Such a person would be able to draw together the various strands of scientific information. As several members have said, there are gaps in the research. The co-ordinator should be responsible for identifying them. They should not limit themselves to research that is carried out in this country—there are several other countries with significant fish farming industries and we should make use of the best research that has been done there. Robin Harper made that point earlier. The co-ordinator would share their work with the committee, thereby ensuring transparency.
We expect to begin consideration of the water environment bill in the spring of next year. If we embark on a formal inquiry into sea cage fish farming, I doubt that we will be able to conclude it early enough for it to influence the content of the bill. The bill is likely to include provisions relevant to the issue that we are discussing. Earlier, I mentioned that the Executive has been conducting a consultation exercise on the regulations governing aquaculture. Some of that exercise's conclusions will form part of the bill.
The question is whether the committee wants to spend time making its own submissions to that consultation to try to shape it at this stage. The alternative is to take on board the range of views that have been expressed and include them in our consideration of the bill in due course. I would be relatively comfortable with either course, but we ought to consider whether it would be useful for us to give our views on the consultation at this stage.
I agree with what Bristow Muldoon and others have said about ensuring that the research co-ordinator is reputable in a scientific sense and can do the job that must be done to gather together the relevant information, point to gaps and assist us in delivering transparency in the process. One of the advantages of getting the Executive on board will be, I hope, that the work of that co-ordinator will inform the Executive's consideration of what it proposes in the bill as well as informing the committee's consideration of what the Executive produces.
There is a crying need among the people who lodged the petition—and others who are interested in this matter—for a fuller picture to emerge. Our immediate task is to ensure that that fuller picture emerges and that greater transparency is delivered so that we can make sensible and rational decisions. A general perception is that we are not currently as well equipped to do that as we would like to be. It is important that we persuade the Executive to work in that direction, that we maintain our involvement in the process and that we ensure that the outcomes of that process inform our consideration when we consider the legislation.
The timetable issue is important, but if we go down this route we will seize the initiative, set the agenda and push the Executive to respond on the issues of co-ordinating scientific information, generating greater transparency and producing better decision-making. We would be pushing harder by doing that than we would by getting into debates that we have not been successful in up until now. This option offers a way forward that has benefits for ourselves, for the industry and for those who are concerned about the environmental implications of the industry.
We must be focused in relation to the areas of inquiry that we want the co-ordinator to deal with; we must give a clear specification. If our brush strokes are too broad it will take forever, so we must be focused in what we want to do and what the co-ordinator should focus on.
Whatever happens as a result of this meeting, we will have to come back to the committee with a paper that sets out how we see the matter developing. The committee will have the opportunity to put the meat on the bones at that point. We cannot go into too many details at the moment. I am trying to draw out the areas of general consensus on which we can progress, which I will give to the clerks to report back to the committee. We can then decide whether we should make any changes or alterations to that proposed method.
What I said previously about how we should deal with the matter is still on the table. Bristow Muldoon has mentioned consultation, which I think can become part of that rolling inquiry process, as can the water environment bill.
I would be happiest if the one decision that we took now was that the paper should be prepared for us by the clerks as soon as possible with as many options on it as possible, including options that we might like individually to submit for consideration. We should debate that paper no later than two weeks from now.
I do not want the paper to come back to first principles. There is not consensus in the committee in favour of a full-blown inquiry in the traditional manner. There is consensus on an on-going review and inquiry process. That might disappoint Robin Harper and other members, but I do not see consensus in favour of a full-blown inquiry. From what members have said, that is a minority view. I may be wrong and members need to correct me if that is so, but I do not think that the paper should start again at first principles. It should flesh out in detail the discussions that we have had on the report that we have considered today.
Let me make an observation. We have spent a lot of time talking about a research co-ordinator, but it sounds to me as if we are talking about the appointment of an adviser to an inquiry. Why do we not go the full way?
That is your view. I am not sure that I or Des McNulty, who proposed the idea, see it that way.
The route that we are mapping out is a pragmatic view. That the Executive has said that it will not hold a full-blown inquiry is a matter of regret to us all. Although Robin Harper would prefer that we pursued that line—I would not in any way disagree with that—we need to live with life as it is, not as we would like it to be. That is why we are pursuing this route.
On many occasions, I have said that we remain disappointed that the Executive will not have a full inquiry, in which it could use the resources and scientific skills that it has available. However, the Executive has said that it will not. That is the world that we live in.
Colleagues, I am looking for some consensus. Instead of a full-blown timed inquiry, we see the way forward as having an inquiry on a rolling basis, which would deal with the issues as they develop, and would monitor the work of the Executive. Through building the role of a research co-ordinator, we would scrutinise the Executive.
If necessary, I can make a formal proposal that we can vote on. We need to be pragmatic and take the agenda forward so that we get all the information that we need at the time that we most need it, which will be when we consider the water environment bill. We need to plan for that.
We can put pressure on the Executive by making it clear that we require a good degree of transparency. We need the Executive to commission work that is overseen by a scientific expert and we will make it clear that we expect to get a report on it. That option is the route forward. It would have a number of advantages because it would mean that the job gets done—to call it an inquiry would be to confuse the issue. It is not really an inquiry, but a planned and staged process that would deliver the information that we are looking for at the time that we require it, which is probably the quickest time within which it could be generated for us anyway.
Do we have a particular budget to meet the costs of a research co-ordinator? What funding is available?
The normal committee process would be to appoint an adviser but, as I understand it, committee members do not see that as our post. The Executive should deliver that for us.
The Executive has said that it will help.
If the Executive says no to that—I very much hope that it will not—we can discuss that then. However, it is not necessary to discuss how we would fund such a post. We want the Executive to do that.
We are going round the houses quite a lot here. Are members uncomfortable with the form of words? I did not think that there was much between Robin Harper's suggestion and mine. The difference is that, whereas we normally have focused inquiries with a specific timetable and a specific number of witnesses, we will instead have a rolling inquiry in which we will monitor what is going on and observe what the available science has to say. We will draw down from what the Executive is doing and give it greater scrutiny in the committee. The conclusion of all that work would be that, further down the line, we would make a meaningful intervention both on legislative matters and on matters that arise from the Executive's research programme.
I remain of the opinion that that is the consensus view of the committee. In response to Robin Harper's earlier question, I see no consensus for the full-blown traditional inquiry. Perhaps this is a hang-up about words, but Des McNulty's proposal is a route by which we can deliver all our objectives. Before Des McNulty puts the proposal formally to the committee, I would prefer the clerks to come back with a report. By reading through the Official Report, we can distil our discussions from today and, reading into what everybody has said, come up with a satisfactory response that will keep everybody confident that the work that we are doing will be beneficial to the industry, the environment and the Executive.
Robin, you said you had a small point—just a tiddler, I hope.
I am not happy with Des McNulty's playing with words. Whatever this is, it must be an inquiry of some kind.
I have tried to suggest that it is a rolling inquiry based on a number of targeted outcomes. Des McNulty said something similar, without using the word inquiry. The issue is that we need to begin to get the work done. The best way to do that is to bring back to the committee a paper that sets out how we might achieve that work. That will be for members to discuss and—if necessary—to amend.
We will proceed on the basis that we will review the Official Report of the meeting and take account of the statements made by committee members. I have summarised the situation a couple of times already and I think members have a handle on what we want to achieve. As we normally do on such occasions, we will put our trust in the clerks—they have always delivered for us—and come back with a constructive report that will perhaps get us 95 per cent of the way; we can then discuss the other 5 per cent.
Can I—
How many last words can we get in?
It would be useful to indicate our planned way ahead to the Executive as early as possible so that we get the thing going. I am anxious that we should not lose any time.
I expect Rhona Brankin to be reading the Official Report very soon.
I want to record my disappointment that the committee is not going for an inquiry. However, I look forward to the clerks' paper on how we conduct our investigation.
Thank you.
That was our final item this morning. I appreciate members' on-going co-operation. It has been a useful meeting, having cleared up much of the business that we had hanging over us and set us up in good stead for future discussions. I thank members, the press and public for attending.
Meeting closed at 11:52.