Rural Development Committee, 06 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 6, 2001

Official Report 176KB pdf

---

Petitions

We move briskly on to consideration of petitions, which appeared on last week's agenda, but was deferred because representation on the committee was rather weak as a result of the bad weather. The papers concerning the petitions are among last week's committee papers. All members should have copies.

The first petition is petition PE272 from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. It requests amendments to the Diseases of Fish (Control) Regulations 1994 regarding the treatment of infectious salmon anaemia. The petitioners request that amendments be made to provide compensation for slaughtered stock; rights of appeal against slaughter or containment orders; and the right to access the information on which those orders are based. The committee first considered the petition on 31 October 2000. At that point, the committee requested further information from the Executive and from the NFUS. That information has been circulated to members. Do members feel that they now have enough information to express a view on the petition?

There is enough information here, but some of it is contradictory.

Which bits contradict which other bits?

Let me give an example. On the right of access to information, the petitioners state:

"The Scottish Executive refuses to disclose to affected fish farmers the scientific data, findings and expert opinions on which the Slaughter and Containment Orders are based."

However, the evidence from the Scottish Executive says that quite the opposite is true. It states:

"Whenever a company is served with a disease control notice confirming or suspecting the presence of ISA information about the results leading to the decision is provided in writing."

That is just one example of the NFUS saying one thing and the Executive saying the opposite.

The way that the Executive has dealt with ISA has changed a lot over time. Maybe there was an initial problem when ISA was first spotted in fish farms, but the Executive has moved a long way towards addressing the concerns of the fish farming industry. Some of the points in the petition might refer to incidents that happened some time ago, rather than to the current situation, which is quite different. That might account for the conflicting evidence and information.

At first sight, there seems to be a parallel between this petition on the slaughter of salmon and the issue that we were looking at just a moment ago—foot-and-mouth disease. Compensation is paid for cattle that have been proved to have been infected with foot-and-mouth disease, but there is no compensation payable as of right for salmon that are destroyed, only a small proportion of which might be infected with ISA. That parallel raises wider questions about differences in treatment between farming on the one hand, and fishing and fish farming on the other. Of course, those issues are currently being considered.

I want to make two points. It is important to recognise that, of the farmed salmon that are slaughtered, only a tiny proportion are infected by ISA. The petitioners say that 99 per cent of the salmon that have been destroyed have been ISA-free. I do not know whether that figure is correct, but it is accepted that only a tiny proportion of the fish has the disease. Therefore, the vast majority of the salmon that have been slaughtered have been free of the disease. That is a genuine problem for Scottish salmon farmers. Further work needs to be done on that to see whether we can learn lessons, especially from Norway, about the policy that determines whether all the fish must be slaughtered.

My second point is practical. The Executive's response points out that

"Ministers have made available £9 million (for a three-year period) to assist those businesses directly affected by the disease"

and that that has

"led to the ISA Restart Scheme, administered by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and which to date has assisted 15 fish farming businesses to the value of £2.1 million."

Plainly, there is £6.9 million left in that fund. I am interested in knowing whether the petitioners consider that the remaining fund would go some or all of the way towards meeting their problems. I would like to know that as a matter of fact before the committee comes to conclusions on the petition. I would also like to know whether it is possible to bring forward that £6.9 million, which has already been earmarked, to meet what might be a short-term crisis.

The weakness of the Government scheme always seems to me to have been that it provides compensation for those whom the main Government party used to call the bosses, rather than for the workers in the fish farms. I would be interested to know whether any compensation is finding its way to people who have lost their jobs in fish farms throughout Scotland. If they have not received any part of the money, I would like to know why that is the case and whether the Executive has any plans to consider amending that aspect of its scheme.

Fergus Ewing raised the point about people who work in the fish farms benefiting. Is not the intention to direct the money at restart to ensure that jobs are retained, rather than at compensation to the owners, which would create the possibility that those who were employed on the farms—as opposed to those who owned them—would receive nothing? Is not that the difference between the two schemes?

I am quite horrified by the parallel that Fergus Ewing has made between ISA and foot-and-mouth disease. They are not similar. When ISA breaks out, the salmon cages are fallowed. That means that the fish are slaughtered, but they can be marketed. Fish farmers can sell those fish because they do not damage human health. The only fish that are not sold are those that have obvious signs of ISA and would not be attractive to sell.

To say that farmers who have to burn their animals, with no chance of marketing any part of those animals, are in the same situation is totally wrong.

On a point of order. Rhoda Grant is expressing her view. That is her right. I did not suggest that the situation is similar. I compared the two situations, but at no point did I suggest that they were similar. I hope that Rhoda Grant will accept that point.

I am glad that Fergus Ewing has clarified that. There is certainly no similarity. To make such a connection is highly emotive at this time. We need to work towards examining the classification of ISA under EU regulations. If the disease is endemic to the fish population—as some are saying—we should consider reclassifying it and managing it in the way that Norway has done.

At the moment, the classification of ISA means that it must be controlled and eradicated when it appears on fish farms. That is an option, but we have had information about schemes for restocking and restarting. Culling fish does not have the same financial problems as other culls, because the culled fish can be sold. I do not feel that we should act on the petition.

I was going to object to the same statements to which Rhoda Grant objected. In the case of foot-and-mouth disease, even animals that may be infected, but have not been proved to be infected, are destroyed. Not only are all the animals destroyed and cannot be marketed, but the farmer cannot farm for some time thereafter. The situation is really different. Like Rhoda Grant, I object to a parallel being drawn between ISA and foot and mouth.

More than one opinion has been expressed, including the view that some of the evidence that has been presented to us has been contradictory. Rhoda Grant has suggested that she is not inclined to accept the petition. I am concerned at this point to hear members' final views, and to decide whether we have enough information to make a decision on the petition. We will consider either what Rhoda has proposed or, given that the evidence has been contradictory, that we require to hear from officials before we make our decision.

I think that it would be worth while having the petitioners and officials together in the same room at the same time, so that we can ask them specific questions about who was right and who was wrong. Notwithstanding the other issues, we are considering the petitioner's three proposals

"To introduce a scheme to pay compensation … To confer a right of appeal"

when ISA is identified, and

"To confer a right … to secure full access to the scientific data"

and evidence. We should concentrate on those three specifics.

Mike Rumbles is suggesting that we need to have the petitioner and officials before us before we can make a final decision on the petition. Do members agree with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

We also have a number of other petitions before us, also under item 3, relating to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. The then Rural Affairs Committee considered the group of petitions at its meeting of 5 September last year, when we agreed to consider them again, when we had considered all the other evidence on the bill. The committee has now completed its stage 1 inquiry and will be reporting on its conclusions. I have brought the petitions back to the committee for further consideration, as we said we would last September.

Two groups of petitions are before us. The smaller group comprises PE211 and PE215, which ask simply that the bill does not proceed. That is a matter for Parliament as a whole. Does the committee agree to note those two petitions and to refer to them in our stage 1 report?

Members indicated agreement.

The larger group of petitions, as well as 31 letters, share the theme of asking for more research on the bill's effects. Since those petitions were first lodged, we have gathered a great deal of evidence, including additional work on the economic impact of the bill, should it be enacted.

If the committee agrees that we now have sufficient evidence to enable us to report to Parliament on the general principles of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, it would be appropriate simply to note the petitions and to accept that no further action is needed. Do members agree?

I certainly agree but, as a matter of information, if we simply note the petitions, does that mean that somebody will write back to the petitioners to tell them why we have noted the petitions—that is, that we have received all the extra information.

Yes—there will be a response.

I am not absolutely convinced that we have enough information on the economic impact of the bill, but I believe that we have got enough information to allow us to proceed with a stage 1 report on the bill's general principles. I do not wish to pursue the matter further.

I share Mike Rumbles's view, in that I hope that that the petitioners are contacted with the committee's decision, and that the petitions have not merely gone into a dustbin, with the petitioners being told no more about the matter.

I see that one of the petitions has come from my constituency, and relates in particular to sending terriers below ground to flush out foxes, and to the prohibition of hunting rabbits with more than one dog. Mike Watson, should the bill progress beyond stage 1, has indicated his willingness to accept amendments on those matters.

Are members content to note the petitions at this stage?

Members indicated agreement.