Rural Development Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Official Report 247KB pdf

---

Sea Cage Fish Farming

Item 3 on the agenda is sea cage fish farming. Members should have copies of the letter from Ross Finnie and an annexe to that letter that was mistakenly not circulated with the letter, but was circulated later. Do members have it?

Members indicated agreement.

Members should also have a copy of the letter from Andy Kerr and me to Ross Finnie, to which the minister's letter was a reply. Members' papers should also include a copy of the reporters' paper, which was unanimously agreed by both committees.

The item is on our agenda to allow members to consider the response of the minister to our recommendation that an independent inquiry be established. As Richard Lochhead was a reporter on the subject, I invite him to speak first.

It is fair to say that there has been widespread fury over the past couple of weeks since it became clear that the Government is turning down the request of two parliamentary committees—the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee—the environmental lobby, the salmon farming industry and the wild fish interests of Scotland. There is widespread support for that request from all sides of the argument concerning the impact on the environment of sea cage fish farming. Anybody who has read the letters pages in the press recently will appreciate how outraged people are. Both committees have been taken aback by the Government's response. Although many of the measures that have been taken by the Government in connection with the issue—they are outlined in the Executive's letter to the conveners of the committees—have been welcomed, there is still a cast-iron case for an independent, impartial, open and transparent inquiry into the impact of salmon farming on the environment.

The only way forward is to clear the air. In recent years, the debate has been sometimes acrimonious and mostly unhelpful. Only an independent inquiry will get beyond that and allow both the wild fish sector and the salmon farming industry to move on and achieve their potential for the good of the Scottish economy. Therefore, I suggest that the committee—I hope, in conjunction with the Transport and the Environment Committee—ask the minister to rethink his response, reverse his decision and initiate an independent inquiry.

I disagree totally with that. I was as keen as anybody to have an independent inquiry. However, the Executive's response shows that action is being taken and that bills will be introduced. An independent inquiry would stop that work from going ahead.

We must look at the issue another way. We have a role to play and, while welcoming what is being done, we should ask to be involved in drawing up the Executive's strategy. We must ensure that we have a role in bringing together the industry, the anglers and the environmental groups. It would be better for the industry if we were to take this issue and run with it, ensuring that all those groups came together and had the information that they required. A public or independent inquiry would set the work that is in train back by at least a year. We have an opportunity to agree to the Executive's plans while asking to be part of them.

I regret the fact that the content of the Executive's letter seemed to have been leaked to the press in advance of our receiving the committee papers. It is regrettable that the committee appears to be leaking to the point of incontinence. It is about time that we got our act together.

It could have been the other committee.

I understand that, at the time that the press got hold of the letter, the other committee had not received it. It must therefore have come from this committee.

I agree with what Rhoda Grant said. We are obviously disappointed that the minister has not accepted the recommendations of the committees. However, that is not because the ministers are doing nothing; they have suggested an alternative. I am impressed by the figures that were given for the gross domestic product of the salmon farming industry. I recently visited a fairly substantial salmon processing plant in my constituency, which made me aware of the amount of employment that is created by the industry. This is not just about the environmental side of the argument; it is about an industry that is important to the Scottish economy. I have a number of concerns about the way in which it operates.

Like Rhoda Grant, I would like the committee to be involved in looking at a national strategy for the aquaculture industry. The industry is important not only in the areas in which it goes on, but in many other areas in Scotland as well.

I, too, was disappointed with the minister's response, but his position might be understandable, given the amount of work that is being done. I still believe firmly that the industry, the environmental organisations and the wild fish interests are all looking to the Parliament to examine in depth some of the key issues that afflict the industry—whether those issues are on the environmental side, whether they are the barriers to growth vis-à-vis the competition with Norway, or whether they are to do with regulation, planning and the role of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. They also want the Parliament to consider what are, alongside the environmental issue, the biggest issues that face the industry—compensation, and uninsurable risk because of the current eradication policy.

The committee should be the vehicle for instigating an inquiry that is wider-ranging than an inquiry that has a purely environmental remit. The industry and all those that are affected by it look to the Parliament to give a view on where the industry will go in the longer term. The committee would be failing in its role in the Parliament if it did not include that as a key item to consider after the summer recess.

A huge amount of work is being done on environmental issues, as has been outlined in the minister's letter. We need to take a rounded view of the industry's importance to Scotland, and to rural Scotland in particular. We need to consider how we see the industry growing. At the moment, the industry feels neglected, under threat and under attack. The committee has a key role in clarifying the facts and prodding the Executive into producing a strategy to help the industry. Elaine Murray and others have endorsed that position. It is the right way to go.

The view that we should have an independent inquiry was expressed to Ross Finnie on 8 February. It was the unanimous view of this committee and of the Transport and the Environment Committee. That showed that the committees of the Scottish Parliament were willing to speak clearly and send a strong message to the Executive.

The idea that we should suddenly switch our view and abandon the independent inquiry that we advocated only a couple of months ago seems to me to be very odd. I have listened to members' arguments. One was that we could have a parliamentary inquiry. I would call for a parliamentary inquiry as vigorously as anybody else, but the point is that an independent inquiry is merited because of the entrenched views in certain sectors. I say that while being cognisant of the fact that the committee has been criticised for having members who have distinct, recognised and public views about wild mammals. Surely it makes sense that the inquiry should be seen to be fully independent, rather than being conducted by members of the committee.

I believe that we all try to be as impartial as we can but, naturally, we bring our own views to discussions—views that we have put to electors at various elections in the past. I, for one, am a supporter of the industry. I believe that it is attempting to address many of the concerns about it. In recent years, it has gone a long way towards that. George Lyon has said that he supports his constituents; I support mine and I support the industry, because without it, very few people in the most remote parts of my constituency would have a job. I support it because it provided 40 per cent of Scotland's food exports last year. That is a remarkable statistic.

The idea that we should suddenly abandon our request for an independent inquiry seems perverse and irrational. The thought that an independent inquiry would stop the work to which the Minister for Environment and Rural Development referred is ludicrous. The work will carry on. People will give evidence to the inquiry—evidence that they had prepared anyway from their work and research. It will take only an hour or so to give evidence and face questions at the inquiry. The suggestion that an independent inquiry would mean that all the steps that have been referred to—there are not that many—would stop is utter nonsense. It is insulting to people's intelligence.

We are experiencing a sad time. Members of the Executive party who are here today have given way. A short time ago, they supported an independent inquiry. Now the minister has said that they do not support such an inquiry. Parliamentary committees are supposed to stand up to the Executive, not kow-tow to it and abandon views that we reached unanimously a short time ago.

That is the biggest load of rubbish that I have heard from Fergus Ewing for a long time—and that is saying something. He misrepresented my argument. I said that it would be silly of an Executive to put forward legislation on a matter into which it was holding an independent inquiry. Fergus Ewing would be the first person to say that the Executive was ignoring the inquiry and that it was not taking the blindest bit of notice of what was going on, but continuing with its legislative programme.

The Executive cannot have it both ways. If the Executive is to legislate, it is our place to say, "Yes, but we want to be part of that." We want to bring together the industry and those who are against it for various reasons, and to find answers to the questions and take an active role, rather than slamming down every proposal and being negative.

I cannot speak for the position that was taken by the committee previously, because I was not a member of it at that time. It is nonsense and insulting to us for Fergus Ewing to suggest that the committee is utterly incapable of setting up a factual investigation into the salmon farming industry, and to conclude that we come to the meeting with pre-conceived ideas and political positions. He might be speaking for himself, but I assure him that the rest of us have listened to evidence and produced reports based on that evidence, as happens in other committees.

If we play politics with the industry, we would be sending out a clear signal that it was not important. The industry wants either a parliamentary committee or an independent committee to undertake some work and reach a conclusion. If an independent committee has been turned down by the Executive, I suggest that the proper way forward to send a signal to the salmon fishing industry that this Parliament values it, is for the committee to take the bull by the horns and carry out a factual study into some of the issues that have been raised.

It is clear that both the Transport and the Environment Committee and this committee wanted an independent review of the issue because of misinformation. The industry wanted an inquiry, as did the environmentalists. Almost everyone wants an inquiry. We wrote—as you did, convenor, with the convenor of the Transport and Environment Committee—requesting that the Scottish Executive undertake a review. We have received a reply from the Executive. It said that it was doing much good work in such matters, but that it was not appropriate to hold an independent inquiry.

The Executive is entitled to take that view, as we are entitled to ignore it and do our own thing. I am sure that, on reflection, Fergus Ewing will agree that, as the Rural Development Committee, we are duty bound to take up the mantle if the Executive does not want to go down that route. The industry, the environmentalists and the general public want an investigation.

The Scottish Executive might be doing many of those things, and that good work is extremely important, but public perception is even more important. The public need to be assured that an inquiry is to be launched. If the Scottish Executive has decided, for its own reasons, not to launch it, the committee is duty bound to take up the issue and do what has been suggested. I can certainly guarantee to Fergus Ewing that no minister has told me that we must not pursue an independent inquiry. I want an independent inquiry, but we are not going to get one. It would be wrong for us to go back and beat at a door that is closed. We need to do the next best thing and decide to lead our own major parliamentary inquiry.

I agree that the committee is perfectly capable of conducting an inquiry into salmon farming. That should be a fallback position if the Executive still refuses to hold an independent inquiry, but a question arises in my mind about how soon we could hold such an inquiry. We have a full timetable for months and months to come. However, if the Executive were to announce an independent inquiry this week, it could be off the ground in a month or two and would be reaching conclusions by the end of the recess.

There will not be any legislation from the Government before the recess—we could be looking at the end of the year for that. The only legislation on salmon that is in the pipeline is consolidating legislation, which is purely technical and does not relate to this topic. If the committee decided to conduct an inquiry into salmon farming, we would have to wait a long time before we could get down to business. George Lyon is shaking his head, but perhaps when we discuss our timetable at the end of the meeting, he will realise the work load that is before us.

The crucial point is why we want an independent inquiry and why both the salmon farming industry and the wild fish interests supported an independent inquiry. They did so because this is a heated debate on a controversial and contentious issue. Any inquiry, therefore, has to be as objective as possible. That is why we hold public inquiries, such as the Cubie inquiry and the many other inquiries that have taken place in Scotland in recent years. They have to be seen as objective, independent and transparent, so they should be at arm's length from Government and politicians. That is why all sectors have supported an independent inquiry.

My position is quite clear. We should say that we have read the Government's response, but that we still think there is a good case for an independent inquiry. We should reserve our position so that, if the Executive still continues to say no—Mike Rumbles is quite correct to say that there is nothing we could do about that—we have the fallback position of holding a parliamentary inquiry. Let us go for the best option, because it is the right thing to do in the first instance.

We have now heard everybody's views.

I have a question to ask.

I have certainly not been approached by anyone. I was not on the committee previously, when the matter was discussed. When the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee took evidence, they both wrote to the minister asking for information. Obviously, we now want to sit back and consider the information that we have received. Is this the time to do that? Do we have the opportunity right now to consider what the minister has said in response to the request for an independent inquiry?

We must decide now how to react to the minister's letter. Having looked at the annexe to that letter, my concern is that, although it contains a great deal, I am not confident that I have enough information to judge whether the minister's conclusion is one that I can share.

I was about to come on to that. The annexe refers to a transfer of responsibility for fish farming to local authorities

"as soon as a legislative vehicle can be found"

and says that the Executive intends

"to bring forward shortly legislation".

Given that the minister's letter says that he is

"not persuaded that an independent inquiry would be the best way to proceed at this time",

I think that we could ask some more questions about the annexe and give it further consideration.

In the first instance, I would like to write to the minister to express the genuine disappointment that has been felt across the committee at the view that he has taken. I would also like to ask for more information as a development of the annexe, so that we can consider it in more detail.

I do not think that the committee feels genuinely disappointed; I think that the convener is misrepresenting what the committee is saying. The committee is saying that it considered the possibility of an independent inquiry, but I, for one, am very pleased with the steps that are being taken by the Executive.

Do we have enough information to make a decision? Do we need further information?

Instead of long-grassing the matter, convener—with all due respect—we should discuss it in the context of our future work programme. Two or three of us have suggested that this parliamentary committee ought not to send a signal that it will ignore the fish farming industry. We want to do some serious work. To prevaricate and long-grass the matter would be an insult.

We should consider our work programme for the coming year. If fish farming is such an important industry to everyone sitting round this table, I am sure that we will get the necessary support to ensure that the industry is prioritised and that we include consideration of it in our work programme.

I want to pick up on a point that Rhoda Grant made. I approach the matter with no prior knowledge of the fish farming industry; I have to take the information in the spirit in which it is given and will have to make decisions on that basis. My view—speaking partly as a former member of the Transport and the Environment Committee—is that information was requested; information was received; a request was made to the Executive; and the Executive has returned with further information, some of which I welcome and am not disappointed in. I am glad that the Executive is undertaking such specific pieces of work. I am particularly pleased to see a statement in the letter that the ministers intend to work with the industry, with environmental groups and with all representatives who may have a stake. That is important.

It is also important that we have some kind of spirit in which we all work together to progress the matter and to address the issues. I am reluctant, at this stage, to enter what would be a conflict of interests. I have not ruled out the notion that the committee may want at some point to conduct some sort of inquiry, but I do not think that it would be helpful to slam shut the door that the Executive has left open in order to work in partnership to resolve the situation and ensure that there is an industry in future.

I want to respond to George Lyon, who said that we have to dump our timetable and give the matter priority, because, otherwise, the industry would think that we were not taking it seriously.

The industry will want us to support an independent inquiry. That is what people on all sides of the argument want. We should not agree not to go back to the Executive, to dump the timetable and to give priority in our work programme to the salmon farming industry. Why not give priority to the industry by having an independent inquiry? We could then keep to our timetable, which is important because we have other priorities.

I was quite clear a few minutes ago, but I am somewhat confused now. Ross Finnie's letter reads:

"Against this background, we are not persuaded that an independent inquiry would be the best way to proceed at this time."

The minister does not give us an indication of when the Scottish Executive wants to have an independent inquiry. In fact, I get the reverse impression. The Scottish Executive is not keeping the door open to an independent inquiry. The impression that I get from the letter is most clear: the Scottish Executive will not hold an independent inquiry. Why? Because of the vast amount of work that would be involved.

There is a clear difference of view. Some committee members do not want to proceed with a parliamentary inquiry, conducted by this committee—George Lyon's expression was "long-grassing the matter."

We have made it clear that we feel it is important to have an independent public inquiry. That door has been closed, as far as I can see. No minister will keep that door closed for ever, but, in effect, the door is closed. If we do not undertake today to conduct a parliamentary committee inquiry, the wrong message will be sent out to the industry, to environmentalists and to the Scottish public. We ought to make it clear today that we, as a committee, wish to undertake an inquiry if the Scottish Executive does not wish to do so.

We will discuss our work programme later in the meeting. The programme will be discussed again before the summer recess, so that we can define how it will be set out after the recess. At this point, we must decide in principle whether we wish to proceed with an inquiry or not.

We need to speak to the Transport and the Environment Committee to find out its reaction.

Yes. That committee will consider the matter at its meeting tomorrow. I would be cautious about pre-empting anything that it might want to say.

We should also reply to the Executive to welcome much of the work that is under way. The Executive has said that it will co-operate if we have an inquiry and we reserve the right to have an inquiry until after we have spoken to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Elaine Murray was right: we could do with much more detail on points such as the time scale. If we are to hold an inquiry, we need such information and we should ask for it when we write. We should also ask that we have an input to the process, as it is important that we have a role to play.

Would you go so far as to say that, during that process and any inquiry of our own, we should reserve the right to call again for a public inquiry at a later stage if we think that that is appropriate?

Yes. Depending on the outcome of our inquiry, we might want to keep that door open.

Are we content that we know roughly what information we would need to feed into our work programme at this stage to cater for the process?

I am happy to agree to the proposal, with the proviso that we do not give the wrong information to the Transport and the Environment Committee. That committee must understand that we are reserving our position until we hear from it because we want to undertake an inquiry. It is important that an inquiry takes place. I would hate for the Transport and the Environment Committee to think that the Rural Development Committee did not want there to be an inquiry.

We should make it clear that we will not make a decision on that until the Transport and the Environment Committee has discussed the matter.

Yes. Are we content that we know roughly what we would need to feed into our work programme at this stage to cater for the process?

We can decide that when we get to the agenda item that deals with the work programme.

The minister has replied to the committee's unanimous request of 8 February that there should be an independent inquiry. The request also has the support of both sides of the argument: the environmentalists and the salmon farming industry. In arguing that there should not be such an inquiry, certain members have said that the information that Ross Finnie has provided us with satisfies them and that they are happy with that. However, I can find nothing new in Ross Finnie's response, which rehashes things that we already know. What, in the letter, justifies certain members' departure from the unanimous view that we reached in February?

Richard Lochhead said that we would be unable to start a lengthy and detailed inquiry until the autumn, but that an independent inquiry could be convened over the summer. As Richard Lochhead argued, that fact—and the urgency of the need to clear the air—means that an inquiry should be convened with all speed. Today's decision to backtrack from the previous unanimous view is inexplicable.

Any member of the committee is free to make that point, but it is beyond the remit of the committee to address it.

The scientific nature of the subject is another factor in favour of having an independent inquiry, given that no member of the committee is a scientist.

It is worth putting on record the fact that the committee has already split down party lines in the course of today's discussion. That is exactly the reason for people's wish for an independent inquiry.

Fergus Ewing believes that there is nothing new in Mr Finnie's response, but that is not the case. The new information in the response, which Fergus Ewing may have missed, is that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development says that the Executive is not inclined to conduct an inquiry. The question therefore becomes, what does the committee want to do? We can sit here and discuss writing again and again to Mr Finnie about whether the Executive's decision was right, but the Executive has taken a decision and is unwilling to progress.

I suggest that the committee should consider conducting an inquiry, subject to liaison with the Transport and the Environment Committee and to our drawing up a remit and locating a slot in the work programme.

I am prepared to accept that as a position that reflects—

As was said, the SNP would support such an inquiry, but it is pretty clear that Richard Lochhead and I feel that, although a committee inquiry would be some help, the best and preferable option would be an independent inquiry. I suggest that the committee should continue to support the proposition that an independent inquiry should be convened, as requested in our letter of 8 February to Ross Finnie. I propose that we vote on that proposition.

Wait a minute. The options are not mutually exclusive. I, too, believe that an independent inquiry should be held, but we will not get one. I do not disagree with what Fergus Ewing just said.

That is why I invite you to vote for that proposition—that would show your agreement.

That proposition is not an option, because Ross Finnie has said no to an inquiry. We do not have the power to institute an independent inquiry. I do not understand your position.

The easiest way of dealing with the matter is to put it to the committee. I could ask members for a straightforward show of hands on whether they believe that the committee should continue to push for an independent inquiry.

May I make an alternative proposal—that the committee is not convinced of the need for an independent inquiry, based on the information in the letter that we have received? That preserves our right to call for an independent inquiry again, after we have held our inquiry.

I would be happy to vote on that proposition.

Which proposition are you happy to vote on? [Laughter.]

The situation is not one of for and against. That is what George Lyon is saying. We should hold an inquiry. We cannot predetermine the outcome of such an inquiry. If we did that, there would be no point in having an inquiry. It seems like a silly idea to rule out holding an inquiry. I think that we agreed to look towards the independent inquiry, as George Lyon said.

Are we content that the only difference in opinion is that Fergus Ewing and Richard Lochhead wish to continue to call for an independent inquiry, whereas the rest of us wish to investigate the matter in greater detail and reserve the right to call for a public inquiry again in future?

Can I wrap this up? I propose that we write back to the minister to ask him to reconsider holding an inquiry and say that we reserve the right to hold our own parliamentary inquiry should he not change his mind.

That would complicate matters.

Those who wish to call once again for a public inquiry under the terms that we specified previously—

An independent public inquiry?

Yes.

The proposal is, that we call again for a public inquiry under the terms that we specified previously. Is that agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)

Against

Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)

Abstentions

Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 1. The proposal is therefore disagreed to.

Did you abstain because you were unsure?

I abstained because I wanted to abstain.

Are we agreed that the committee should reserve its right to call again for an independent public inquiry after it has scrutinised the matter?

Does that constitute an agreement that the committee will hold an inquiry? Your wording is a bit vague.

I think that the convener is saying that we will decide whether we should hold an inquiry after we know the result of the Transport and the Environment Committee's deliberations.

I am beginning to be confused, because I thought that the inquiry that we might hold would be rather broader than the initial concerns.

We must reserve the right to do that.

I suggest that we defer the decision until our next meeting, when we will know what the Transport and the Environment Committee agreed. We can make a decision then, but we must bear it in mind this afternoon that we should leave space in our forward work programme, should we be the committee that conducts the inquiry.

We have made a basic decision on whether we want to call again for a public inquiry immediately. Are we content to leave it at that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will proceed on the outline that George Lyon gave a few moments ago, but will await the consideration of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Are we content that we have come to a logical conclusion on item 3?

Members indicated agreement.