Transport and the Environment Committee, 09 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 9, 2002

Official Report 342KB pdf

---

Aquaculture Inquiry

Agenda item 4 is our continuing aquaculture inquiry. I am pleased to welcome the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, whom some may remember from earlier this morning—I am glad that he is here for our evidence taking. With him are Gillian Moynihan, Jinny Hutchison and Michael Kellet from the Scottish Executive, whom I also welcome. Before I give members the opportunity to put questions to the minister, I ask him whether he wishes to give a general introduction or whether he would like us to proceed straight to questions.

If you do not mind, convener, I will give a brief introduction. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss how we develop—jointly, I hope—the conclusions of the review of the regulations that govern aquaculture in Scotland. I apologise for being unable to appear at the meeting that was initially scheduled.

As members know, to assist the discussions, I set out my proposals fully in my letter of 5 December. At that time, some play was made of the fact that I did not refer to the proposals at a commitment that I inherited from my predecessor to speak to the industry. It was also said that I should afford the Parliament the opportunity to ask what was going on. I am here today to do that. I did not elaborate on the regulations last month because I expected to speak to the committee. In case it is inferred that I intended to slight anyone or to abuse procedures when I made that speech, I say that, on that day, the details of the proposals were sent to the committee and published on the web and in a news release. There was no secret about them. There has been wide-ranging consultation on them since the beginning of last year.

One thing that I have learned in the few weeks since I took up ministerial responsibility for the environment again is that a copious amount of work has been done by the committee and by officials from the Executive's freshwater fisheries and environmental protection units to get to this stage of the consultation exercise. The committee was involved in that through its work on the consultation paper.

I understand that there is significant support for what I propose. It is our objective to ensure that our proposals allow the industry to develop on a sustainable basis. We will try to achieve consensus wherever we can in the interests of the parties who are involved in the process. I hope that that will reassure those critics who want the focus of the regulations to be sharpened.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to put the proposals in context. Gillian Moynihan, Jinny Hutchison and Michael Kellet, who have been much more intricately involved in getting us to where we are, are here to assist. My job is to take my predecessor's task on to the next stage, in consultation with—and I hope in the same general direction as—the committee.

Thank you, minister, for those introductory remarks. I reassure you that the committee is sympathetic about the reasons for the initial cancellation. I am sure that everyone recognises the difficult personal circumstances that caused that.

I want now to initiate the questions. We will undertake questioning about a series of areas in aquaculture. I invite Robin Harper to ask the first series of questions.

First, I apologise to the minister for the fact that I will have to leave immediately after I ask my questions. I have a commitment as convener of the cross-party group on consumer issues that unfortunately I was unable to devolve to anyone else.

We are pleased that your announcement recognises the importance of assessing the environmental carrying capacity of Scottish coastal waters. Can you give us a clear indication of the work that you believe still needs to be undertaken to assess carrying capacity?

I cannot yet do so. The work will have to be scoped effectively. The officials in the freshwater fisheries unit have applied jointly to the Crown Estate commissioner for research funding, which would enable an exercise to be conducted in the year ahead to tell us how that work on assessing carrying capacity might be developed. We would expect announcements about that throughout the next year. That is the best that I can offer about the current state of play.

Thank you. That is still helpful in that it clarifies the position. We know where we are.

How will you ensure that wider aspects of carrying capacity, such as landscape and natural heritage considerations, are taken into account when the potential expansion of the industry is considered?

That is important. All aspects of the carrying capacity, and not just those to which you referred, should be taken into account to build the consensus that I mentioned. However, I am sure that stakeholders such as Scottish Natural Heritage, VisitScotland and others with an interest will want to make comments on those issues—we will encourage them to do so—during the consultation on developing the strategy for aquaculture. I envisage those bodies and other interested parties making such comments.

We can presume that assessments of carrying capacity will include assessments of sea lice.

Yes.

I have a couple of questions about sea lice. I refer the minister to what he wrote about sea lice control in his letter to Nora Radcliffe. In that letter, minister, you refer to the scope of the proposed water environment and water services bill. You say that

"it is clear that direct control of sea lice would be outwith its scope".

Not everyone agrees that that is the case. It has been pointed out to me that the main focus of the bill is the control of anthropogenic impacts. However, if sea lice are at plague proportions, is that not anthropogenic? Could you not use the bill to legislate in that area? The issue is which legislative vehicles you intend to use to tackle the problem. You say that there is no legislative vehicle that we could use in relation to area management agreements and sea lice control but that you propose to take advantage of the limited opportunity provided by the water environment and water services bill. Could you clarify your proposals?

It would be best to pass over to Mike Kellet, who has been working on those aspects of the proposed bill. Perhaps he will be able to bring members up to date on our thinking and will be able to address the specific point about sea lice.

My responsibility in the environment protection unit is for the water environment and water services bill. I will be leading the team that will take the bill through the Parliament, although I do not have responsibility for everything that the bill will cover.

Our problem with sea lice is that, because they are a naturally occurring parasite, their environmental impact is not simply controlled—we do not think that we can easily control them and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is of the same view. That is because the way in which to deal most effectively with sea lice is to treat them with chemical therapeutants. Those therapeutants are, to a significant extent, dangerous chemicals, which are regulated under some fairly stringent pieces of European legislation. Until now, SEPA's focus has been to regulate the effect of those chemicals on the wider environment, obviously while taking into account their impact on sea lice.

We do not think that it would be appropriate for SEPA to be designated under the water environment and water services bill as the body to regulate problems with sea lice. That would involve a conflict of interests, given its duty to regulate the amount of those potentially dangerous chemical therapeutants to be introduced into the environment. That presents a difficulty.

My colleagues may have something more to say on this, but the sea lice problem has been considered as a fish health issue. The Executive's perspective is that sea lice may more appropriately be dealt with under fish health legislation and that the water environment and water services bill does not offer the most appropriate means specifically to control sea lice. The bill will, however, improve the effectiveness of the regulation of the aquaculture industry from an environmental perspective. That will—we hope and are fairly sure—have a positive impact on the prevalence of sea lice. However, we do not think that regulation of sea lice per se is appropriate for inclusion in the water environment and water services bill.

The bill is still being drafted and will be subject to consultation and to the committee's consideration. A number of ideas are being considered, including the power to apply general, binding rules to aquaculture consents, which will enforce good environmental practice, and a discretionary power to allow SEPA to grant consents for the use of chemical therapeutants for a whole loch, rather than for a single discharge, where the environmental and operational circumstances permit. The general thrust of the legislation that we are working up is to extend good management practice. The bill will, in turn, address some of the problems associated with sea lice.

There has been considerable discussion about the possibility of a moratorium on the issuing of new consents for salmon farming. Other witnesses have suggested that, until carrying capacity can be established, there should be a moratorium, although they believed that that should not prevent relocation of farms for sound environmental reasons. The evidence that we have received so far suggests that the argument has moved from the question of whether there should be a moratorium to that of whether there should be local moratoriums or one general moratorium. What is your view on that, minister?

I agree that a moratorium would freeze current problems. However I would like to explore the idea of relocation with the industry, the regulators and all the other stakeholders in the tripartite working group. As part of the development of the strategy to which I referred, I would also like to explore the idea of relocation with members of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

You have not yet said whether you are considering moratoriums—or, to be picky, moratoria. SEPA expressed a view that it would like guidance on whether to impose local moratoria.

I hope that Robin Harper appreciates from what I am saying that I agree that a moratorium would freeze current problems. However, in so far as all new farm proposals are subject to environmental impact assessments, appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the environment. Processes that have a disproportionate impact on the environment should not proceed. The direct response to Robin Harper's question is that I accept the point that, in certain locations, a moratorium freezes problems.

Is that as far as I am going to get, minister?

The process is developing and the question of a moratorium is something to which we wish to return.

In an attempt to press the minister further on the point, may I ask how the Executive intends to deal with relocation of fish farms that are known to be in inappropriate locations? How does the minister intend to encourage the industry to be proactive about that?

It is clear that it is in the industry's interest to site farms where they can best function. I understand that Scottish Quality Salmon has indicated a willingness to consider the issue. We encourage all industry groups to do likewise. I am sure that John Scott appreciates that relocation is a major undertaking for the affected company. It requires the full co-operation of the regulatory bodies and possibly of public sector investment.

The minister has summed up the situation accurately. Relocation is something that we are beginning to think about. We know that countries, including Norway, are taking preliminary decisions about the relocation of fish farms. As yet, we have not considered the matter in detail.

In the coming years, as part of the minister's work to develop a strategic framework for aquaculture, the whole business of the location of fish farms needs to be reviewed. One of the mechanisms that will assist us, as it will take place in parallel with the development of the strategic framework, is the review of the locational guidelines. The guidelines have been in existence for a couple of years and we expect, quite shortly, to embark on consultation on their content. People will be able to tell us whether they are limited, deficient or defective. In principle, the industry would be up for relocation, as would the regulators, but we should not minimise the scale of the undertaking—it is huge and would require a huge injection of money.

I think that you should not underestimate the scale of the problem for the wild salmon fisheries. Relocation may not be something we can take our time over and come to a decision about in three or five years. Some of the rivers are going out of existence as we speak. Unless the problems are addressed as a matter of urgency, the Executive must shoulder the responsibility for the cost of relocation.

You are absolutely right about that. I mean no disrespect to our predecessors, but the decisions that were taken—let us not say cavalierly—20 or 30 years ago are probably not the decisions that we would take today. We know that. We are not suggesting that we will drag our heels. The minister is well seized of the problem and we are aware that we have to get on with it. However, even if we were to decide today to let relocation be our policy, it would take time and money because of the scale of the problem. Your point is well made and well taken.

John Scott mentioned the effects on wild salmon. Has the minister received representations recently on the effects of netting on wild salmon?

The current deputy minister has not received representations; his predecessor did. I see that there was another great flurry in the press over the Christmas and new year period because the Irish are being pulled into Orri Vigfusson's grasp—I was going to say "net", but that would have been unfortunate. There were pointed remarks, saying that the situation would leave Scotland as the one country that has not banned drift-net fishing. The item in the press did not, of course, say that the legal situation in Scotland is entirely different. On the back of the Irish initiative, I would expect the minister to receive renewed appeals from the North Atlantic Salmon Fund to reconsider the situation. We are aware of the difficulties.

I want to respond in general terms to Robin Harper's question. As I was poring over the detail of the matter at 3 o'clock this morning, I was acutely conscious of the fact that I am yet to receive all sorts of representations from various parties about many aspects of it. I intend to consult the interested parties. The door will be open to those who want to make representations to me on how we proceed.

As a footnote to that, our colleagues in England have been faced with a particular embarrassment. Having agreed to outlaw drift-net fishing and buy out the drift-net fisherman, they invited proposals. The proposals have come flooding in, to the tune of many millions more than the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs thought it would have to spend. That is a precedent that we do not want to follow in Scotland, even if the legal situation were parallel, which it is not.

I note Jinny Hutchison's comments with regard to spending money to address the problem. Nonetheless, I welcome the fact that the Executive has said that it is prepared to address the problems of the salmon rivers, which are facing extinction at the moment, as a matter of urgency—albeit that the Executive has financial constraints.

Is it perhaps necessary to take a more holistic approach to the monitoring and control of coastal enrichment, instead of treating aquaculture in isolation? Have you any ideas on how best that might be achieved?

The basic answer to the question is that an holistic approach is necessary. We are adopting that approach in Scotland, mainly by playing a full part in helping to deliver the UK's commitments under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—the OSPAR convention. The terms of the convention require us to undertake assessments of coastal water quality, taking into account all nutrient sources, not just aquaculture. Our reporting to the OSPAR commission on that will be concluded later this year. I think that we are due to report by the end of the summer.

As part of the assessment, we have commissioned modelling work that will consider how to improve our standing across the range of contributions to nutrient enrichment and other impacts on the marine environment. The report, when submitted to the OSPAR commission, will be made public.

What changes do you anticipate making to the regulation of aquaculture in the water environment and water services bill?

We pre-empted that question a wee bit with Michael Kellet's response to Robin Harper's question. We are trying to ensure that SEPA, by enforcing good management practices such as the measures to which I referred—for example, compulsory co-ordinated fallowing—will, rather than being concerned solely with the quality of water in the cages, extend its interest from discharge consent to process consent. Is that a fair comment?

It is. The idea of giving SEPA more flexibility in its regulatory powers is general and will apply to all impacts in the marine environment and inland fresh waters. We think that that will have particular value in the regulation of aquaculture by changing the focus of regulation. At the moment, that focus, which is on discharge, is quite artificial because of the terms of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The bill will change that, to adopt a more appropriate focus on the process, which will allow more holistic control of the environmental impact. We think that the impact will be positive.

I will address the transfer of planning powers to local authorities. Will the minister outline briefly what benefits he thinks will flow from the proposed transfer of planning powers to local authorities? Will the transfer be included in the water environment and water services bill?

I accept that we were given notice that the committee wanted to discuss planning but, as members are aware, responsibility for planning lies outwith my sphere of responsibility. It lies with my colleague Iain Gray. I will try, without going into detail and in more general terms than members might wish, to answer some of the questions. Iain Gray will make himself available to answer in detail any points on planning that I do not cover.

As I understand the situation, planning controls will provide a statutory framework for taking decisions about where fish farms should be located. Decisions will consequently be taken closer to the communities that are affected by the developments and in a more open and transparent way than has hitherto been the case. Planning controls would not seek to duplicate existing controls that deal with pollution, disease or navigation. The impact on the landscape or the effects on other users, such as those that have been referred to, would obviously be considered as part of the process.

So planning powers will not be in the bill. Will they be in separate regulations?

The bill may not be appropriate for that. To add planning controls to the bill would add considerably to its size and would potentially increase its scope.

The focus of planning controls is different from that of pollution controls. The focus of planning controls is on amenity and other issues rather than exclusively on environmental impact. That is why we think that there would be problems with scope were planning controls to be included in the bill.

We are concerned that the substantial nature of the changes to the planning regime would significantly add to the time scale and delay the delivery of the water environment and water services bill. Obviously, we are required by Europe to have the bill in place by a certain time to fully transpose the water framework directive.

I passed that issue to Michael Kellet because he is dealing with the water environment and water services bill. We think that the best place for the proposed planning controls that we envisage would be in a planning bill.

We recognise that there has been a change in ministerial portfolios recently and that planning is dealt with by another minister. It might be useful for us to write to the Minister for Social Justice, Iain Gray, to ask him our planning questions. Iain Gray could then respond formally. I will allow members to ask general questions about planning but, if the minister feels that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on specific issues, we will deal with them in correspondence with Iain Gray.

I am happy with that. I was talking to Iain Gray about the subject last night and am aware that the situation is a work in progress. Nothing is hard and fast.

Do you envisage that once the planning regime is in place—whatever it might be—it will be retrospective? How would existing fish farms be brought within the framework? I do not know whether you can answer that. We might have to write to Iain Gray or have him come before the committee.

Our understanding is that the arrangements would be retrospective. I suggest that you clarify the situation with Iain Gray, but I can say that any controls would require primary legislation.

I will not pursue the matter any further.

Obviously, the minister will liaise with Iain Gray on how the implementation of a planning regime would affect his responsibilities. Does he have any views on how to achieve the appropriate balance between national guidance and local issues?

In planning terms?

I mean more in relation to coastal zone management in general. I know that you have spoken to national bodies and local people, so you might be able to suggest ways in which we can balance local concerns with the national framework.

I do not think that it is possible at this stage to confirm how proposed planning controls would relate to integrated coastal zone management. It is important that the proposed controls form an element of the sustainable management of our coastline.

Your department is doing a lot of research into local requirements and local situations in parts of Scotland. Will you be able to feed that into your consideration of how to deal with coastal zone management? Might information about local requirements help you to blend local concerns with the national framework?

The answer is yes.

Okay.

We will pursue most of the planning issues through correspondence with Iain Gray. We will send a letter as soon as possible, to inform the continuing inquiry.

The way in which the question-and-answer session on planning has progressed and the fact that planning has moved from the minister's department to another is interesting. Will that affect the ability to deliver the aquaculture strategy?

That question is fair. Planning did not move to its new department from my department. It moved from elsewhere. I intend to work closely with planning officials and ministers to ensure that the change in responsibilities does not affect our plans for coastal zone management or other matters on which we intend to legislate. We hope that planning will complement what we seek to do. I have appreciated that even in the short time in which I have done my job.

I have been struck by the legislative timetable, which places the water environment and water services bill later this year. That may raise planning issues, but there is no prospect of a planning bill in this session of Parliament.

That is one problem that we are discussing with the planning minister. The committee might want to raise that among the questions that it asks him. I acknowledge the problem.

We will ask the Minister for Social Justice what time scales he envisages for progress.

Action can be taken without primary legislation. We do not have to await legislation in every instance.

We will move on to area management agreements.

We have heard evidence on the pluses and minuses of area management agreements. What have they and the tripartite working group achieved since they were established? Scottish Environment LINK has suggested that AMAs should be replaced by regional management groups that have a wider membership and can discuss wider environmental issues. Do you agree? If not, do you think that AMAs should be encouraged to be more transparent and to adopt a wider role?

That is quite a package of questions. What are the benefits of AMAs? Put simply, they represent a process of dialogue, which did not previously include the different interests that operate locally. That sounds like an obvious and small thing, but my colleagues who work with an industry representative and with the secretary to the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards have gone hither and thither across the country and have brought people together in dialogue, to create a better understanding of one another's difficulties and points of view. That is the great advantage of the AMA process.

John Scott asked whether AMAs should be replaced by regional management groups with a wider membership. AMAs involve those who deal with the issues at the sharp end. I presume that all kinds of local fora could operate, but AMAs mean that the people with a direct interest in fish farming and its impacts are in dialogue. That is not to say that AMAs should replace other arrangements, but we are quite strongly wedded to the idea of AMAs. Even if Scottish Environment LINK's proposal was followed through, we envisage that it would happen separately and would not replace the AMA process.

What can be done to improve the transparency of the AMA process?

That is a good point. One needs to understand that the background out of which the AMAs are developing has been characterised by lack of trust, mutual suspicion and little desire to share information. That cannot be overturned suddenly so that people not only talk to each other but share commercial titbits of information, hold public meetings and so on.

We will work to encourage the AMA process to develop. We hope to prevail upon the different participants to become more open and transparent in their dealings. However, we are talking about a process; the AMAs did not exist a year or two ago. We will get there and there will be greater openness because it is in everybody's interests to be open.

I think that John Scott is making the point that more could be done—I agree. We have recently agreed to appoint a full-time national development officer whose job will be, among other things, to make progress on that issue. As we made clear in the letter, we are interested in making AMAs more open and transparent.

Will the new transparency also apply to the Executive? I ask because commercial interests are not the only ones that are accused of not being transparent. I have heard stories about the Fisheries Research Service in Aberdeen asking river proprietors to electrofish monitor for infectious salmon anaemia when the FRS was actually looking for infectious pancreatic necrosis. If the minister wants details, I can perhaps talk to him later. There is a perception that SEERAD is not always as transparent as it should be about fish diseases other than sea lice.

That is a controversial proposition for the minister.

The very idea that a Government department should be anything other than open and transparent! It is certainly not in ministers' interests that the Executive should be secretive nor, I hasten to add, is that our intention. Perhaps Jinny Hutchison will respond to Maureen Macmillan's point.

I do not have a background in the matter that Maureen Macmillan raised, but if she will give us chapter and verse, we will follow through on that. What she said goes to the heart of something that I was thinking about and discussing with colleagues while we were waiting to meet the committee. I cannot speak for the Executive but, in my tiny corner of the empire, we have no interest in being anything other than transparent. Maureen Macmillan will know that because, as one of the committee's reporters, she can sit down with us at any time to discuss matters.

There is no point in our trying to improve the situation while seeking to keep information from members. As I see it, the Parliament and the Executive are in this together—we are trying to effect improvements, although we might approach that from different perspectives. If at any stage any member of the committee or any member of the Parliament found that his or her attempts to get information were blocked, thwarted or frustrated, I would want to know because—believe me—we have no interest in doing that.

There are various ways in which Parliament can get information, such as parliamentary questions. That is fine, but it depends on what members are trying to achieve. Meetings like this are fine, but why not cut to the chase? Why not just pick up the phone and say, "Look, there's a whole bunch of stuff we'd like to discuss. Will you come and talk to us about it?" That need not be done formally. I promise the committee that there is no desire on our part to be anything other than transparent. We need all the good ideas that we can get to progress matters.

I appreciate what you say.

That is a clear assurance that there are no Sir Humphreys in the Scottish Executive.

Angus MacKay has just whispered in my ear something about dialogue not always equalling transparency, but I do not want to be facetious.

Angus MacKay put it more eloquently than I could, it must be said, but there is no ministerial interest in being anything other than transparent.

I am not talking about transparency between the committee and the Executive. I am talking about what happens down the line in river management, when arms of the Executive are not always up-front about what is happening.

I am trying to say that, if one wants to build consensus, that is not the way to go about it. It is not our intention to be anything other than transparent, up the line and down it.

Let us get back on track. Maureen Macmillan might want to supply the information about areas of concern.

I certainly shall.

How is it possible to ensure that the industry complies with its codes of practice, such as those that have been set up by Scottish Quality Salmon? What carrots and sticks should be used to encourage compliance throughout the industry? Previous witnesses have suggested that the codes could—perhaps should—be underpinned by regulation. What are your views?

From our perspective, it is clearly in the industry's best interests to adhere to its own codes of practice and to establish consumer confidence in its products. Retailers obviously look for compliance for their own purposes. The industry must police its own codes rigorously, but if voluntary agreements prove not to work we could legislate, although we are not currently persuaded so to do. In any event, there is no space in the parliamentary timetable to enable us to do that, as Fiona McLeod said.

So you are essentially proposing to encourage the development of voluntary codes with, as it were, the threat that, if that is not done voluntarily, you will legislate to ensure that it is done.

I would not say "threat". We are saying that if voluntary codes of practice proved to be ineffective—which is not in the industry's interests—for whatever reason, we would legislate.

Previous witnesses have suggested that, instead of a discharge consent, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency should apply an environmental consent, which would include conditions on site management and husbandry best practice. What are your views on those proposals?

The water environment and water services bill will give SEPA the power to examine matters in the round, rather than focus on discharges. I am not saying that SEPA would be able to examine all that John Scott mentioned, but we anticipate that, under the new system, it would be able to examine in the round some fish farming processes. We want SEPA to promote good practice in fish farming, rather than concentrate on the end product. It is difficult to get a grip on the end product of cage fish farming in terms of discharges to the environment.

Excuse me for using an acronym, but we want fish farmers to use BATNEEC, an environmental term that stands for best available technology not entailing excessive cost. We want SEPA to be able to promote BATNEEC in the aquaculture industry. The term already has a place in environmental licensing, in integrated pollution prevention and control and in other areas. We hope that we can help to promote it in the aquaculture industry and—more broadly—in regulation of the water environment.

BATNEEC is one of the many acronyms that we have had to become familiar with. It is consistent to adopt the same approach to aquaculture as is adopted throughout the environmental agenda. That is a basic point.

I am stunned by BATNEEC. I must write down that acronym.

I have three questions. The first relates to the attempt to encourage the industry to move sites further offshore in order to avoid more sensitive inshore locations and to try to balance that with the potentially high risk of escapes of fish due to rough weather and different wave and weather conditions in more exposed sites. What approach could be taken to reduce or eliminate escapees? In saying that I see an irresistible image of Steve McQueen on a motorbike.

We all know what you were doing on Christmas day.

Indeed.

How can the high risk of escapes be minimised in the exploitation of offshore sites?

I am informed that containment technology is improving all the time, but that the industry will not move offshore until it can satisfy itself and the regulators on the matter of escapees. I understand that it is critical for the industry's insurers to know that the technology is right. The industry is engaged in a process that is technologically driven and in which the industry's insurers have a pivotal role to play.

Where do you see the crossover between the role of industry in trying to exploit, encourage, support and cheapen new technology and its availability, and the role of Government in trying to promote and engage with the industry?

We are engaged in developing environmental considerations in what is an embryonic industry. The Government and the regulators would engage at two levels in that process.

That touches on the point that was made earlier about openness and transparency and how that is engaged in by you, by officials, by the committee and by those further downstream. I am happy to leave that point and to move on to my next question.

John Scott wants to come in.

On a point of clarification, is it your policy to drive the industry offshore as soon as the escapee problem can be dealt with and the insurance problems sorted out?

We will develop those issues as part of the strategic framework for the industry to which I referred earlier. That is not a yes or a no—it is a maybe.

I though that the point of asking a question was to get an answer.

Maureen Macmillan is pouring more "The Great Escape" analogies into my ear—vaulting salmon and such stuff, which is not helpful.

We have seen in writing and heard evidence about the need to examine the regulation of sea lice to try to ensure that the regulation of medicines and the treatment of lice are joined together more. We have also heard the view that regulators should seek to set maximum lice burdens. Do you agree with those views?

Michael Kellet may wish to correct me, but I understand that Norway sets maximum lice burdens, although there is an issue about the amount of medicine that can be used. As Angus MacKay will be aware, Norway is not bound by the European Union directive that restricts the use of hazardous substances. As good members of the European Union, we are bound by that directive. Does that answer the question?

John Scott may come in with a supplementary, but I want to revisit the question whether regulators should set maximum lice burdens.

I shall try to answer that question, although my response might not be completely satisfactory. Maximum lice burdens have been set in Norway, but there is not yet any evidence to show whether that is successful. It depends on using—to be blunt—fairly liberal amounts of quite dangerous chemicals to control sea lice. That is not an option that is open to us in Scotland, nor is it one that ministers would want us to pursue. As I explained, we see another difficulty related to that—if, by the regulator, you mean SEPA—in that there is a conflict of interests for SEPA between setting maximum lice limits and being able to control the input of those potentially dangerous chemical therapeutants. Evidence does not exist to show whether that would be a good approach, and we would want to keep an eye on it.

Your last point about the conflict of interests is fair. I also think that it is not unreasonable to say that whether the Executive imposes maximum burdens will depend on what the control method will be. That is a reasonable point, and I wanted to hear that clearly.

The lice burden will depend on factors other than the medication with which the lice are treated; it will also depend on the stocking density of the cages and their situation. Would not it therefore be more reasonable to set targets for lice control that may not be exceeded while leaving it up to fish farmers to decide how best to achieve those targets? Medicine is only one of the tools that are available to them in the management of their stocks of fish.

We will examine that.

The point of the new environmental regulation is to enable us to control things such as stocking density and other general areas of management.

That is what is envisaged in the water environment and water services framework bill that we are putting together.

I am a bit surprised by the hesitancy in the answer to that question, given the number of initiatives that the Executive has going under the heading of sea cage fish farming.

The minister said that in Norway the sea lice burden has been set, but that there seems to be an increase in the use of medication. However, you also said that fish farmers in Norway are not governed by coastal regulations, whereas they are here. I hope that some of the Executive's advisory committees are examining that holistically in addressing the environment and the care of fish. Because we have strict controls over the medication that we can put into the water, in considering a maximum sea lice burden we should be asking in what other ways the lice could be controlled. We could be a bit more imaginative.

If we are hesitant, it is because we are talking about work that is in progress. We do not want to pre-empt whatever it is that we will say subsequently. We are aware of the factors to which you refer, regarding Mike Kellet's answer on the situation in Norway—in its Scottish context—and we are not being hesitant to disguise or mislead. The work is in progress.

That is a fair comment. I do not know whether Jinny Hutchison has anything to add. Evidence does not exist that shows that setting maximum lice limits is the best way of controlling them. We must keep an eye on that and see whether the science develops. If it does, I am sure that ministers will want to look at it.

Let me reiterate the point. Is not it conceptually better to say "These are the targets that we hope—or insist—you will achieve", and then leave it up to individual site managers to achieve those targets, than it is to try to regulate in every imaginable way how people achieve those targets? Two different approaches are open to us.

I understand that point. Jinny Hutchison wants to respond to it.

I have a couple of points to make. As the minister suggested, the whole area will be considered when the strategic framework for aquaculture is being developed. In the meantime, we have the mechanism of the area management agreements, which suggest lice levels. However, we must be careful. If we set a limit for the lice burden and that limit is exceeded, what then? We have not yet got as far as that, but if we do, will we kill the fish or close the farms? What will we do?

All those matters will have to be hashed out in discussion with the different players when the minister embarks next week on his series of bilateral discussions.

What is the point in setting targets that one expects will be exceeded?

My point is that if targets are set then it should be up to individual farms or companies to decide how they achieve them, rather than our saying that they shall not use more than a certain amount of a chemical or whatever.

My question was probably unfair. I am not supposed to be asking the questions.

You will note that I am not answering the question.

Do you want to be a minister?

If you think that I have the qualifications, I thank you for that endorsement.

I want to move away from the joys of lice to the broader area of all diseases and parasites, and to consider particularly what John Scott said about setting targets and then leaving people to get on with it.

Most of the evidence that we have had before us suggests that synchronised management might be the best way of dealing with the control of disease and parasites generally. It is self-evident that that will be more difficult for small operators who, for example, might control only one site. What steps is the Executive taking, or considering taking, to support small operators who want to move towards participating in such best practice?

In the short time that I have been in my post it has been made abundantly plain to me that there are difficulties for small operators in relation to the types of synchronised management to which Angus MacKay referred. Our initial, but perhaps not final, response to that has been to seek to encourage the small operators to consider entering into co-operative arrangements with their neighbours and others that would enable them to undertake synchronised management more cost-effectively than they could independently.

I am tempted to ask a supplementary question but I will not because of the time.

Feel free to do so.

Since you say that—okay.

I can understand the logic and the sense of encouraging small operators to act with others, because that might present economies of scale that would otherwise not exist. However, from the Executive's perspective that is not much more than just encouragement. What might the Executive contribute that is more tangible? I do not necessarily mean cash. As the minister knows, I am not one for spending lots of money. However, I wonder whether the Executive is considering anything.

That is something that we are prepared to consider. As I said, the difficulties that small operators have in employing synchronised management techniques have been made plain to me. If those techniques are identified as the optimum means of controlling disease and pests and so on, I can see where logically that argument will take one.

That is as much as I could hope for—I think.

I intimate to John Scott that I want to progress from this area, because there are a couple of other areas to explore and we are getting far on in time.

The minister will be aware from some of my earlier questions that I am greatly interested in regulation. The Executive took evidence on the need for a single regulatory body for the aquaculture industry. I note from the minister's letter of reply to Nora Radcliffe that the views for and against a single regulatory body were finely balanced, but the Executive chose to reject that proposal. However, the latter also said that the Executive has taken on board some of the views and will pursue the possibility of a one-stop shop and attempt a better alignment of the application process.

Will you explain why, given the finely balanced nature of the replies that you received, you went for voluntary, rather than statutory, alignment of the application process? How will that be achieved and what will be the time scale?

I will deal with some of that, although as the consultative process preceded my appointment as minister, others might want to come in.

We consider that it was no more appropriate to establish a new body to oversee the industry than it was to establish a body to regulate terrestrial farming in all its dimensions. A number of distinct types of control are required. Fish health has been referred to and we have discussed environmental and industrial development considerations. Therefore, each of the regulators has distinct statutory powers that could not be exercised on their behalf by some new body, unless that body was created by statute or by amending primary legislation. As we have discussed, in the short term there is little chance of delivering the primary legislation that the creation of such a new body would require.

The obvious conclusion is that the main problem is not necessarily the number of regulators per se, but the lack of co-ordination between them, which was a feature of the response to the consultation exercise. As I understand it, the duplication of effort, the length of time that it takes to make decisions and the transparency of the process drove the conclusions of the consultation. Jinny Hutchison might want to add to that.

I cannot add much beyond what the minister said. In the absence of any possibility of a legislative slot, we are driven to consider what we can do administratively. In that respect, there is probably scope to take measures to render the process more transparent and to reduce, through parallel submission of applications and so on, the time that is taken in the application process.

However, we are at an early stage—I think we were still receiving responses to the consultation exercise in the middle of October. The change of minister and the discussion with the Transport and the Environment Committee means that we are still at the beginning of the process of sorting out our thinking on how we will render the process more transparent, more streamlined and so on. That is where the Transport and the Environment Committee comes in—if the committee has ideas that it wants to feed in, we will accept them gladly.

I will supplement that in the spirit in which the question on the mooted one-stop shop approach was posed. It could be the role of a co-ordinating unit within one of the existing regulators—perhaps the Executive or SEPA—to oversee and co-ordinate applications. However, as has been said, our thinking is at an early stage.

There is a position of principle that says that all the regulators cannot be brought together in a single body because they each have different tasks and responsibilities. The creation of jobs is not necessarily viewed as being at odds with environmental considerations, but those are two different functions, which are performed by different bodies for different reasons.

That answer clarified the Executive's thinking. I move on to one of the major regulators in the industry, which—as the minister just mentioned—is SEPA. Do you think that the current environmental protection arrangements are working effectively? On SEPA specifically, you have already commented several times that you will make it a competent authority and that you hope to move it from policing discharges to considering the whole process. Will shifting SEPA's role in that way and giving it a focus as a competent authority make the current arrangements for auditing and managing sites more effective and robust? I must also ask whether you will ensure that SEPA gets the additional resources that it will obviously need when it takes on those additional duties.

That is a fair question. I will answer your first question and your last question. Perhaps Michael Kellet can provide some of the detail.

My response is; yes, I suppose that we are effective. The arbiters of European Union law and of the OSPAR convention have taken no proceedings against us and we are not in contravention of them. Both of them pay close attention to such issues. Monitoring, audit and enforcement are designed by SEPA to withstand rigorous scrutiny against internationally accepted standards.

Additional funding and resources were made available to SEPA during the previous comprehensive spending review to enable it to fulfil its functions and its obligations to implement the water framework directive. Any other subsequent obligations that might be imposed on the agency, or requirements for additional resources beyond those that were previously identified in the existing CSR would have to be part of a submission in the next CSR.

Does the funding that is available to SEPA take into consideration the proposal that SEPA be made a competent authority when the water environment and water services bill, which will be introduced later this year, is enacted?

In the current CSR three-year period, we have allocated extra resources to SEPA because of the work that it needs to do to implement the water framework directive. It is not possible to say that we looked further ahead than those three years, so we might need to reconsider the issue in the next round of the comprehensive spending review. However, additional resources were certainly made available for the implementation of the water framework directive in the current period.

Did that include SEPA's becoming a competent authority?

The first consultation paper that we published in June last year envisaged SEPA as a competent authority. That was our thinking when we allocated the extra resources at the beginning of that period.

That draws us to the close of the questions that we wish to put to the minister today. There are a couple of other issues that we wish to pursue further in writing with Allan Wilson's department and there are a couple of issues that we wish to address with Iain Gray. If we manage to get those questions to Allan Wilson promptly, the committee would appreciate his endeavouring to reply promptly so that we can make progress in finalising our report.

That is a fair comment. In the interests of transparency and openness, to which reference was made earlier, we shall try to respond as quickly as possible.

I thank the minister, Jinny Hutchison and Michael Kellet for their evidence today, as well as the various Executive officials who have been sitting behind them and ably supporting them.

Before the end of the month, the committee hopes to draw together a paper that will outline the evidence that we have received so far. We will do that with a view to producing, prior to the February recess, a report on this phase of our inquiry. That is the timetable that we are trying to work to, so I ask the minister to bear that in mind when the Executive is responding.

We shall do our best to comply with all the committee's timetabling requirements.

Given that time scale, it might be valuable to let the committee know that we plan to publish a second consultation paper on our proposals for the water environment and water services bill by the end of this month. That might help the committee's timing.

Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of today's agenda.