Petition
We have a letter on petition PE96 from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. It is in response to a letter from Alex Johnstone, the convener of the Rural Development Committee, and me.
The Rural Development Committee considered the minister's letter at its meeting yesterday. I understand from the clerks that that committee effectively agreed to continue consideration of the petition, partly so that it could be informed by the discussion at our committee today.
Members have both documents—the letter to the minister and his response. I seek your views on the matter.
It is clear that the Executive has taken a decision. I am not sure whether there is anything we can do to change it. Perhaps we will have to act on the recommendation to set up an inquiry. I still feel that we should indicate that we are not happy with the decision and take some clear steps to remedy the situation that the Executive has created for us.
I object to the Executive's decision because the four reporters from the Rural Development Committee and this committee were clear that the advantages of an independent inquiry would be that it would be open, that it would in the end—we hoped—be acceptable to all parties, that it would advance the situation and that it could be done far more quickly than any inquiry the committees might initiate. I propose that, if the Executive is not prepared to budge on setting up an independent inquiry—and we should ask it budge—we set up a parliamentary inquiry. It should be a quality inquiry as far as possible.
We cannot be rushed. Given the situation, there is no point in our having a short and insufficient inquiry. We have to find the time—perhaps over a year. Taking a year for an inquiry would allow us to track what the Executive says it is doing. At some time in the next year, we could produce our recommendations.
Although I have received the same sort of briefing material as other members and the issue has been in the media in recent months, I cannot claim to know a huge amount about fish farming, aquaculture and all the related issues. I am somewhat uneasy about the sense that if you criticise the industry you are somehow against it and out to destroy thousands of jobs.
There is a sense that the Executive does not want to rock any boats—if that is not a mixed metaphor in the context of the debate. The committee should not give up on the issue. We can intellectually make a distinction between appreciating the significance of an industry and wanting it to operate within good environmental standards. That is central to everything else we are doing and it is appropriate for us to go on.
In principle, it is disappointing that the Executive should have dismissed a request from two committees to proceed with an investigation. The Executive has the resources to hold an inquiry. If we decide, or the two committees together decide, to investigate the matter, it is almost as if we are accepting that we do not have the expertise or resources in-house to do a job as well as we thought the Executive could have done it.
It would be a mistake for us not to proceed. I say that mindful of the committee's forward work programme. Perhaps we cannot hold an inquiry in the next year but, when we have looked at our other priorities and the commitments that we have given, it may be that we can hold it in the life of this Parliament. The work that we have done in other areas should give everyone confidence that the Transport and the Environment Committee will do this to the best of its ability and impartiality.
What comes out of an inquiry—whether we do all or part of it—will be a good quality, balanced and intelligent report that should chart some way forward. If we find things wrong with the way the industry operates, we will make appropriate recommendations. If we find that some of the stronger criticisms that are made of the industry are inappropriate, we shall say that, too.
It is important that we move quickly to sort out the industry. My fear is that a big, lengthy inquiry would put the issue off. It has been on the go since long before the Scottish Parliament was set up. I have been aware of the issues around fish farming and aquaculture for a long time and I have spent a lot of time with the salmon farmers and the shellfish farmers since being elected. I was also the European Committee's reporter when it looked into infectious salmon anaemia. Although my report concentrated on the effects of the disease, I spent a lot of time talking to people about environmental issues. Research into all the issues that have been raised is under way. I have spoken to the scientists who are researching impacts, including those of chemicals and detritus on the sea bed.
In its letter, the Executive has given us a list of the initiatives that it is progressing. I am not sure what more we want to know. However, it did not say what it is doing about sea lice. That is one of the big concerns for the fresh water fishers. There is a perception that sea lice that hang around the salmon cages fatally attack the young fish as they leave the rivers. The Executive is undertaking research into the impact of sea lice and how they can be controlled.
It is not as if nothing is happening. People are aware of the problems and want to balance the needs of the fish farming industry with the other legitimate concerns. I wonder whether we need an inquiry to tell us all that, because that is all known anyway. A strategic approach to the agriculture industry needs to be taken, as has been suggested. The industry has grown up in an ad hoc way and needs some regulation.
I will carry on from where Maureen Macmillan left off. It is true that some strategic direction is needed. The annexe that the Executive gave us shows loads going on. That is why an inquiry is important: it sets a remit, a focus and a timetable. I am slightly minded to support Robin Harper's suggestion that we take an overview of all the enormous amounts of research and ensure that it ties into a focused answer to the industry's problems. As everyone has said, the issue has gone on for nearly a decade and it cannot continue for another decade before someone considers it.
I will echo one of Murray Tosh's comments. It will be sad if a lack of committee resources prevents us from considering an issue about which we know and on which we have been petitioned.
Has the petitioner been given a copy of the Executive's reply to us? Have we received a response from the petitioner on that?
Does any other member wish to speak? Robin Harper has indicated that he would like to speak again, but I would rather every member had a chance to speak before I allow members to speak for a second time.
Like other members, I think that the outcome from the ministers is not particularly good. The issue is whether an appropriate balance can be found between environmental considerations and the legitimate requirements of the industry. When I read the list of initiatives that are under way, I found that the body that is charged with that fundamental element is Scottish Natural Heritage. Other agencies are being brought in—particularly local authorities, which are to be given the planning responsibility—but they will generally tip the balance more to the industry's side rather than the environment's side.
Is the balance correct? I would like far more prominence to be given to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's role in testing and monitoring the environmental impact of this activity. We should make it clear to the minister that we are disappointed that an inquiry will not be held and highlight a set of questions about whether the initiatives that are in place address the issues that have been raised. Perhaps we could stress environmental protection and the correct organisations to develop that matter.
I am concerned that, if we do not do something, the issue will be allowed to drift. I know that we have much continuing work and that many people are examining ways of considering different aspects, but someone needs to pull the issues together. As Maureen Macmillan said, some strategic direction is needed. Otherwise, concern that there are problems will continue and the environmentalists and the fish farming industry will be at each other's throats. They deserve a process, as well as everybody else.
Our problem is work load. It would be easy to say that we are so busy that we cannot take on another task, but I am not sure whether that would serve the industry's needs in the best way. It might take us some time to get there, but it is inevitable that a process will be required. If ministers will not initiate an inquiry, the Rural Development Committee or this committee will have to consider seriously the prospects for an inquiry that I hope would be short.
I was just as disappointed as everyone else when I heard of the minister's decision not to support the plea from the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee to hold an inquiry. Members will have noticed that over the past three months, since it was suggested that there should be an independent inquiry, the situation seemed to damp down. We did not get comments from fish farms or the shellfish farmers; they seemed satisfied and were prepared to be patient and await the result of the inquiry. However, since the minister took the decision not to hold an inquiry, I have had several representations from the people who objected and had called for the inquiry previously.
It is significant that the fish farming industry was prepared to accept quite willingly that an inquiry was in its best interests. It was commendable of the industry to take that position. The inquiry would have cleared the air and clarified the position. The industry was quite confident that any inquiry would give it a clean bill of health. We do not know whether that would have been the case, but that is what the industry was suggesting. It would be remiss of us to sit back and say that the decision has been made.
As Maureen Macmillan said, several small investigations into the activities of the sea cage fish farming sector are under way, but they are not co-ordinated: they are piecemeal and do not have the sort of clout that an independent inquiry would have. An inquiry would allow us to take a holistic approach to all the issues.
I am not sure whether we should enlist the support of the Rural Development Committee and try to come to a cohesive conclusion on how to progress. I am sure that over the next few months we will hear a lot more about the lack of movement and progress on the issue.
We have all expressed our disappointment that the minister did not see fit to take up our conclusion that there should be an independent inquiry. We have been offered a list of other work that is going on and, as members have said, there are some good things in there, such as the review of the aquaculture regulation scheme. I am sure that other things listed in the annexe to the letter will be constructive, but members are expressing doubt about co-ordination between the different approaches and the need for taking a strategic overview, particularly in relation to the petitioner's initial comments.
We need to think carefully about how to respond. I am in favour of asking the minister to come to the committee and tell us how all the initiatives tie together. In other words, before we commit ourselves to an investigation, perhaps we should ask the minister to justify more fully the reasoning that an inquiry would not be useful. If the Executive can justify its approach as set out in its letter, we might reconsider the matter at that point.
Many members have said that we need to track the progress of the Executive's work. That is undoubtedly the case and we should consider how we could do that. That is separate from whether we carry out an investigation. We still need to track whatever action the Executive is taking and measure the progress of all the different initiatives that it is about to begin or has already set in train.
We should not make any hasty judgments; we need to consider whether the Executive can justify its decision to the committee and tie together the initiatives in a package that satisfies us. That would have to be done at an early future meeting of the committee and it might help to target any investigation that we choose to take up. Any inquiry will be onerous in terms of work load and content—the science involved would be highly technical. We need to be aware of that from the outset.
We have heard what members have said. We should let the minister justify, or otherwise, the conclusion reached by the ministerial team. We can exclude certain aspects and concentrate on the specific areas that we consider the Executive not to be addressing. If that cannot be done, so be it; we must carry out an investigation and work out the logistics of the matter.
I understand that members are not happy, but we must consider how the Executive's conclusions tie into a package. If we do not agree with it, we will take the initiative on board. The Rural Development Committee wants to know our conclusions and I want to know its conclusions. It had a fairly lengthy discussion yesterday but reached no fixed decision. My preferred way forward is for the minister to package up the matter to meet the petitioner's needs. If that does not happen, we must consider the aspects that have not been dealt with in a targeted manner. If we cannot do that, we shall return to our original conclusion to carry out an investigation. However, I wish to pursue some issues in the letter in more detail before carrying out an inquiry.
There has been an unconscionable delay in the reply to our original request. Why it took it so long to say no is inexplicable. The Executive must explain that.
We cannot allow the process to drift and for us to say that the next step is to speak to the minister, but then for him to tell us that he will speak to us in six or seven weeks' time. He must speak to us within the next two weeks, either at our next meeting or the one after that. There has already been an alarming drift. We must call the minister to account as soon as possible.
Has the communication been sent to the petitioner? What is the petitioner's view?
We have not sent it, but we understand that the petitioner has a copy.
Will we seek the petitioner's view?
It is incumbent on us to proffer a view to the petitioner along with the ministerial decision to gain a response. What we decide today will be advice to the petitioner. That will bring together the two items. We must make decisions. I have put to the committee an intermediate response to the petitioner. I accept the well-made point about drift. The matter has been going on for many years and was going on prior to the formation of our Parliament. I want to pursue the minister so that we receive a fuller response. Such action will not close a door: it will guide our judgment for future consideration of the petition. I should also like to have a chat with the convener of the Rural Development Committee because we may be able to work together on the matter, as we have previously.
Is there any point in having a joint meeting with the Rural Development Committee with the minister?
I shall investigate all options. If we invite the minister to discuss the petition, I shall definitely ask members of the Rural Development Committee to attend that meeting. We can then take a further view on the matter.
That is a reasonable suggestion, but to take up Robin Harper's point, the time scale is crucial to the petitioner's wishes. We must deal expediently with the matter.
How quickly we can deal with matters is not unlinked to the next item, on trunk roads. Naturally, it depends on the minister's diary, but I stress to him the importance of such a meeting.
We need to know what happened in the Rural Development Committee yesterday, because we can offer the minister a choice of this committee or that committee.
Yes, it would be a Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday morning meeting within the next two weeks. We shall proceed on that basis. I shall seek an early meeting with Alex Johnstone of the Rural Development Committee.
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private until 13:08.