Official Report 319KB pdf
Our next item is consideration of a report by the committee's reporters—Robin Harper and Maureen Macmillan—on our inquiry into aquaculture. The report outlines the work undertaken by the reporters since the summer recess. Members have also been given copies of a letter from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development that seeks the committee's response to questions about the development of the strategy for aquaculture.
Robin Harper has been particularly busy on the report. I was on holiday during the October break and Robin undertook many visits during that time. However, my researcher, Hugh Raven, stood in for me at the Dunstaffnage meeting. Since then, we have had meetings at the Parliament with bodies such as Scottish Quality Salmon and Scottish Natural Heritage. We will be having more such meetings.
The report is extensive, which is a credit to the reporters. As Maureen Macmillan said, there are common themes in the report which I am sure we will address in our evidence-taking sessions and further discussions.
As you are aware, for a period during the summer I acted as a reporter on aquaculture. I also did so during the recent Scotland week 2001 in Brussels, where I attended a seminar on diffuse pollution—the part about aquaculture was interesting. I will report on that in due course to the committee. An area that I highlight for continuing investigation by the reporters is the impact that diffuse pollution has on issues associated with problems in aquaculture.
We will have adequate time during evidence taking and report writing to ensure that that matter is considered in our report. If there are no other comments, I advise members that the next stage in the inquiry is to hold evidence-taking sessions on the regulatory aspects of aquaculture.
I am a wee bit concerned that we might get drawn into an unfocused inquiry on aquaculture. There are so many different things that we could look at that we run the risk of doing everything badly, rather than doing a specific thing well. Before we decide on witnesses and so on, perhaps the clerks and the committee should consider the matter further. We need to be much clearer about what is achievable and highlight, perhaps in consultation with the key agencies, the issues that our contribution would best be geared towards. Otherwise we will try to take on everything and are unlikely to succeed.
That has been our collective fear from the start of the process, when the Executive did not agree to carry out the work that we thought it should.
What progress has been made on the appointment of a research co-ordinator?
I will ask the clerk to report back on that.
The convener and the reporters had a meeting with Executive officials a few weeks ago. We are currently waiting for a formal response from the minister and would expect to receive that in the next week or so.
Have you have an indication?
No. I have also spoken to the minister on the matter and received no indication that I could report to the committee. Maureen Macmillan, Robin Harper and I attended the meeting. We gave the Executive a clear steer on what we expect to happen. We are awaiting the response.
Perhaps we should make the point to the minister again that time is of the essence. If the inquiry is to proceed, it must proceed quickly. Otherwise we are in real danger of not being able to do all that we might in the time available.
Okay. Taking Des McNulty's points on board, I believe that it is clear that we must consider the matter further.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—