Rural Development Committee, 11 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

Sea Cage Fish Farming

Agenda item 1 is sea cage fish farming. We have received a paper from John Farquhar Munro.

I hope that everyone has a copy of the paper. I have been carrying the paper about in my hip pocket for the past two weeks, but because of other committee interests we were not able to put it on the agenda. I note that we have a reasonable agenda today, and I welcome the opportunity to present my paper to the committee.

Members will know that I have been appointed as reporter to monitor the progress that is being made by the Transport and the Environment Committee. As it says in paragraph 2 of the paper, the remit of the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry is to:

"monitor and review on an ongoing basis the work of the Scottish Executive and other relevant bodies in relation to aquaculture, by scrutinising the review of the current regulatory framework and reviewing the development of a strategy for aquaculture".

A copy of the detailed remit is attached to the paper at annexe A.

I have attended some of the Transport and the Environment Committee's evidence sessions and I will attend another tomorrow. I can report only on the discussions that the committee has had so far. The Transport and the Environment Committee appointed Professor Paul Reid of Napier University as a committee adviser to the inquiry.

The Transport and the Environment Committee suggested that a research co-ordinator be appointed. That process is currently under way. The committee asked the Executive to establish such a post, but I do not know whether that has been taken any further forward. Annexe B contains a letter from the then convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, Andy Kerr, to the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, suggesting that there was an agreement that a research co-ordinator be appointed. The Executive also offered some funding for that post.

Annexe C provides a list of the groups and organisations that were asked to give evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee. There will be representations tomorrow from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and others. That is the report; if there are any questions, I will attempt to respond to them.

Thank you, John. Do members have any questions?

It says in the paper that the Transport and the Environment Committee

"decided to seek the appointment of a research coordinator".

According to the remit for the inquiry, the task of the Transport and the Environment Committee is to

"monitor and review on an ongoing basis the work of the Scottish Executive and other relevant bodies".

It struck me as odd that the Transport and the Environment Committee wanted the research co-ordinator to be funded by the Scottish Executive. How appropriate would it be for the research co-ordinator for an inquiry that is being led by one of the Parliament's committees to be funded by the Scottish Executive? For the sake of complete impartiality, I do not think that that is a wise approach. I see that Rhona Brankin helpfully suggested that the committee and the Executive could go halves.

I can see where you are coming from, but I am not sure that that is for us to answer. If a procedural matter is involved, that is for another committee to resolve. It is not up to us to determine who funds or even appoints an adviser to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

I am not saying that it is up to this committee to decide who is appointed as an adviser. As I understand it, we have a reporter because we are involved as well—it is not just the Transport and the Environment Committee. If you cast your mind back to when we first considered the issue, we decided that we should work in tandem with the Transport and the Environment Committee. That committee met before we did, so it decided to do its own thing and we decided to send a reporter. We cannot abdicate our responsibility. All that I am saying is that we should flag this up.

What are you suggesting should be done?

I would like to hear other committee members' views.

The Transport and the Environment Committee has suggested to the Executive that it establish such a post. There has not been great debate on who should fund the post and perhaps we should seek clarification on that. As Mr Rumbles pointed out, Rhona Brankin offered some financial support for establishing the post. We should perhaps seek clarification on the legality of that arrangement.

It is not the legality that I am questioning, but the appropriateness.

I welcome any injection of money, by the Executive or any other body. However, am I right in thinking that the scope of any inquiry would be determined by the committee that was conducting the inquiry and that, even if, say, 50 per cent of the funding came from another body, the person or persons involved in the inquiry would take their instruction, remit and scope from the relevant committee? We should not split hairs. If people with the relevant expertise can be identified, let them get on with the work and be remunerated by whomever.

I do not have any particular concerns about where the money comes from; my concern is simply that we get the right person in place to do the job and that we agree what job needs to be done.

I get the impression from Mike Rumbles that he feels that we should be involved in the appointment of this person. I take it that he will therefore support Alex Neil's Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill, which provides for precisely such a process. However, I had not envisaged the bill applying to appointments at quite this level.

The second paragraph of Rhona Brankin's letter to the Transport and the Environment Committee states:

"I understand that you agreed in discussion that the term ‘research co-ordinator' was something of a misnomer and that what is now envisaged is the letting of a contract to an independent person".

If there are questions about the scientific adviser's independence, however the post is funded, those concerns could be raised at committee level. However, if the intention is to fund an independent person under a contract, I am not sure that there is a big question mark against the appointment.

I am not suggesting, as Stewart Stevenson implied, that the committee should be involved in the appointment process—the member has got the wrong end of the stick. I am just flagging up the point that if the purpose of the appointment is for the person concerned—whether they are called a research co-ordinator or something else—to scrutinise the Scottish Executive, it seems inappropriate that funding for the post should come from the Scottish Executive.

My concern is not about the funding of the post, although I can see what Mike Rumbles is driving at. He is asking whom the holder of the post will be answerable to. I have no problem with the Executive's funding the post, as long as the person who is appointed answers to the Transport and the Environment Committee and knows that their management line comes from that committee and that their responsibility is to that committee. We should not get too hung up on the issue of funding. We need only ask what the person's remit is and whom they answer to. That would solve the problem.

I gather that the Transport and the Environment Committee has not yet resolved this matter. We could ask our reporter to make the point at tomorrow's meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee that, although we have no difficulty with the match-funding arrangement, we hope that the contract will be put out by the committee and that whoever is appointed will be answerable to the committee in the first instance. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Fergus Ewing has a different point.

I, along with my colleagues in the SNP, had hoped that there would be a full, independent inquiry into sea cage fish farming, but that was ruled out by Executive ministers.

I note that annexe C of the progress report lists the witnesses from whom the Transport and the Environment Committee is taking oral evidence. The Transport and the Environment Committee may already have considered this, but we could suggest that it take evidence from the Norwegian Government. I understand that, at a recent seminar that was held in Scotland, evidence was given about the way in which the industry is regulated in Norway and the success that it has had, to the extent that it is now a £1,000 million industry. In Norway, the environment and industry work hand in hand. We should learn the lessons of success. Among the list of witnesses who have given evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee, I cannot see anyone from the Norwegian department of aquaculture, processing and trade who could enlighten us about the situation in Norway.

I support what Fergus Ewing has just said. We should take more evidence from the Norwegians. If an industry is profitable rather than hanging on by its finger tips, conservation tends to fall into place.

I do not know whether Richard Lochhead wants to speak or whether his light is on by accident, but I am happy to give him the opportunity to speak.

I support the suggestion that my colleague Fergus Ewing made. I attended the aquaculture conference that took place last week at the Holyrood Hotel, not far from here. At that conference, a representative of the Norwegian Government gave a fascinating presentation on Norway's aquaculture industry. The presentation showed that sea cage fish farming is an extremely professional industry. As Fergus Ewing indicated, the industry's exports are worth £1 billion per year to the Norwegian economy. The sector interests in Norway seem to have a good relationship. It would be good if the Parliament could take advantage of Norwegian input.

It would not be this committee that would call for evidence, but the Transport and the Environment Committee. Our reporter could put that suggestion to the Transport and the Environment Committee tomorrow.

I would not mind doing that, but I think that an anomaly might develop. Sea cage fish farming around the Scottish coast is mainly Norwegian-owned. If Norwegian methods and practices are so beneficial, financially and environmentally, I wonder why they are not applied to the Norwegian-owned sea cage fish farms in Scotland.

Stolt Sea Farm Ltd, which is Norwegian-owned, runs a successful £10 million factory on the island of Scalpay. We do not have to import Norwegian working methods, as methods are being developed in Scotland that build on the Scottish industry's best practice and apply Norwegian principles.

I am sorry, but are you saying that it would be inappropriate to suggest to the Transport and the Environment Committee that lessons might be learned from examining the Norwegian model?

We should always try to learn from one other, but—this is a delicate point—I wonder how willing the Norwegians would be to surrender some of their best intelligence about sea cage fish farming. My point is that Norwegian experience and expertise is being used well in the Scottish industry. I suggest that the Transport and the Environment Committee could draw on that experience initially before acting on Fergus Ewing's suggestion to go directly to Norway.

Regarding Alasdair Morrison's point, in terms of the industry's strategy we should consider regulation, which involves a relationship between the industry and Government. The Norwegian success might partly be due to the relationship between the sea cage fish farming industry and the Norwegian Government. Perhaps lessons could be learned from that. Regulation cannot be divorced from the industry's strategy. That is why it might be useful to take advice and learn from other countries such as Norway.

Yes. I want to clarify my suggestion for Alasdair Morrison. I did not suggest—though it now seems a pleasant idea—that we visit Norway. The furthest that I have been with this committee is Dumfries. That was a jolly good experience, but it would be even better to go to Norway.

As Richard Lochhead pointed out, I did not suggest that we take evidence from the Norwegian industry. I accept that Norwegian interests own much of the Scottish industry anyway, so the Scottish industry gets the benefit of cross-fertilisation. However, we do not have a clear understanding of the regulatory framework in which the sea cage fish farming industry operates in different countries, but we know that there are differences.

The Scottish industry says that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency rules, particularly for discharge consents for the use of applications such as Slice, are much more onerous and take much longer to pursue than in competitor countries. It has been suggested to me that, in commercial terms, the cost difference could be as much as 10 per cent. It is vital that we find out how other countries are apparently able to achieve success when our industry faces so many challenges and problems. The only way in which we can do that is by finding out from the Norwegian Government what the regulatory framework is for Norway's sea cage fish farming industry.

We might be drifting off the point. As the convener pointed out, we will not be taking the evidence; it will be the Transport and the Environment Committee. We ought to direct our comments to that committee via our reporter.

Yes. I was about to make that point.

I have another delicate point. We would have to ensure that we compared like with like. Much of the regulatory framework that our sea cage fish farming industry must work within is determined in another place—which is not Westminster, but Brussels. The Norwegian industry is not subject to the same regulatory framework for the environment. As Mike Rumbles said, this matter is ultimately for the Transport and the Environment Committee. However, if there is to be an analysis that compares the Scottish context with the Norwegian, the European regulations dimension must be factored into that.

Perhaps I can draw together our discussion by suggesting that, when John Farquhar Munro attends tomorrow's meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee as our reporter, he draws attention to the matter that has caused us concern. He should point out that there are lessons to be learned—albeit within different legislative frameworks—that might have a bearing on the Scottish industry. He could simply ask that the Transport and the Environment Committee consider those lessons in the course of its evidence taking. Does that meet with members' approval?

Members indicated agreement.

Are you happy with that, John?

Yes.

Splendid. I thank John Munro for his work so far and ask the committee to agree that he continue as our reporter to monitor the Transport and the Environment Committee's work. Perhaps we could ask John not to have too good a new year, so that he can report back in January.

On the subject of aquaculture, has anything happened about petition PE272?

You can raise that point when we discuss aquaculture in a minute's time. Are members agreed that John Farquhar Munro should continue his good work as reporter?

Members indicated agreement.