Aquaculture Questionnaire
Along with their papers, members will have received a copy of a letter, which we received a wee while ago, from the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin. The letter invites us to answer a questionnaire on the subject of an aquaculture strategy. Members will also have received my private paper, which gives a little bit of the background.
I am slightly concerned that answering a questionnaire is not the appropriate way to go about things. On 9 November, the Transport and the Environment Committee felt the same way and decided not to respond to the questionnaire at that point. It is always open to individual members to make their own comments to Executive questionnaires, but I am not convinced in my own mind that the committee's role is to make suggestions in that way. I would be much happier if the Executive asked us for our comments on what it has done so far and what it is thinking of doing in the future. I would be interested in what members think of that approach.
What do you think, Mike Rum—sorry, Stewart Stevenson.
That was worrying, convener.
I agree.
It was worrying for both of us.
I well understand the convener's point, but the interests of the industry must be paramount. The industry's interests must come before the niceties of procedure and even before party politics. It is important that we come up with answers to let the industry go forward as quickly as possible.
Having read the Executive's questionnaire, I have identified one point that does not appear to be covered, which I wanted at least to bring to the committee's attention; I have no particular recommendation on what we should do thereafter. We might decide to suggest that the Executive should include the point in its review, or we might decide otherwise.
The first bullet point under question 4 of the questionnaire asks:
"what factors (eg impact on fish stocks used for fishmeal) need to be taken into account?"
The Executive should take into account not only how the industrial fishing and extraction of pout and sand eel affect the production of fishmeal, but how those things affect the fish population as a whole and the fish population of the North sea in particular. In other words, the Executive should examine what effect the depletion of the food stocks for cod, haddock and other larger species has on the environment as a whole. It is generally accepted that 5 tonnes of industrial fishing yield the equivalent of 1 tonne of farmed fish. Given that fact, is that a sensible use of the environmental and economic resources that swim free in the North sea? Any inquiry into aquaculture must consider the effects of aquaculture on the broader ecology, particularly that of the North sea.
I thought that you were asking about a procedural point, convener, rather than for substantive points, such as the one that Stewart Stevenson made. I understood that agenda item 2 was to consider the invitation to submit comments on the Executive's strategy.
Aquaculture is a huge subject. We have already decided that the Transport and the Environment Committee should investigate it and that we would send a reporter on the subject to that committee. If we are to comment on the strategy, we need to devote time to doing that, but I thought that we had decided to go down the other route. Whether one agrees with that or not, it is what the committee decided to do.
Stewart Stevenson is right that aquaculture is hugely important. Either we address it properly or we do not. We have already decided that the Transport and the Environment Committee should take the lead on the matter.
I tend to agree with that, but it should not prevent members from mentioning any concerns that they may have about the shortcomings of the Executive's strategy while the document is in front of us. We have been asked to comment and are therefore entitled to do so.
My point was that, if we comment as a committee, we will need to devote substantial time to doing that and not do it off the cuff, which we are in danger of doing.
We must welcome the fact that the Executive is putting together an aquaculture strategy. A couple of years ago, some of us were calling on the Government and Parliament to examine Scotland's aquaculture industry. We now have a parliamentary inquiry and the Government is putting together a strategy.
I support Stewart Stevenson's point, which was important. The committee may wish to flag up that point to the minister. On Thursday, in the sea fisheries debate, many of the political parties will call on the minister to bring back from Brussels a plan to phase out industrial fishing in the North sea for the benefit of Scotland's commercial fisheries. That will have implications for the aquaculture sector, because sea cage fish farming is dependent, to an extent, on fishmeal. However, the industry is examining alternatives, such as vegetarian alternatives to fishmeal. That is also welcome.
It is important that the Executive acknowledges that, if we are to phase out industrial fishing, which we all want to do, we must work closely with the aquaculture industry on the timetable and give the industry every assistance to cope with the phasing-out. It is imperative that industrial fishing is phased out sooner rather than later, which means that, from now on, the minister must work closely with the aquaculture industry, so that it is prepared.
I suggest that we write to the minister and say that we wish him to consider industrial fishing and the effect on fish stocks of fish being used for fishmeal. That does not mean that we have to react to the request for comments. Mike Rumbles is right: if we start to consider aquaculture, we will have to take an awful lot of evidence before we can even respond. We should raise an issue that is missing from the strategy and that we want the Executive to address. That is a different matter.
We are heading in that direction. That is helpful.
The industry is important to the economy, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, so I welcome any strategy for aquaculture. At the same time, we cannot continue with the situation in which other users of sea lochs are being prevented from doing what they want to do because of a monoculture. Any strategy that could lead to the sustainable co-existence of different sea loch users would be extremely valuable.
The main point is regulation. At the moment, the aquaculture industry is regulated by about nine different bodies. A single regulatory authority, which has been asked for in the past, is favoured by both sides of the argument—if there is an argument.
On 24 April, the committee discussed at great length a petition from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. We discussed the possibility of compensation for various aspects of the aquaculture industry, but decided to await the Executive's response before deciding what to do. Was that response forthcoming? Perhaps this is the time for the committee to write to the minister and ask for his response, so that we may reconsider the possibilities that the petition raised, which are relevant to any aquaculture strategy.
I welcome the fact that a strategy document for the aquaculture industry is to be produced. It is particularly important that that document sets out a clear, cross-party commitment to an industry that, as other members have said, is essential for rural communities in Scotland, not to mention the thousands of jobs that are involved, to which Jamie McGrigor referred. I believe that 40 per cent of Scottish food exports currently come from salmon farming, and that there is a possibility of diversification into cod and other species. That could present more opportunities. The industry has been held back by a lack of commitment, thanks to the efforts of a close-knit group of enemies of the industry, who are vocal and have the ear of the media.
In Scotland, we have high standards, of which I had experience when I visited Dunstaffnage Marine Research Laboratory and saw DEPOMOD—a modelling tool—in development. It is the foremost computer model of its kind in the world.
I have two comments on the questionnaire. First, although the questions seem sensible, they could perhaps be supplemented. The questionnaire should ask whether the regulatory system is working, or whether it is too complicated. Are there too many bodies doing too many different things, perhaps not always with the best co-ordination?
In particular, what role does the Crown Estate play, other than being—to use a marine metaphor—a parasite on the salmon farming industry? Is not it a paradox, or at least an inconsistency, that the Crown Estate—of all the bodies that regulate the industry—is the only one that is not subject to the supervision and competence of devolution? Should not that situation be reviewed? Does it make sense to have an industry in which one regulatory body is outwith our survey, whereas all the other bodies are subject to our writ—such as it is? I want that to be considered.
Secondly, has the industry had unfair costs visited upon it as a result of the regime that exists here, compared with the regimes in Chile or Ireland, for example? I think that there have been unfair costs, but I do not see that question being asked and I think that it should be. We should look not only to Norway for information, but to Canada, Ireland, Chile and the few other countries that are active and successful in the industry.
I point out to Jamie McGrigor that one of the new feedstocks for farmed salmon is the mash that comes from whisky stills. That is a neat little loop, which sustains other parts of the rural economy. Once we start to unpick what is happening in the rural economy, we often find out a lot about sustainable development, which is exactly our remit.
Is that where drunken fish come from?
Absolutely.
I will bring this discussion back into the realms of sobriety, if I can.
Jamie McGrigor asked about petition PE272. I should have noticed this, but failed to do so: a response on that from Ross Finnie was circulated recently to members. The letter is dated 31 July, but it was circulated to members on 8 November. It might be worth our looking at that response before we decide whether to revisit the question. It is open to members to have that matter put back on the agenda at a later date, once they have studied the response. I freely confess that I have not studied it in detail, as I ought to have done. If we may, Mr McGrigor, I suggest that we return to the matter later.
I get the impression from the committee—members should correct me if I am wrong—that we agree, in essence, that we do not want to respond in detail to the questions on the questionnaire. As Mike Rumbles quite rightly suggested, doing so would start a whole new inquiry. The Transport and the Environment Committee has already taken it upon itself to go down that route.
We want to highlight the omissions—if I may put it that way—from the questionnaire, which members have pointed out. Those omissions include the effect on factory fishing and other concerns that have been raised. Are members content that the clerks draw up a response of that ilk and allow me to sign it or not, as the case may be?
Members indicated agreement.