Transport and the Environment Committee, 18 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Monday, June 18, 2001

Official Report 249KB pdf

---

Petitions

Agenda item 3 relates to public petitions. Petition PE96 deals with the environmental implications of sea cage fish farming. Members will recall that, at the committee meeting on 9 May, we agreed that, before deciding what further action we would take, we would hear evidence from ministers on initiatives that the Executive is undertaking. It has been confirmed that Rhona Brankin will appear before the committee on Tuesday 26 June. Members of the Rural Development Committee have been invited to attend that meeting.

After our previous discussion, Robin Harper contacted me with a proposal to advance the issue in a different manner. I agreed to put that to the committee last week but, as Robin Harper could not make that meeting, I put the issue on the agenda for this week's meeting.

In light of the publication today of the Friends of the Earth Scotland report "The One That Got Away—Marine Salmon Farming in Scotland", which highlights the continued concerns about the effects of sea cage fish farming in general, it is important that we are seen to have an open inquiry.

Despite the relative breadth of what the Executive says it is engaged in, what is being done will not satisfy all concerned parties. It is important that the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee between them pursue a committee inquiry. Although we must listen to what the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development says, it will be too late to set an inquiry in train after 26 June if we do not make plans before then. We should have plan A and plan B in advance, and plan A should be how we will take forward a committee inquiry, either on our own or in alliance with the Rural Development Committee.

At a previous meeting, we agreed that we had to base what we did on the response from Ross Finnie about a number of Executive initiatives. We want to establish what meets with our satisfaction and what does not. What areas do we need to do some work on and what areas are being covered by the Executive? I am of the view that the minister should be subjected to some investigation on these matters. Today we received an e-mail from Rhona Brankin containing a sizeable batch of information, which will be circulated to members. Once we have chatted with the minister, we can determine how best to proceed.

I understand what Robin Harper is trying to achieve—I have a lot of sympathy with what he says—but we must not let the minister off the hook. Although the committee could undertake the inquiry, the Executive, with all its resources, has the responsibility to hold a properly constituted inquiry. The last thing that we should do is put our hands up and say, "Okay, minister. We accept that you're not going to do this work, so we'll do it." It should be the Executive that does the work. We should not let the minister wriggle off the hook. We need to understand the rationale behind the minister's decision not to proceed with an Executive inquiry. We should flush out that information and test the arguments. If we put our hands up and say that we will do the inquiry, we will do the industry a disservice and we will let the Executive wriggle away.

My concern is that if the Executive says—as it has done very clearly—that it has absolutely no intention of instituting a full-scale public inquiry, how will we persuade it to do so? If someone could tell me how we could do that, I would not be considering what is, in effect, plan B.

The initial stimulus for this discussion was petition PE96 from Mr Allan Berry, asking the Parliament to hold an inquiry into the adverse environmental effects of sea cage fish farming. We have to come at the issue from the perspective of that petition. It would be appropriate for us to question the minister specifically on those adverse environmental effects.

I heard on the radio this morning that Friends of the Earth had produced a document on this issue but I have not yet had the chance to read it. I presume that other information will be produced as well. The appropriate thing would be to question the minister next Tuesday on the basis of the petition and of other information that we receive. By then, we will be in a position to decide how to deal with the issues raised in the petition.

I understand what Robin Harper is trying to achieve. Rhona Brankin will, I presume, speak to us on this issue when she comes to the committee next week. If she is not prepared to budge, we can reconsider how to proceed at that point.

As I recollect from our discussions at previous meetings, the purpose of our inviting Rhona Brankin to the committee is so that she can tell us what the Executive is doing. We can then consider what effect that will have on the scope of an inquiry, if one is to be held. Her e-mail suggested that the Executive would be doing some things but not others. We will be able to press the minister further and ask how far any Executive inquiry would go, what financial resources would be put behind it, who would carry it out and whether it would be internal or external. We will be able to explore all those issues. If we are not satisfied with the answers that we receive, we can have further discussions. I would be happy to have those discussions immediately after the minister's departure, unless members were otherwise minded. However, at the moment, let us not commit ourselves to such a course of action, because we may feel differently once we have heard the minister. Let us not paint ourselves into a corner.

I have received an e-mail on the Friends of the Earth report. I have also received an e-mail from Scottish Quality Salmon—or the like—challenging much of the content of that report. We will have to read what the different sides are saying and we will have to hear what the minister is saying. If there are gaps to be filled or work to be done, the committee can agree on what to do.

This is a point of protocol, convener, that you may wish to take up with the convener of the Rural Development Committee. Members of the Rural Development Committee will be invited here to listen to the minister. Ultimately, however, this committee will be the one that takes a view on how to proceed. You may wish to draw that, and this committee's remit, to the attention of the convener of the Rural Development Committee.

Indeed.

Everything I say springs from a perception that this issue could drift very badly. The petition was sent in about six months ago. We have already drifted on the issue and things could drift for another four or five months. On the understanding that, following our discussion with the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, we hold a substantial session to discuss what she has said and that we are furnished in advance with copies of what the salmon farmers and Friends of the Earth Scotland are saying—in order to have a properly informed discussion on 26 June and to be able to make up our minds that day—I would be content to leave any further decisions until then and not to press for a decision at this stage. I hope that the committee might view that as the best way forward in order to prevent any further drift.

We should devote a substantial amount of time to the debate, so that we can come to at least a reasonably informed decision on 26 June. We could encourage the Rural Development Committee also to reach a decision on that day—if it feels that it wants to become involved—after we have questioned the minister.

What other committees do is their business.

I acknowledge that.

I will be corresponding with the convener of the Rural Development Committee and having a chat with him before our meeting so that we all know what is going on.

I am advised by Shelagh McKinlay that the Friends of the Earth Scotland report is on its way to us in the post. I understand that Scottish Quality Salmon has sent us all an e-mail response.

On the issue drifting, I think that we were all unhappy about how long it took to get the minister to come to the table, although that was a matter of matching her diary with the dates of our meetings. That was unfortunate and unwelcome. I would much rather that the minister had come sooner. We are now to meet on the last committee day available to us before the summer recess. We will have the discussion at that meeting.

It is surprising that we are discussing this issue again, as this committee and the Rural Development Committee came to a strong conclusion on the matter, suggesting an inquiry by the Parliament or the Executive. The sea cage fish farming industry was more than happy to agree to an inquiry, because that would once and for all clarify the position. The industry has been getting a lot of flak, not only from the environmentalists, but from others who are involved in different sea fisheries, particularly the shellfish people. It is significant that the shellfish people have been fairly silent on the issue since they heard that there was to be an inquiry.

I am not too concerned about the Friends of the Earth report, because we came to our decision before it made its pronouncement—or at least its latest one. Whatever is suggested, I would be of the opinion that the committee should suggest again to the Executive that it revisit its decision, so that we can get some clarity on the matter.

I do not think that this committee or its members have the resources or the time to undertake the in-depth inquiry that would be required. I am sure that the Rural Development Committee is in much the same position. I remain of the view that we return to the suggestion that was originally made to the Executive.

The minister will have seen a copy of the Official Report of today's meeting before she appears before us next week, so she will know members' feelings on the issue.

I want to float an idea. If there is such a thing as a committee motion, could we lodge such a motion for debate in the Parliament to call for a public inquiry? We could ask, in the terms of the petition, for the Parliament to vote on whether there is to be an inquiry.

Party motions can be put to the Parliament, but there is no such thing as a committee motion.

We will proceed on the basis that the minister is to come before the committee at next week's meeting. People have expressed their views about the urgency of the matter. I confirm our original position that, because of the resources and time involved, we believe that the Executive should undertake the inquiry. At next week's meeting, we will ask the minister what work the Executive is doing and will do. We can then decide whether we are satisfied with the scope and content of that work or whether we want to take alternative action.

Members have a paper before them about petition PE327, which was lodged by Mr Duncan Hope. As I was appointed reporter on the issue, I have prepared a paper, of which members have received a copy. As members do not seem to have any comments to make, I take it that the committee is content with the paper.

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for that vote of confidence in my drafting skills.

We move on to the substantive element of our business today—

I note that one of your recommendations is that we should have a formal evidence-taking session.

Yes.

I am content to have a written call for evidence, rather than a formal evidence-taking session. We should take a view on how members wish to proceed on that question.

That is a fair point.

I assumed that we would be holding a formal evidence-taking session.

As with the process that we are about to undertake with the other petition, we generally do that. However, on the basis of the written evidence that I may receive and the meetings that I may have in the interim, I would like to come back to members on that question. If it is appropriate, I will propose a public evidence-taking session on the matter.

I take Des McNulty's point, but we must consider the pressure of time and our work load. A public evidence-taking session would be recommended only if it would produce something fruitful.

Do you want our views on whether we should have a site visit?

I planned to offer committee members the opportunity to go on a site visit based on the site visits that I will undertake.

Will you undertake site visits?

Yes. I will do that in an individual capacity as the committee's reporter and I will keep everyone aware of what I am doing. Committee members will get a copy of the dates and times of my visits, once they are agreed. Members are welcome to join me on any of those visits.

Will any formal evidence-taking sessions be combined with a site visit or will they be held in the Parliament?

The formal taking of evidence will be done in the Parliament at committee meetings. If we do otherwise, we need to take the whole kit and caboodle—to use a technical phrase—out with us.

Does that mean that we would not consider holding a formal evidence-taking session on site?

It is unlikely. However, the report will be a preparatory one based on what I expect to find. If things change and it seems that what you are suggesting would be worth while, we will do it. A number of different areas and organisations are involved and a formal committee meeting in Edinburgh is the best way of taking evidence.

I am a wee bit concerned about managing expectations. In the past, I was quite closely linked with the Blairingone and Saline action group, as it is based near my former council ward. The group has the feeling that a session will take place in the area—it has contacted me to that effect. I am aware that no decision has been made in that respect, but that expectation is beginning to grow in the Blairingone and Saline community. I am not suggesting that we hold a full evidence-taking session there, but it would be useful for the committee to hold a site visit, so that as many members as possible can see the evidence on the ground. That would mean that the Transport and the Environment Committee would have a presence in the community.

We will undertake site visits. If it is determined that we can do something in the locality, I will come back to the committee, as that suggestion would involve everyone.

The question is how we balance the need to move at a due pace to identify the issues with the need to resolve them—a balance must be struck in that scrutiny process. In my report, I have tried to lay out the work that could be done in the short term.

It would be helpful if, in your capacity as the committee's reporter, you took evidence in the locality.

Okay. Thank you.