Rural Affairs Committee, 19 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 19, 2000

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Petition

Item 4 is the report from the reporters who were appointed to consider the issues raised by petition PE96, on sea cage fish farming. A copy of the written report that was submitted has been circulated.

The committee considered the petition on 26 September, when it agreed to appoint John Munro and Richard Lochhead as reporters to consider the issues raised and the mechanisms and terms of reference for any inquiry into the environmental impact of sea cage fish farming. The reporters, along with Nora Radcliffe and Robin Harper from the Transport and the Environment Committee, have now reported. I invite John and Richard to make comments on the paper.

The group met on more than one occasion. Last week it decided to suggest to this committee that it approve the establishment of an independent inquiry into sea cage fish farming. I understand that the same recommendation will be made to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

The other option was for the inquiry to be conducted within the parliamentary committee system. The group decided against recommending that, on the grounds that such an inquiry would overload the committees—given the amount of work that they already have—and that committee budgets are already committed. The paper indicated that resources would be made available to fund an independent inquiry, should that option be approved.

Careful consideration was given to this difficult issue, and all members of the group recognised that it needs to be investigated. As John Munro has outlined, we decided that an independent inquiry would be appropriate. Some members felt that bringing in outsiders to consider the issue would be a good way of depoliticising it. Others were worried about the resource implications and time scale of any parliamentary inquiry. Even if we agreed in the near future to hold an inquiry into this issue, we would not be able to initiate it for some time. That is a concern, given the urgency of the situation. The real debate is about the inquiry's terms of reference.

I am happy with what I have heard and read. However, I have one concern. It is recommended that an independent inquiry be held and that its report be submitted to the Executive, but no time scale for that is given. Richard Lochhead has already pointed out that this is an important issue. Could we ask the Executive to set up an independent inquiry to report by a specific date?

We have that option. There are a number of procedures that we must go through before we make our recommendation to the Executive.

I agree with what Mike Rumbles is saying, but I would hate it if the inquiry was not carried out properly because we had put a time limit on its work. We should say that the matter is urgent and that we would like the inquiry to report as soon as possible, if possible not later than a certain date. However, to impose a deadline might restrict the work of the inquiry. We need to have a proper inquiry.

It was not within the remit of the reporters to address the issue that Mike Rumbles and Rhoda Grant have raised. Our task was to set out the options that were available to both the Transport and the Environment Committee and this committee. The committees do not have to accept our recommendation.

I congratulate the reporters on the report that they have presented to us, which is very good and detailed. I believe that the only viable option is option 3: to set up an independent inquiry. This committee does not have the time or the resources to do justice to an issue of this magnitude, which rules out option 2. Option 3 is the only option that we should consider. Along with members from other parties, I am happy to give my support to it. It would be nice to think that we could time-limit the inquiry, but this is a huge subject. I do not think that we would do the people who conduct the inquiry any favours by putting a time limit on it.

I welcome the report. I agree with other members that the time scale is important. I suggest that we ask the Executive to present the committee with proposals and a time scale, to give us a sense of where the matter lies in the Executive's priorities.

That is the key. I am happy with Cathy Peattie's suggestion. I am concerned that the matter should not be put at the bottom of a list of important issues that the Executive intends to address.

Is the committee inclined to accept the recommendation of the reporters?

Members indicated agreement.

The reporters must also report back to the Transport and the Environment Committee. We should not commit ourselves to anything until that committee has had time to accept the recommendation as well.

Assuming that the Transport and the Environment Committee accepts the recommendation, we can look ahead tentatively. It is suggested that we put the matter on the agenda for the first Rural Affairs Committee meeting after the new year. We could invite members of the Transport and the Environment Committee to join us to discuss the issue. At that point we could decide on some of the more technical issues that have been raised today.

Do members agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

If the Transport and the Environment Committee disagrees with the principles that we have agreed to, we will have to discuss the matter again anyway.

You congratulated the reporters, convener, but the reporters would like to thank Tom Edwards from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the clerk, Tracey Hawe. They did most of the work.

Thank you.

We have been discussing the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill all afternoon. As the petition on sea cage fish farming is linked to that—it is seen as a possible source of marine mortality of salmon stocks—it is right that we push for an independent inquiry.

Okay.