Official Report 284KB pdf
Our main item of business is to take evidence as part of phase 2 of our aquaculture inquiry. I inform members of the public that this phase of the inquiry will involve the committee investigating issues such as the respective roles of the Executive and the aquaculture industry in taking forward aquaculture in Scotland, how the aquaculture industry can increase its competitiveness in the international marketplace and how the industry can best achieve environmental sustainability in the future. Those matters will be of considerable interest to people on the west coast of Scotland. That is why the committee was keen that it should hold one of its evidence-taking sessions in Oban, which is one of the communities that will be most affected by the way in which the aquaculture industry develops.
Gentlemen, I want to ask about the future of Scottish aquaculture and how the demand for fish should be met. What should the Executive do to ensure that an holistic approach to strategy and governance is taken? What cost-benefit considerations need to be taken into account to determine the balance between economic, social and environmental needs?
On the holistic nature of the Executive strategy, I believe that the Executive should recognise the immense rural and national potential in the aquaculture industry in Scotland. The potential in Scotland is for an industry that is quality led, commercially sustainable, environmentally responsible and competitive. In order to realise that potential and to reap all the benefits for the rural and national economy that stem from the industry, we badly need a governance and regulatory structure that is more co-ordinated, coherent and flexible and that enables more options to be chosen, depending on the circumstances. We also need a regulatory system that more intelligently weighs up solutions to problems and that anticipates and finds solutions to problems before they arise.
Thank you.
Perhaps we should let some other panel members speak.
Yes. I would like to tease out the panel's views about the balance between socioeconomic and environmental issues.
As we all know, the importance of aquaculture in local authorities' decision making is increasing. I hope that what might be called local framework plans will be developed for all stakeholders that use the environment in the areas that are involved. At a national, visionary level, a lead role from the Scottish Executive would underpin such plans and provide guidance and the vision for the nation. Local democracy would kick into action with local framework plans, which would consider all stakeholders.
I think that everyone here has heard me say this before, but I will say it again anyway. To identify the correct balance between socioeconomic and environmental issues, we need a planning or management tool. The obvious tool is modelling of what the committee in its phase 1 report called "assimilative capacity" or what I, in my neanderthal way, still call carrying capacity. That could assist all sectors of the aquaculture industry, because it could bring them together and create synergy. It could also give planners a tool for balancing economic and environmental issues locally and nationally. I encourage the committee in the strongest terms to follow me and to continue to repeat that that is the way forward. Without such a tool, we will always struggle in the dark. I think that that is the tool that Maureen Macmillan seeks.
That is obviously what you consider to be the priority for research and technological development. I wonder whether other panel members agree or whether they have other priorities. Who should undertake research and development and who should fund it? What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors, including the Fisheries Research Services?
Future research divides into two clear categories, one of which is near-market work to develop husbandry and methods for measuring the environmental impact of what goes on around our sites. That work should be undertaken largely by the industry. If the European Union and other bodies can help to fund such work, that is all well and good and applications should be made for such funding.
As Dennis Overton said, the LINK aquaculture programme, which has been in operation for several years, has been very successful. It was successful in bringing together the various partners—Government, academia and industry—on several key issues and its research output has often featured in SQS technical seminars. Although that work is coming to an end, ideally we would like it to continue in some form, perhaps through a Scottish LINK scheme that is managed via a joint industry-Government working group. That would benefit Scottish aquaculture as a whole.
The Executive has given a commitment to develop a strategy for aquaculture. Should the LINK idea be a key feature of the strategy? What key aims and objectives should the strategy have?
There has been a lot of comment about the sustainability of the industry, as is evident in the submissions that have been made to the committee. We should not forget that the industry is already sustainable. It produces salmon and other products of the highest quality, delivering high standards of environmental management and fish welfare and bringing economic wealth to remote and fragile communities. We ask the committee to recognise that.
An overriding requirement for the success not just of the shellfish sector, but of the aquaculture industry as a whole is that the water quality in Scotland's inshore waters is maintained at the highest possible level in relation to the physical impact from bacteria, viruses and chemicals, not to mention aesthetics and recreational use. Without high water quality, our industry is dead. That applies to shellfish farming in particular, but also to the farming of salmon and other fin fish. The Executive and the scientific community should be encouraged to bend their greatest efforts to see what has been done to the environment over the past 20 years and to ameliorate what happens as a result of any future developments.
The European water framework directive is coming to our shores and we have the water environment and water services bill ahead of us. Industry is supportive of the bill because, for the first time, we will have an all-encompassing act that will control inputs to the environment much more sharply than the Control of Pollution Act 1974 ever did. The bill will enable us to begin to see what all the other contributors to our aquatic environment—whether freshwater or marine—are doing. I endorse what my colleagues say—we need to see what is out there in the environment and we need to determine assimilative or carrying capacity. That is fundamental and the bill will help us to do it.
I have a couple of points on the objectives and key features of the strategy. We should develop a strategy that the majority of Scots who are thinking about this matter can endorse. We need to ensure that Scotland is regarded as a place where innovative entrepreneurs in the aquaculture sector from around the world will be welcomed and that we have an environment in which that is possible. Linked to that, we must ensure that the major companies in the sector worldwide recognise Scotland—because of the effectiveness of the strategy—as an area that is worthy of long-term investment. In many other sectors in the economy, a great deal of thought is given to encouraging international investment. That encouragement is as important in this sector as in any other.
Some of what I was going to ask has been answered, but you might want to pull things together and present them slightly differently. How should the strategy be implemented and by whom? How should it be underpinned and what should be the key deliverables, measures of success and time scales?
As you say, the different components of your question have been touched on. I suggest that, before inventing the wheel, we should find out whether other people have achieved systems that would, perhaps with some variation, be suitable to Scotland. The concept of a lead department that can corral the other statutory interests and ensure that the public interests and other special interests are involved is already being delivered. I believe that, in Norway, the different interests are broadly satisfied that the multiple agenda is being robustly delivered.
I would like to build on the idea of making progress in partnership. I repeat that we welcome the fact that the Scottish Executive is the lead body. However, various arrangements that have emerged over the past few years, such as joint industry-Government working bodies, have functioned extremely effectively. The prime example at the moment is the aquaculture health joint working group, with which we are all involved. The group works hard and it achieves things—it is an extremely positive development, because we have to deal with a complex raft of European and national legislation on fish health.
What do you see as the industry's share of responsibility for the future of aquaculture? What should be the specific responsibilities and roles of the industry? What are your priorities and how should the industry take forward that agenda? You have answered that question in part, but perhaps you could expand on your earlier comments.
It is essential that the role of the Executive is kept at the highest strategic level. We do not want to get involved in Stalinist-type five-year plans. It is up to the industry to take its role seriously and move forward the agenda. Within the envelope of Executive-determined areas of co-operation, collaboration and joint polycultural activity, it must be left to the industry to decide how it should proceed.
I agree with Doug McLeod's comments. We have made a plea to the committee that, as an industry, we want clear direction on where we can go and what we can do for Scotland. That is why we are here. Our role is to take your message out and deliver high-quality products for the Scottish economy. I hear what Doug McLeod says about people wanting to produce more salmon, but the fact remains that the salmon market is growing at 10 per cent a year. Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector in the market.
I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made by Dr Dear and Doug McLeod. Graeme Dear finished by saying that the producers' future is market driven. However, Doug McLeod made the interesting point that the Transport and the Environment Committee is inclined towards polyculture. We know now that that is also the Executive's position. The polyculture approach has environmental—and, I presume—economic advantages. Is Dr Dear saying that producers will adopt polyculture only if an aquaculture strategy pushes them into that process? Do producers consider it to be in their economic and environmental interests to work together on polyculture?
Can you clarify your definition of polyculture? It means different things to different people.
I do not know about the rest of the committee, but my understanding is that polyculture means the symbiotic growing of shellfish and fin fish in a local environment. Would that be the right way to describe polyculture?
As a representative of SQS, I can tell you that one of our members is working with a member of Doug McLeod's organisation towards conducting a trial of a polyculture system. Doing such joint trials should not be regarded as a hindrance, because they might bring mutual benefits. As a fin fish farmer, I would happily get involved in such a project.
You said that polyculture is being considered by two producers.
Yes.
Could an aquaculture strategy help develop that process?
First, it must be confirmed that polyculture will deliver its expected benefits. Until that has been done, I doubt whether a strategy can be built on polyculture. However, if it seems that polyculture could be successful, perhaps an aquaculture strategy could help develop it. There is a risk, however, of the industry becoming prescriptive and producing, for example, thousands of tons of mussels for which there is no market.
I think that Mr Slaski wants to come in on this point.
First, I think that the committee visited Kames Fish Farming, which is owned by Stuart Cannon, and which farms mussels and halibut as discrete business operations. That operation, however, could be called a business-led polyculture. As a good aquaculturist and farmer of the seas, one should consider such opportunities.
I have two questions, the first of which is general. I always considered that a department of agriculture and fisheries was, in some ways, a silly combination, because one is a farming operation and the other is a hunter-gathering one. To me, aquaculture is a farming operation. Do you agree that the Government should consider aquaculture more in the way that it considers terrestrial agriculture? We should have a department of agriculture and aquaculture, if you like. That would create a level playing field for the regulation and promotion of products in both areas. I take it that your view is that there is no proper recognition of the fact that your industry produces so many exports.
I do not know whether Jamie McGrigor is making a plea for another Government department and minister—you may leave that question to one side.
I will answer Mr McGrigor's first question, not least because I have had experience of both sides of the fence, so to speak.
Perhaps I can answer Mr McGrigor's second question. In a freshwater tank farm, it is quite possible to dispose of the waste. In fact, farms manage to collect the waste in the manner that he suggested and the waste may then be used as a fertiliser.
I will make a comment about Mr McGrigor's first question. My trade association has argued for the separation of fisheries and aquaculture in Government—Mr McGrigor's point was well made. As far as finding a broader market for quality Scottish seafood is concerned, I find that we are getting closer to the position of those who are involved in the capture sector. For example, Seafood Scotland is trying to improve the quality of the capture that comes from our fishing vessels and our work on the aquaculture of marine species ties into that. There is synergy in the vision of quality seafood from Scotland going into the wider market. My view on the splitting of responsibility is equivocal.
I am aware that John Munro and Maureen Macmillan want to ask questions, but we should make progress on the issues that I outlined to the committee. Perhaps we will return to the issues that they want to ask about. John Scott wants to focus on the economics of the industry in the international context.
It has been suggested that Scotland should pursue the high-quality end of the market by developing niche-market products—such as premium, organic or environmentally sustainable products—rather than competing in the high-volume market. Which way should the Scottish industry go? Should it try to produce a niche-market product or should it compete with the volume producers? Should it try a combination of the two options?
That question has been discussed before in the committee's inquiry. The question involves an oversimplification of the marketplace, because it assumes that there can be a single approach and that the Scottish aquaculture industry will adopt a single approach. That is like saying that we will produce only one breed of sheep in Scotland—clearly, it is not possible. Even in the single-species sector, for example with salmon, a diverse approach will be taken in Scotland.
The question has often been put to me as an either/or question, but that is not necessarily the case. We can produce as many tonnes of high-quality fish or other products as our system allows. The industry already produces superior quality Scottish salmon, which commands a premium over Norwegian salmon in the UK and in France. Last weekend was the 10th anniversary of the Label Rouge accreditation for Scottish Quality Salmon. It is the only non-French product that has achieved that. The industry and the country should be proud of that accolade.
So the point is to identify your markets and then to target them.
Yes.
What key management practices should the industry take responsibility for to increase its competitiveness in the marketplace? How should those practices be addressed?
It is for each business to decide on its own key set of management practices. However, one must aim to be the least-cost producer for whatever category of product one is seeking to produce. As fish farmers in Scotland, we have no right to expect that we will be able to operate long term with a high-cost structure that does not stand international comparison. We require the appliance of good science and efficient delivery of the environmental regulatory framework within which we operate. A range of management practices will flow from that set of understandings. That is not incompatible with taking a broad view of the marketplace, which is complex.
The new marine fin fish species sector is very small at this stage, but we are able to build on the experience of the salmon farming sector and, to a degree, of the trout farming sector in Scotland. We have some pretty sophisticated economic modelling and market studies. We have a good idea of why we are pitching our target production at a certain level, where niches in the market exist. The management aspects of the economics of production have to be designed to make that work. After setting themselves a business plan, people have to adjust as they go along, to deal with issues such as economy of scale. The issue of sustainability is intertwined with that. As a trade association, we are already beginning to consider environmental management systems, such as ISO 14001 and codes of best practice for farming cod, haddock and halibut. We are doing that at the start because it is an important part of the joined-up vision.
The question could be asked: what competitive management practices are needed to ensure that Scottish strategic objectives are delivered? As Richard Slaski will know, and as Scottish Quality Salmon knows, it is possible to adopt the best possible environmental practices—involving independent inspection, accreditation to international disciplines such as ISO 14001 and the adoption of parallel disciplines for the product and for product qualities, under an international regime called EN 45011.
What sort of rewards or recognition do you have in mind?
Various strengths arise from our being as regulated as we are. One is that we can maintain our robust record. There are, however, many disadvantages to the extent of regulation that we have. The 10 statutory bodies that control our operations could align the decisions that they make about licensing—such as the amount of activity or biomass that is allowed at a certain site, consents for various treatments that might be allowed at a certain site and grants that might be made available to a certain site—with the strategic objective of encouraging good management. That applies particularly to three or four of those bodies.
Another way of dealing with what you are talking about is quality assurance or, better, gold plating of quality assurance so that those who get awards such as Label Rouge get their return from the marketplace. They get their reward by producing fish that are reared to the highest quality and standards. Do you accept that that is another way in which to reward best practice?
I hope that the marketplace will always recognise quality to an extent. In our case, Label Rouge is an extremely significant reward for the reasons that Dr Graeme Dear read out. The modern marketplace is a ruthless economic jungle. Although in some weeks or months some of one's supply chain will be prepared to give some reward for a higher-quality product, we know from our members' experience that there are other long periods when one's supply chain is not able to give a straight, tangible reward for one's having adopted the best possible practices.
I will build on that concept. It is about competitiveness at the production-cost end as well as at the market end. When growing fin fish, we are concerned with the metabolic by-product nitrogen, which is an enriching if not natural nutrient.
I would hate to think that one outcome of the strategic review would be a lessening of encouragement to all fish farmers to strive for the highest quality. I would also hate to think that the review would avoid the issue of who pays for the environmental impact. In terrestrial farming or development of any kind, controls are in place that mean that the farmer or developer pays for their impact on the environment.
As someone who takes a farming perspective, I take a rather more pragmatic view of the question. We face a situation in which, whether we like it or not, our farms are less competitive than are those of our competitors and we must be able to address that. Numerous publications can be found in which that fact is indicated. I have selected one from 1999, which is published by Kontali Analyse AS, which indicates that there is a 20 per cent difference between Scottish and Norwegian farms in the cost of their impact on the environment. How is that difference accounted for in the market place? It is true that we get a premium but, as I am sure Dennis Overton would agree, the premium does not amount to a 20 per cent difference. That means that there is a bit of a shortfall.
You have touched on conflicts between the fin fish and shellfish industries. How should those be resolved so that one sector does not benefit at the expense of the other, or of another?
I am sometimes surprised that there is perceived to be conflict. Generally, we have very good relations with shellfish farmers. In some cases—I know this from my company's case—we share the same shore bases. Sometimes we help them out; sometimes they help us out. Some shellfish farmers provide services to the fin fish sector. In many respects, such conflicts are not such great issues as they might be made out to be. That has been our experience, as a salmon farming company that has a number of farms on the west coast.
I can back that up from my experience. Kames Fish Farming has been mentioned and I could mention my dialogues with some of the larger, more progressive shellfish farming companies. I am thinking in particular of producers of rope-grown mussels, whose product is very good and has a good market premium in a growing sector. I welcome that, because mussel production is an important sector for Scotland. The relationship of such companies with fin fish farmers is good. We see ourselves feeding into the same market in future, with the same Scottish quality with which we want to brand all our products.
I am speaking from the other side of the fence, but I agree with my colleagues that, in general, relations between those who farm different species are not too bad. There are, unfortunately, a few outstanding examples in which confrontational situations have developed. We need not name any names, because such matters are best dealt with on a site-specific basis. Those examples must not be allowed to get blown up into a national issue because at national level and on species levels we do, and should, feed off each other, rather than fight. The way forward is to co-operate and collaborate. I fear, however, that that requires more listening on the part of the fin fish farmers than has sometimes been the case in the past.
Any such problems are, by and large, residual. From our experience in Shetland, I would say that there has been an increasing amount of effective co-operation as businesses have grown up as neighbours, as on the Scottish west coast, as Graeme Dear described.
I want to flag up the development of an overarching trade association. The Federation of Scottish Aquaculture Producers is a group of us who are trying to work together and engage in dialogue. The federation has existed for almost two years and much of the dialogue goes on behind the scenes. We will, increasingly, see issues such as this bringing us together as an industry that has a national vision.
You now have an industry association that you can work with. While you are co-operating among yourselves, do the powers that be—such as planning authorities—stand in your way or do they promote your working together? We talked about assimilative capacity, but we must also consider environmental capacity. How many industrial applications on a sea loch will a planning authority accept? If you were trying to work together to set up joint sites for fin fish and shellfish, for example, would that go down well with planning authorities?
There is a bit of a problem under the current locational guidelines. The current set-up is based on separation distances rather than on bringing operations closer together for synergetic purposes. That is why all sectors welcome the Executive's announcement of a review of the locational guidelines. That should be central to the development of any strategy. I argue that the main element of a strategy is location. The main issue is the criteria for determining prioritisation and location of individual species or joint-species operations.
The locational guidelines review is welcome. It will form the national vision—the national planning policy guideline, if you like. We must also consider the important role of local authorities, particularly in deciding their framework plans for multistakeholder use. The Highland Council has already taken a good lead on that—its work on that is impressive—and I hope that other local authorities will follow its lead. They need resources to help them to achieve it, but the way forward is to have a vision at a local level as well as at national level. I endorse what Doug McLeod said—we are all working towards that at the moment. The situation is quite positive.
I want to go back a question or two and to ask about best practice. You talked about the possibility of giving some kind of reward to firms that employed very good practice. Would the industry police that, or would there be a role for the Executive, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or an independent body? Obviously, people could not just nominate themselves without some kind of regulation or test of good practice.
There are different levels of practice: there is better practice, very good practice and excellent practice. Some such practices are worthy but aspirational and are essentially unmeasurable. Nonetheless, they indicate genuine intent by an operator to make better decisions in respect of environmental management or other relevant issues. As we come up the scale, we might implement a system that can be measured, but we perhaps do not want independent measurements. Rather than employ an independent auditor to measure practice, one should audit it oneself, as it were. At the top of the scale, which is where Scottish Quality Salmon members have gone, not only can we develop a system that can be audited—in other words, the standards that we design into that system can be measured at ground level—we can ensure that a third-party independent inspectorate carries out the audit and issues a certificate of compliance or non-compliance.
I move us on to the final area of questioning for this group of witnesses, which is on environmental sustainability.
One element of the sustainability equation that has been seen as a cause for concern is the impact on fish stocks that supply fish meal and fish oils. What potential is there for reduction in the use of fish meal and fish oils? Is it realistic to see vegetable oils as a substitute? How advanced is the research on possible substitute food?
Fish feed is very close to the heart of a fish farmer; it is the single biggest production cost. In that alone, there is a phenomenal drive for him or her to reduce the amount of feed used to produce a kilogram of fish. Constant attention is paid to improving the feed conversion ratio. It might surprise the committee to learn that investment in improved feed-control mechanisms, on which we focus a lot of attention, is not without its problems in terms of regulatory approval.
I want to add a point that is relevant to the wider discussion. My point is on the sourcing of fish meal and fish oils. Scottish Quality Salmon has imposed standards and ISO 14001 and EN 45011 are mentioned at every stage in the chain, including the feed sector. SQS feed members all have ISO 14001 systems in place, so they are all obliged to respect the fact that only sustainably managed fisheries can be used as sources of their meal and oil raw ingredients.
Notwithstanding what Jamie Lindsay said, the role of the committee and of the Executive should be to bring pressure to bear to establish verifiable sustainability measures of wild fish, in particular the so-called industrial fish species. In the European context, things are not as developed as they should be. For example, the blue whiting fishery requires significant input and work to bring about a measured level of sustainability. However, the political process could help the long-term sustainability of the feed source. Some partnership will be required.
Fiona McLeod will ask the last group of questions. If John Munro still wants to ask the question that he wanted to ask earlier, he may do so after Fiona McLeod's question.
My questions on sustainability and economic development have been covered, so I want simply to use the example of sea lice to find out people's views on the economic and environmental effects of the industry and to sum up what has already been said.
First, the use of such a treatment is the last resort. SQS members have developed many of the practices that others have said should be adopted, such as fallowing, single year-class stocking, management agreements and the synchronous treatments and swim-through net management, which are included in the national treatment strategy. All those were developed by SQS members and have been made available to the rest of the industry. We would use a medicine only after we had done all those other things.
I want to clarify something. You said that you monitor sea lice every week.
Yes.
For how long have you been doing that? Do you have figures? You said that therapeutants were the last resort. Over the past five years, has the number of sea lice increased, decreased or stayed the same?
We have monitored sea lice for longer than I care to remember. We submitted data points to the University of Strathclyde and the University of Glasgow through a research programme—funnily enough through the LINK programme. We have well over 100,000 data points that those universities can use. They will produce the most comprehensive assessment of sea lice populations ever.
So using the new treatment, only one new treatment in the two-year cycle is required. Of all the other methods that you mentioned, therefore—I think that you mentioned six—none approaches that one therapeutant in respect of cutting down the number of lice.
Our company automatically carries out fallowing and single-year class management. We do all the things that I mentioned. Normally, when smolts are stocked in a salmon cage, there are no sea lice, as they come from fresh water. The wild fish bring sea lice with them—that is fine, as it is what they do—and they can build up in a farm. A treatment might or might not be needed in the first year, as there are two different species of lice. However, we now understand the sea lice cycle much better and have found that there is a weakness in the two-year cycle, usually between weeks 11 and 16. We can exploit that in the second year and carry out a targeted treatment—that is the national treatment strategy—and try to synchronise that treatment with all the other operators. If there is more than one farm in a loch and treatments are carried out at the same time, there will be better results. That can create discharge consent problems with some of the bath treatments that are available, but probably not with the in-feed treatments.
That would be useful. Professor Read could liaise with you to get the appropriate data.
That is no problem.
We are now considering multispecies farming for the future. The rotation of any different species in a farming environment is always quite an interesting concept from the point of view of breaking disease cycles. I mentioned the industry-Government working group's achievements. Last week, the aquaculture health joint working group established a sub-committee to examine the interrelationship between different species that we might culture in the future and how diseases might affect one species and not another. There is another way of looking ahead in the broader context of the industry; that is quite exciting. It is early days, but we have started on that process.
Most of the queries that I had have been covered in the fairly lengthy discussion that we have had. At the outset, I say that I hope that the witnesses representing the fin fish industry are not of the opinion that the committee is here to destroy their industry. Most of the evidence that has been heard by the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee, as well as evidence that I have taken myself, supports the industry because of the jobs that it creates in rural parts of Scotland. That is to be welcomed. The concern is that such job creation must be in harmony with the environment. The evidence that industry representatives have given us today suggests that they are very much in harmony with the environment, but that is not the perception that some people hold.
I suggest that John Farquhar Munro's constituents use some of the channels of communication that are now in place and to which Doug McLeod and Richard Slaski referred. Communication is crucial to the process, and we are moving beyond the separate laagers to work together more effectively. I would ask any concerned shellfish farmer whether they are communicating effectively through the channels that now exist but which perhaps did not exist a couple of years ago. That would be a good starting point to highlight the issues that are of concern to local shellfish farmers. Those concerns should be taken on board and addressed in the cross-industry communication process that is now developing.
Although we are not necessarily unique, SQS recognises the genuine and deeply felt concerns of parallel interests and stakeholders. Equally, we recognise that, if one wants long-term prosperity for one's investment and operations, it is important to find a way of addressing the concerns of those among whom one wants to carry out those activities.
The best answer I can give John Farquhar Munro is to say that he should come and meet the people who are responsible for managing the feed, the waste impacts and the sea lice treatments, and understand what they have to do. If he does that, he will receive a message that he can deliver. He should come and have a look.
In that context, I recently visited a couple of sites on the west coast and—to be fair to the industry—what I saw there was encouraging and represented a marked improvement on what I saw some years ago. It is all very well my seeing that improvement, but you and I have to transmit that perception to the general public; otherwise we will have many meetings such as we are having today, without convincing anybody.
I will draw this part of the meeting to a close on that point, because we have two other groups of witnesses to get through. I thank Dr Graeme Dear, Lord James Lindsay, Dennis Overton, Mr Richard Slaski and Doug McLeod for their evidence. We will have a five-minute break, but I ask members to return promptly after the break so that we can progress with the rest of our witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our next set of witnesses: Douglas MacDiarmid and Iain Sutherland, who are from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and Malcolm Gillespie, who is from the Sea Fish Industry Authority.
The aquaculture industry has huge importance for our area. Rather than refer directly to the paper, I will put into context our gladness that the committee is in the Highlands and Islands today. Statistics are often bandied about—for example, we have heard mention of about 7,000 jobs. Our paper indicates that about 1,800 jobs are in the most fragile areas of the Highlands and Islands. I will set that situation in the context of Highlands and Islands Enterprise's role as the Government's key development agency in the area.
Thank you for your remarks. The committee recognises the importance of the industry to many small rural communities. That was a major factor in our decision to come to Oban. We wanted to underline the fact that the Scottish Parliament is available to the whole of Scotland, not just to the central belt. It is important that the Parliament's committees underline that message by getting about Scotland.
I agree with what you said about the importance of the aquaculture industry to the Highlands and Islands. I know that HIE takes a holistic approach to such industries. How might the Executive, too, take a holistic approach? What sort of strategy and governance should be used? Perhaps you could comment on the socioeconomic and environmental balance that must be struck. I would appreciate examples of what is happening in communities.
I will refer briefly to a central part of our strategy: sustainable development. We are certainly not in favour of development at all costs. We want that sustainability to appear in competitive businesses and in the strength of communities. We want communities to be socially sustainable. Sustainability is also critical to the environmental agenda. If we as a development body do not take account of the drivers in the environment—whether environmental bodies or consumer preference—the competitiveness of the industries that we support will not have a long-term future. As a development agency, we regard sustainability as a holistic agenda.
If no other witness wants to comment on the impact on communities, I will move on to a comment that you made about how Highlands and Islands Enterprise supports the firms involved financially. We heard earlier that we have to do scientific research and that there must be technological development in this area to get robust science on which to base future developments. What are the priorities for research and development? Might HIE have a role in funding that research or should that be done by the industry or the Government?
A wide spectrum of research needs to be done. Reference was made earlier to the range of the research, from near-market or site-specific development work through to blue-skies or strategic research. Our view is that the nearer one gets to research that is generic and for the common good, the more likely it is that public funding should take the lead, and that the nearer one gets to the marketplace or to site-specific issues, the more likely it is that the private sector should take the lead.
Should the Executive adopt an environment-led strategy? Will such a strategy be of benefit to the industry?
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee. From our point of view, we see the strategy as being important in allaying fears that have been expressed over the years about the industry, where it is going and what its impacts might be.
You have answered my third question in part, but can you sum up what you think the key features of the strategy should be? What should be the Executive's key aims and objectives in the strategy? You think that the strategy should be environment led, but that that would be of benefit to the industry.
I see the emerging strategy as a real opportunity. The strategy is led by the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department. However, given that Highlands and Islands Enterprise is funded through the Scottish Executive enterprise and lifelong learning department, it is important that in the evolution of the strategy the two departments should work together and talk to each other. That will ensure that the different strands of the strategy tie up well and deliver what we are all seeking to achieve.
So at the end of the day you do not see any conflict between socioeconomic and environmental issues.
If we rely on objective science and clear thinking, the two are entirely compatible.
I would like you to develop that point a little. Who should implement the strategy, and how? What would it need to underpin it? What do you see as the key deliverables, and how would you measure success? Can you set out a five-year time scale that you regard as realistic?
Every organisation that engages with the industry should deliver the strategy. The Executive, on the one hand, and the industry, on the other, are the front runners. I hope that the regulators under the current system, along with stakeholders, environmental groups and wild fisheries groups, will be engaged in the formulation of the strategy.
My first question is for the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I note that 75 per cent of your income is raised by a statutory industry levy and that the levy does not apply to salmon and trout. Would the levy apply to halibut and other species if they were farmed?
Yes. The levy applies to any marine fish or shellfish at first point of sale in the UK. It applies to wild and farmed fish and imports, too.
So there would be a slight disadvantage in farming those species instead of salmon and trout, because the levy would have to be paid.
Yes, one could argue that. The activities that the Sea Fish Industry Authority undertakes in support of the industry target in particular the sectors that pay the levy. Of course, there are general spin-off benefits for farmed trout and salmon. One could argue that all sectors should be brought together. It will be increasingly important to see the industry as the fish industry, rather than as the fishing sector, the aquaculture sector and so on. We are all working together to supply fish and seafood products to the UK consumer.
I have a wee question for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. You have mentioned ways in which environmental impacts might be reduced. Would Highlands and Islands Enterprise consider setting up a scholarship or scheme for research on that topic?
We might investigate something in the way of networking and focusing aquaculture research. There is plenty of scope to identify such opportunities and focus effort on creating a coherent platform of research that addresses the long-term needs of the industry.
A range of views has been expressed on the future development of aquaculture products and markets. What are the options and priorities for the development of new markets, the expansion of current markets, the diversification of fin fish farming and the diversification and expansion of shellfish farming and polyculture? What are your views on potential developments?
It goes without saying that the first thing that we should do is to protect the markets that we have already. The work of the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Scottish Executive in developing an aquaculture strategy is critical. If we cannot demonstrate to consumers that we have a product that they will prefer to buy in the long term, existing markets could be threatened.
It is worth noting that UK cod consumption is around 150,000 tonnes per annum, of which 120,000 tonnes are imported, so there is significant potential for import substitution at the top end of the price and quality range, which UK processors and retail outlets are looking for. We are now also considering haddock because of signs that similar opportunities exist there.
What opportunities do we have to sell our expertise in fish farming technology and equipment and their development and efficiency? Is there scope for diversification into those areas?
Ensuring that we have a proper inventory of our knowledge base and mapping it against potential global opportunities and against the needs of our industry would chime well with the Executive's agenda on the global competitiveness of the Scottish economy across the board. We should be clear about our strengths in science and we should exploit them to the full in taking international opportunities. I am sorry to be repetitive but, if we had a focal point for the huge strengths that we have in various institutes in Scotland, we could capitalise in a way that would be very much to the advantage of the Scottish economy.
I want to go back to what was said about diversification into cod and about how the Norwegians are planning to go into that in a big way, seeing Britain as a potential market. We could be left behind. How long do we have to get our act together?
The Norwegians have already issued licences for about 250,000 tonnes of cod production—although this year production stands at about 2,000 tonnes. They are looking ahead and, at top Government level, are encouraging the diversification of their industry because they see it as a potential income earner for the country when oil runs out in 20 years' time. They are taking the long view.
I have a supplementary question. Are the huge expansion in the market and the development of different breeds, all of which eat other fish, sustainable in the long run? Will you not have a different product if the fish are fed on vegetable products?
A key element of the programme is consideration of the potential for the substitution of vegetable oil and protein for fish products. A cod requires only a third of the oil in its diet that a salmon requires, which is already an advantage given the limited resources. Nonetheless, it is recognised that other dietary elements will have to be introduced. It is obvious to everyone involved that expansion cannot continue without access to alternative dietary constituents, given existing fish oil and meal availability, and they are working on it.
We have been discussing whether we should pursue the high-quality end of the market—the niche markets—or the bulk end of the market and the commodity product, with Norway and Chile. What are your views on that? Which markets should we go for?
It goes without saying that, having invested substantially, along with the industry—you just heard from Scottish Quality Salmon—we want the quality identity of the Scottish brands to continue, through Label Rouge and so on. It is important that, having established the cachet of the Scottish product in the marketplace, we maintain it and enhance it in the future. That will take many forms. Recently, we have heard about organic salmon production and I suspect that we will hear more about that in the years to come.
It is worth noting that there is a difference in the way in which the new farmed species, such as cod and haddock, are becoming established. They are entering an existing commodity market, whereas the previous farmed species, such as salmon, halibut, turbot and shellfish, to some extent entered a small, luxury market, which they have gradually—or, in some cases, very quickly—increased. Because the commodity market already exists for cod, for example, there are different levels and different prices in the market, reflecting the quality of the fish. It will only be economically viable for farming to come in at the top of that market—providing the size of fish that is not being landed locally any more—and right at the top of the quality scale. The requirement is there from the start.
The last issue that we want to address is environmental sustainability.
I would like the witnesses to summarise two elements. First, it has been made clear that they think that the future of the industry should be environmentally as well as economically sustainable. They are saying that the environment comes before the economics of the industry.
I want to balance that. The focus cannot be the environment at any cost—there has to be a cost/profit equation. At the end of the day, producers will not invest if the cost penalty is too high. The equation must be balanced.
That leads neatly on to my next question. How should we reward best environmental practice in the industry? Should we use a system of rewards as proposed earlier by the witnesses from SQS, who said that people who sign up to the various environmental standards would be treated advantageously when they apply for licences or for permission to operate at particular locations? Should we have increasingly draconian reprimands for those who do not follow best practice? What is the best way forward?
HIE is an enabling agency—it is not a regulatory agency. From that perspective, our view is that we should incentivise people to do things. We genuinely believe that the best way of getting things done in the long term is to encourage people by price signals or whatever. HIE has been involved in other sectors and industries in the Highlands and Islands. For example, in tourism, we incentivise businesses that are members of the green tourism business scheme. We give environmental signals in our grant conditions—
Will you give us more details about that, so that we are able to understand what the incentives are?
If we were to consider investing grant aid in a hotel business that was looking to expand or upgrade its facilities, we would expect that business to become a member of the green tourism business scheme as a condition of grant assistance. We tend to be quite rigorous about other types of quality or business improvement and encourage people to become members of the Investors in People programme. We say to people, "If you want grant assistance from us, you need to be committed to investing in the people who work in your organisation and to taking that agenda forward." On financial incentives to industries that we will assist in future, we could identify ways of signalling the areas of work that we would prefer to support at higher levels of grant assistance. It is quite conceivable that we would not assist in some cases if the activities that we thought were critical were not being undertaken.
I have a related question on the aquaculture strategy that we envisage. Should the strategy be built on rewards, incentives and partnerships, or should it be a prescriptive strategy that tells people, "You must do these things or you cannot operate a fish farm in Scotland"?
I do not want to speak for the regulatory bodies. I am sure that there is a platform, or minimum standard, which those bodies must define or decide.
That brings that series of questions to an end. I thank Malcolm Gillespie, Iain Sutherland and Douglas MacDiarmid for their evidence, which the committee has found useful. I am glad that we asked them to come today and I hope that we will have an opportunity to speak to them again, either in Oban or in another part of their area of responsibility.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I ask members to take their seats once more and I welcome back to the committee Professor Randolph Richards, Dr Kenneth Black and Dr Dick Shelton. We enjoyed your previous evidence so much that we invited you back for a second go. Today, we will focus on different issues from those on which we took evidence from you previously. The first issue is how the industry should be developed and what the roles of the Executive and the aquaculture industry should be in that development.
I will ask the same question as I have asked others about the holistic approach that must be taken. As scientists, you might have a different perspective from that of the representatives of HIE or of the industry. How should the balance of socioeconomic and environmental needs be worked out?
I agree with previous speakers that a balance on both sides is needed. It is important that the Executive recognises the importance of aquaculture to Scotland in food exports, quality food products and employment in some of the more fragile rural areas. It is also important that sustainability is at the base of future policy. A large number of speakers have mentioned that.
I liked what Doug McLeod said. There is no point in labouring those issues—much that is sensible has been said. I like the idea of an holistic management tool being developed. Bits and pieces of that are around. To an extent, the locational guidelines are a start in that direction. There is nothing to stop us having quite clever management tools, which include modelling carrying capacity—I would throw sea lice in there, too. There is nothing to stop us including the social and economic aspects in the management decision-making tools.
From an holistic point of view, it is unfortunate that our aquaculture industry has taken the line that it has. In an ideal world, aquaculture would use the productivity of the sea, which is what the producers of bivalve shellfish do and what Doug McLeod hinted at. When fish that require a high-protein diet—such as salmon, cod and halibut—are taken into inshore waters, they are fed on an extremely valuable and costly diet, which is often taken from stocks that are already overexploited. The waste is dumped in an environment, which in my living memory—and possibly that of some members—was once a pristine and beautiful place. There is nothing holistic about that form of ecological asset stripping.
I was in Orkney at the same time as Robin Harper. I have seen photographs of sea trout almost eaten alive by sea lice. I am aware of the problem in Scapa. On the other hand, eight families have moved to Raasay because of a fish farm development there. The need to strike a balance has to be contended with, and it is a matter of where the line is drawn and of deciding what is more important in the end.
I totally agree. I am all in favour of sustainable, nice jobs for our island and Highland communities. Nobody is keener on that than I am. I just do not want other people and other jobs to suffer. We have witnessed the terrible effects on the wild salmon and sea trout industries in Scotland—it is tragic.
Do you feel that those concerns are now being taken on board, and that there have been moves and an improvement?
Those concerns have been taken on board since the committee started to kick a certain amount of—I will not say what, although I think the American word is butt. There is no doubt that the activities of the Transport and the Environment Committee have been hugely helpful in this regard.
Kenny Black mentioned a few minutes ago that the priorities were modelling for assimilative capacity and, as we have discussed, research into sea lice. I presume that Dr Shelton and Professor Richards would agree with that. Who do you think should undertake such research and development, and who should fund it? What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors, including that of Fisheries Research Services?
There is a role for many different sources of funding in research, as exist at present. A mixture of scientists, including those in the Scottish Executive and in universities and research laboratories, is working directly on those problems. Sources of funding are quite varied. They include the research councils, the European Community, the Executive itself and industry.
I agree with what has been said, but I wish to add something about a problem with the original LINK scheme. The fact that 50 per cent of the funds have to come from Government while 50 per cent have to come from industry poses a real problem for many smaller operators, particularly on the shellfish side. They found it difficult to find that 50 per cent, even when it was a question of making an in-kind contribution.
Establishing the appropriate burdens is critical. We understand from what Graeme Dear told us this morning that we know now how to deal with lice. By a combination of sensible husbandry and synchrony, it is possible to keep lice levels low with the help of modern drugs, provided that one gets agreement to use the drugs and that they can be used safely. Given the enormous numbers of fish in the cages, the control that must be exerted over the lice to protect wild fish is much greater than would be required merely for the health of the fish in the cages. That probably means—although we do not know for certain—that there must be absolutely no adult ovigerous lice in the cages. If it is possible to use the drugs that Graeme Dear referred to, that result might be achievable, even within the limits of current knowledge.
I have one supplementary question about sea lice.
I will let Fiona McLeod and Jamie McGrigor ask questions first, because they are busting to get in.
I thought that this was an appropriate point to ask questions about sea lice, rather than wait and come back to them. There are concerns on one hand that the industry has to wait too long to receive authorisation from SEPA to go ahead and medicate, and on the other hand there are concerns that we might be over-medicating and therefore affecting the environment. Will you tell us how we work out what the correct balance is to look after fish health, especially when there are sea lice? Dr Black has told us already that we must go out and do the research.
If Jamie McGrigor and Maureen Macmillan want to ask about similar areas, they can throw their questions in. We can then let the witnesses try to deal with all the points on sea lice.
I am aware of the importance of the wild salmon and sea trout fisheries. We have an enormous coastline. I do not know how many thousands of miles there are on the west coast—there are 2,800 miles of coastline in Argyll alone, I believe. Do you know, or is there any evidence on, how far a salmon farm must be from a river mouth before it has no impact in relation to sea lice? Halibut are better suited to sheltered positions and do not appear to suffer from sea lice. If they were farmed in some of the positions where the salmon cages are now, would that produce a marked improvement?
I will ask about research into sea lice. The in-feed treatment seems to be the flavour of the month just now, although perhaps it does not taste all that nice.
It is flavour of the month for salmon.
I believe that research was being done into the possibility of vaccination and I wondered whether that had made progress.
Will the witnesses comment on stocking densities while they are at it?
Smolts have no sea lice on them because they have come straight out of fresh water. Where they get the lice from afterwards depends on whether there are many anadromous wild fish in the area and whether the nearest source of sea lice is a set of fish farm cages. Those are the dynamics of the matter.
I will address the question on medicines. We heard earlier that it takes about 10 years for a drug to be developed from an idea into something that is used on farms. That is far too long. The reason why it takes so long is, I guess, the issue of potential damage to the environment. There is also the question whether the drug is efficacious. We need efficacious drugs that have minimal environmental impacts. Our preference would be for drugs that break down quickly. That would mean that they did not accumulate and would not be found after a period of time. Such drugs have a limited ability to cause damage.
Some panel members suggested that the decline in the number of sea trout and salmon is a result of sea lice. I do not accept that argument. There may be cases in which sea lice have had an effect, but many reasons for the decline in the sea trout and salmon populations predate the development of salmon farming in Scotland.
Jamie McGrigor asked about farming halibut in vulnerable areas. We are advised that the farming of halibut does not produce lice problems. Will the members of the panel comment on whether halibut farming might produce other risks to wild fish?
The common sea louse that causes most of the damage to salmon—Lepeophtheirus—is a salmonid parasite that does not affect other species. Another species of louse—Caligus—can affect a range of species of fish. Halibut have a form of lice that do not affect other species of fish. There would be benefit in using halibut to break a cycle of disease or in using them in sites where lice might be seen to be a particular risk. We are estimating the risk of other types of disease spreading between species. The aquaculture health joint working group is investigating that issue before aquaculture involving new species expands in Scotland.
I was not suggesting that we should rush medicines out into the environment without proper testing. I hope that I did not give that impression.
Are you saying that we should get rid of bath treatments?
It is important that a variety of medicines are available to treat lice so that we do not allow resistance to build up. At the moment we have few products. We should not get rid of bath treatments, because we need the ones that we have. Ideally, we would be able to ensure that whatever chemical we used was retained in the local environment and did not have wider effects. In-feeds are best at doing that. Ideally, we would have dozens of in-feed treatments, all of which were efficacious and had short environmental half-lives. That would be the best approach. In-feeds involve treating the fish systemically, as they are ingested. For that reason, much less chemical is needed than in bath treatments.
Apart from synthetic pyrethroids and ivermectin, what treatments are available to you?
The three main treatments are emamectin, cypermethrin, which is a bath treatment, and the use of an organophosphate, azamethiphos.
Are those treatments equally efficient, or is ivermectin most efficient because of its persistence?
It is not ivermectin; it is emamectin. I am not clued up about how the different chemicals compare in terms of efficiency.
Emamectin has been subjected to many tests as part of the official licensing process. Ivermectin is a related product that is widely used in the animal industry to treat parasites of cattle and sheep. It has not been tested effectively for use in salmon.
As far as wild salmon and sea trout stocks are concerned, the great advantage of halibut is that they do not carry Lepeophtheirus salmonis. When they escape, they do not pose the threat to wild stocks that escaped farmed salmon pose. A number of studies have been carried out into the issue. A study undertaken by Andy Ferguson in Ireland will show the dire effects of genetic introgression by escaped farm salmon. We hope that the results of that study will appear in the summer. So far we have not talked much about genetic introgression, but it is one of the problems that we have to worry about. Mercifully, halibut cannot cause that problem, because they are a very different species from salmon.
Do either Professor Richards or Dr Black want to respond to that point?
I do not believe that the link between scallop toxins and the fish farming industry has been proved. The problem with the blooms that lead to the toxins is at present occurring around the east coast, where there is no fish farming. The scientists who have examined the problem have not come up with a direct link, despite the fact that the marine laboratory has reported extensively on the problem.
Will you speculate on the cause of the algal blooms? Are nitrogenous compounds the cause?
They could well be. Often, the blooms arise because of particular environmental conditions. It is common for blooms to build up during periods of prolonged sunshine and restricted water movements. The nutrients in the water can come from a variety of sources. Very often, there are more nutrients that have been washed down the river systems than have come from the aquaculture industry.
Does Dr Black have a view on that?
I do not research amnesic shellfish poisoning, but I know people who do. My understanding is that people found ASP when they looked for it. As they had not looked for ASP before, there is every reason to suspect that ASP had been present for a long time before. One might then ask why people did not get ill as a result of eating scallops.
We have drifted quite a bit from our original line of questioning, to which I want to draw us back. Perhaps John Scott will move us on to another area of questioning.
We have talked about the strategy and the problems, but how should the future successes or failures of the industry ultimately be measured? What sort of time scales should we set for tidying up our act? We all want the harmonious co-existence of everyone's interests, but it is obvious that there are problems out there. How long should we give ourselves to get our house in order so that we can achieve that harmonious co-existence? How will we know when we have achieved it?
That depends on the problems that are being considered.
It is probably appropriate to remind committee members and the public that the committee asked the Executive to commission work into areas in which scientific research might be inconclusive. Members will probably be aware that Dr Black is bringing together that work and will report to us in due course. It is acknowledged that there are areas in which scientific evidence is inconclusive or where more research must be done. The committee took on board the issue of such work, which is continuing, and developed it with the Executive.
I wonder whether anyone else has an opinion on the question that Dr Shelton answered well.
Was the question about how long a strategy should continue?
How will we know when everybody is happy? Is that achievable?
I think that that happens in heaven, does it not? I think that Dr Shelton's answer was that there are different answers for different things. I am intrigued by what sustainability means. Someone talked about economic sustainability and environmental sustainability as if they are different types. Sustainability surely means that something can be sustained. It does not matter what limiting factors there might be; something is either sustainable or it is non-sustainable. Something cannot be sustainable in some departments, but not in others; if it has fallen at the first hurdle, it will never get to the second hurdle—if you understand my meaning.
On feed, Professor Richards said in his submission:
The Icelanders have a policy of setting quotas. There are thorough inspections, and whatever the boats catch they have to bring back to shore. Anything that is caught is used, and any discards are used for fishmeal and so on. If the boats catch too much of the wrong size or species of fish, they suffer severe penalties. The technology now available to the boats that trawl for fish allows them to identify the species and size of fish with their sonars and so on, prior to catching them. There is no reason why they cannot be more focused on the fish that they are meant to be catching, so that they do not just catch anything that happens to be in the sea. If that policy were applied, it would save a tremendous amount of the current wastage.
Will you expand on the sustainability of the supply of fishmeal and fish oils and how far the research on minimising their use or on their substitution has come?
You have heard already that the fish feed industry has done a tremendous amount of research on increasing the efficiency of digestion of the feeds that are used, so that there is much less waste, and on substituting plant materials for fishmeals. The current diets that are being produced can readily substitute perhaps 25 per cent of that volume, which is quite significant. In addition, work is going on to consider the genetic basis of metabolism of fish oil. Fish have the ability to produce the health-giving oils omega 3s and omega 6s to varying amounts, depending on the species. If we can identify the genetic basis of such production, we can select, in our brood stock programmes, fish that can do it rather better. As the breeding programme develops, we can find fish that are much more able to take a higher quantity of vegetable material in their diet. The European Community is funding that work.
We talked about polyculture and growing seaweed as a way of benefiting from some sort of synergy. Is any research going on in that area? I am being opportunistic because we have three scientists with us.
There is not enough, I would say.
I have a controversial question. You spoke about using vegetable oils in fish feeds. What are your views on using oils that are derived from genetically modified products?
The industry should answer that. Its current policy is not to use such materials. It would have a very negative effect on consumer demand and the image of the product, which is that it is healthy and natural.
There are qualms that that will happen in future. I think that we will be able to get plants that produce fish oils. The question then will be why we are eating fish; why do we not just eat those plants. [Laughter.]
Follow that.
I was delighted to see the joint statement from the Salmonid Fisheries Forum and Scottish Quality Salmon, in which they suggest that
Up to a point. I totally agree with the sprit of it, but when I worked for the Scottish Office we were constantly told that what gets measured gets done. We have to back up consideration of a code of practice with actual measures of what the code of practice will do. Somebody independent needs to keep a check and a list. In principle I agree, but it should be properly backed up.
Collaboration with the tripartite working group is extremely good at the moment. Area management agreements are increasingly being used. That is surely the way forward for strategy. It is proactive, because people discuss potential problems, come up with a management scheme to handle them, follow progress with those policies and modify them if necessary, so that everyone is happy.
The only thing that I want to say is that I read the committee's report on phase 1 of the inquiry into aquaculture and was pleased that members had taken on board the issue of confidentiality of data in respect of some area management agreements. I say again that the process would work much better if such commercial confidentiality were removed and all farmers were made to produce data.
That brings us to end of the questions that we wanted to ask. We have covered a lot of ground and the meeting has been useful. The answers stimulated additional questions. I thank Professor Richards, Dr Black and Dr Shelton. Their evidence has been useful for our inquiry.
Meeting closed at 17:16.