Rural Development Committee, 26 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 26, 2001

Official Report 176KB pdf

---

Sea Cage Fish Farming

We return to agenda item 3 now that we have had the opportunity to listen to and participate in the discussion with the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development at the Transport and the Environment Committee's meeting. We have an opportunity to consider what we heard and how we would like to proceed. There is a range of options and I am keen to hear members' views.

I was very disappointed by the minister's response to what I consider to be the cast-iron case that was put by many members of the two cross-party committees for an independent inquiry into the relationship between sea cage fish farming and the environment. The minister did not appear to have an open mind on the matter. Her arguments against holding an independent inquiry and her defence of the Executive's position were very weak. I do not think that we have to go over the reasons for having an independent inquiry yet again—the arguments still stand. A majority of members on both committees remain in favour of an independent inquiry.

The Rural Development Committee should reiterate its support for an independent inquiry. We might want to complement that suggestion by coming up with an alternative proposal, given that the Executive is refusing to budge.

We should move on. We heard goodness knows how many times that the Executive is not going to carry out an independent inquiry—the minister repeated it until she was blue in the face. The question that faces us is how we should advance the matter to give those who are against the fish farming industry—or who have concerns about it—and the industry a public platform so that a balanced approach can be taken. That is what the parliamentary committee system was set up to achieve and it should be used for that purpose.

If the Rural Development Committee undertakes an inquiry, we will have a chance to engage with an industry that is the lifeblood of much of rural Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, although it might not be as relevant to other parts of the country. There are fundamental tensions in the industry in relation to how it will develop. We heard a lot about those tensions.

It seems to me that the Executive's strategy will not be on the stocks until next spring. The minister was talking about putting the working group together in six months' time. That group will try to bring together some of the initial consultations that are to take place. Therefore, there is an excellent opportunity for the Rural Development Committee to proceed with its own inquiry. We must wait for the result of the Transport and the Environment Committee's deliberations, because that committee has an obvious role to play in relation to sea cage fish farming. We must hold joint discussions with that committee before we make a decision on the way forward. However, I would fully support a proposal for the Rural Development Committee, either alone or in conjunction with the Transport and the Environment Committee, to get involved in an inquiry later this year. Much will depend on our work load and on what happens with the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, which we might have to deal with.

In principle, we should try to set up a committee inquiry. We should consult the Transport and the Environment Committee on the time scale and remit of an inquiry, and on whether the inquiry should be conducted jointly, or whether the Rural Development Committee should act as the lead committee. I propose that we should not take a decision until we have had those discussions with the Transport and the Environment Committee.

I agree. The Executive has made clear its position on a public inquiry. It will make no difference to the Executive's position if the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee continue to nag it. We should move forward and consider how we can contribute positively to the debate. That debate will be difficult—I am clear that the views on each side of the argument are very different and that it will be difficult to reconcile those views.

There are two possible routes. The first is the review of regulation. The minister said that a consultation document was to be issued within the next couple of weeks. We might want to take time to examine that consultation document. We might also want to examine how that consultation has been conducted and who has been involved in it. I am aware that some people felt that their views were not sought on the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Act 2001; we should ensure that their views are sought on this consultation. The second route is the development of the strategy, in which there will be important roles for the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee.

I, too, was disappointed by the minister's responses. I felt that she was unable to say why she would welcome a parliamentary inquiry while rejecting an independent inquiry.

There are a number of reasons why an independent inquiry would be a more appropriate exercise. First, the industry, the petitioners and environmental pressure groups all want an independent inquiry—everybody wants one. Secondly, the issues that are involved are technical. I do not think that any MSP would claim to be an expert in this area. Thirdly, the Executive is not seen to be impartial, and impartiality is important. Fourthly, an independent inquiry could be convened with more speed than a parliamentary inquiry. Members have already conceded that the timetabling of a parliamentary inquiry could be affected and delayed by the other business that we must consider.

Finally, an independent inquiry would allay the concerns that have existed for a long time. Without an independent inquiry, those concerns will persist and we will have claim and counter-claim in the press for the indefinite future. The fact that the minister has turned against an independent inquiry does not alter those arguments one whit, but we can see that members of the Executive parties have turned their faces against an independent inquiry now that the minister has made her decision, therefore I entirely—

On a point of order.

I believe that that is factually accurate. If any members of the Executive parties do not agree with the minister I am happy for them to give their opinion.

I was not on the committee when the recommendation was made, and I never publicly supported an independent inquiry. Okay?

Okay. All I am saying is that if there are any members who support an independent—

Direct your remarks to those members to whom you think they are relevant, Mr Ewing.

I will conclude my remarks. I do not wish to get into a slanging match with any member, but I invite any member who believes that there should be an independent inquiry to say so. If there are none, we will assume that members believe a parliamentary inquiry should be convened. If a parliamentary inquiry is held, I hope that it will address the concerns of the industry, not just the concerns of the petitioners. In other words, it should be a balanced, complete, thorough and lengthy inquiry.

I hope that the decision to hold an inquiry—which I hope we will make today—will not be overturned at a future date because nobody in the Executive wants an open inquiry. I fear that an inquiry will raise issues about the incompetence and negligence of the Executive in relation to the salmon farming industry over virtually that Executive's whole existence. I say that from some—

The Executive has existed for only two years.

Happily, it has been a short period, but the Executive has displayed serious negligence and incompetence, which has affected and impaired the potential of that important industry.

We are in serious danger of blaming the Tories now.

Would I do that, convener? If Fergus Ewing will forgive me, we are used to outrageous statements, but I would like to put the record straight. I did not launch into a slanging match with Fergus Ewing, despite the outrageous allegations that he made about Executive-supporting members of the committee. I for one have always supported an independent inquiry into the fish-farming industry. It serves no purpose for Fergus Ewing to continue to slag off—if I may use such a phrase—colleagues on the committee. It does him no service, and it brings the committee into disrepute. I urge him to resist, while he is on the committee, expressing sensationalist remarks, which he is aiming at the newspapers. It is most inappropriate, coming as it does from the deputy convener.

If I may address the issue—

Because you do not want a slanging match.

Fergus Ewing had his say, and I am having mine. The actions of the committee have been vindicated. I remember the discussion clearly, and after the committee received the response from the minister—which we all thought was disappointing—it decided that there was no purpose in calling the minister. However, we agreed to wait for the Transport and the Environment Committee to conclude its investigations, and it decided to call the minister.

While I am disappointed, I am not surprised by the response from the minister, who does not want to conduct an inquiry, as has been made clear. That is up to the Executive. We are a parliamentary committee, and the question for us is; do we want to conduct our own inquiry? As many people have pointed out, it is essential that people on all sides of the industry—for example environmentalists, who want to force change on the industry, and the industry itself, which feels under attack and wants a platform to defend itself—have a proper platform. The public platform that is available to them is the Rural Development Committee, either acting alone, or in conjunction with the Transport and the Environment Committee.

I echo Elaine Murray's comment. As it is obvious that some members of the Transport and the Environment Committee have a different perspective on the issue than some members of this committee, I would be very wary of having a joint committee inquiry unless we explicitly agreed its terms of reference. I do not want that issue to be left until later. If we are going to have a joint committee inquiry, it is even more important to get its terms of reference right.

I am not going to slag anyone off—I hope—but I want to express my disappointment at the Executive's reaction to the request for a public inquiry. I will briefly explain why. When the Parliament was established, great play was made of the importance of the committees. It is, to a degree, a slap in the face that the Executive has turned down a unanimous request from two committees. It devalues the role of the committees, which is a great pity, and does not make for positive public relations for the Parliament as it seeks to assert itself in the new Scotland—if I can put it that way. That is a shame, and needs to be put on the record.

I accept the fact that we will not get an Executive inquiry, which also saddens me. One of the reasons why the committee did not want to undertake the inquiry was because we felt that we could not resource it properly. That remains a concern if we seek to undertake the inquiry ourselves.

Although we should have a joint committee inquiry, I entirely agree with Mike Rumbles that there are different viewpoints on both committees. However, I think that we can do it, because the Transport and the Environment Committee can examine the environmental aspects and we can examine the socio-economic aspects. As Mike Rumbles rightly said, who does what will have to be clearly decided, but as long as that happens, I do not see why we should not have a joint inquiry. There is a need for it. However, I am sorry to say that I think that we will have difficulty in resourcing it with the resources that are available to the committee.

I supported the concept of a public inquiry, and I endorse the points that other members have made. If a public inquiry has been totally ruled out, the way forward is an inquiry that involves the two committees. However, as I said, this afternoon's meeting was more of an evidence-giving session than a decision-taking meeting. My fear is that, because many of the issues that have been raised today are highly technical and require great expertise, I for one would not feel competent to make judgments on some of them. Perhaps it is unusual for an MSP to be so modest, but I feel that we are getting into a very dangerous area.

I mean no disrespect to our current advisers and clerks, but I wonder whether there is any facility for committees to appoint specialist advisers in such circumstances.

Yes. There is no problem with doing that.

In that case, we should consider the possibility of appointing specialist advisers to help us with the industrial and environmental aspects of the matter and thus ensure that all sides of the argument are heard properly. That would mean that we would be adequately briefed when we came to take evidence from organisations.

All members except Rhoda Grant and I have had our say.

I know that Rhoda Grant has been doing a report on the issue.

The committee has believed for some time that an inquiry into sea cage fish farming is necessary. We have heard the minister, and there is a long-standing agreement between the Transport and the Environment Committee and this committee that the issue must be investigated. It appears that we have no alternative but to go ahead and undertake the inquiry ourselves. However, it would be sensible to enter into an arrangement with the Transport and the Environment Committee so that we could divide the responsibility for specific aspects of the inquiry roughly along the lines that were described by Alex Fergusson and Mike Rumbles. Such a division of responsibility would have to be hammered out formally.

Margaret Ewing suggested that an adviser would be needed. I agree that an adviser would be an essential element of any detailed inquiry that was conducted jointly by the committees, but I suspect that there might be complications about a joint adviser. We might have to research that.

Would members be content if I communicate to Andy Kerr the committee's desire to become involved with the Transport and the Environment Committee in an inquiry? Should we raise with him the matter of dividing responsibilities between the committees and the need for an adviser, so that we can take advice on how our aims might be achieved in the shortest possible time scale?

It is not only the division of responsibilities that is important—the inquiry's terms of reference are important, too.

Yes. We should discuss the division of responsibilities and the inquiry's terms of reference.

I agree with Mike Rumbles that the terms of reference need to be set down clearly, but I am a wee bit concerned about a division of responsibilities. We must get all sides working together to have a sustainable industry. If one committee is seen to be backing one side of an argument and another committee is seen to be backing another side, we will get nowhere. Two committees will be pitted against each other. There must be a joint inquiry, but we must ensure that we get some consensus.

A completely joint inquiry is very difficult. I am told that aspects of the standing orders make it difficult. Each committee can appoint a reporter to the other committee.

Is there any mechanism that allows the appointment of a committee to carry out a specific inquiry, with the membership of both committees being drawn on?

You mean a reporters inquiry.

Could such a mechanism be used in this case?

We used it for the homing pigeon petition.

I have a paper that was circulated with the supplementary papers on Friday. The paper was considered by the committee in May and was presented by the four reporters from the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee. They reported on the initial request. In the paper, the option for a limited parliamentary inquiry was discussed and various rules were outlined in paragraphs 42 to 46.

What does the paper say?

The paper says that if both committees have a strong interest in pursuing the inquiry, the standing orders provide that we should ask the Parliamentary Bureau to designate a lead committee. Alternatively, we can seek the approval of the Parliamentary Bureau to consider the matter jointly.

There will need to be discussions with the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee before we can come to a final decision.

Members of the committee have broadly backed a range of possibilities in principle and we will open discussions with Andy Kerr.

A recess is approaching and, unusually, there is an opportunity to deal with the majority—if not all—of the committee through correspondence rather than to appoint reporters and simply bounce ideas off a limited number of people. Proposals will therefore be sent to members for their responses on how we ought to proceed.

Are members content to deal with the matter by correspondence?

I have one caveat. Members will be taking breaks and if there are deadlines for responses, I am concerned that requiring responses within three days—

We will avoid that.

Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Will that have any knock-on effect on our work programme for the autumn?

We have discussed the matter as one of our long-standing priorities prior to this meeting, so I hope that time will be made available. There is a danger that we will find that we have more responsibilities—

We have considered our timetable to the end of this year. Is it the case that the inquiry—unless we alter the proposals that we considered last week—will not take place until next year? Should we ensure that an inquiry should take place much earlier? We would not be allowed, for example, input to the water environment bill, which the minister seemed to think was important.

I recall from the reporters' discussion that there was time at least to make a start before the end of the year. There is a big decision about stage 2 of the bill.

It is very difficult to project what will happen.

We cannot therefore make a final decision until later.

I think that there is an added argument for a stage 1 debate.

Not that we do not have more important things to do.

Meeting closed at 16:55.