Sea Cage Fish Farming
We move to agenda item 5, which is on petition PE96 from Allan Berry. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to hold an independent public inquiry into the adverse environmental effects of sea cage fish farming.
Today, we will hear evidence from Rhona Brankin, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, who is accompanied by a number of Scottish Executive officials. I offer all the witnesses a warm welcome to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
In line with the committee's practice, I offer the minister an opportunity to make a short statement. However, before I hand over to the minister, I also welcome to the meeting members of the Rural Development Committee. I will take a long look around the chamber to ensure that all members get an opportunity to put questions to the minister. After that, the Transport and the Environment Committee's members will discuss how to proceed with the issue.
I now hand over to the minister. When she has made her opening remarks, members will be able to contribute to the question-and-answer session.
Thank you.
I am delighted to meet members of both the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee in connection with PE96. I am also delighted to provide the information that the committees asked for. The committees asked why we declined to mount an independent inquiry and they asked about the various initiatives that the Executive is undertaking and how those initiatives fit into the wider strategic context of marine fish farming. I expect that most of our time will be spent in discussion, but I hope that members will find it helpful if I explain some of the background.
I ask members to remember that PE96 calls on the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the environmental effects of marine fish farming. As Ross Finnie said in his letter of 10 April, if that is the route that the Parliament chooses to go down, the Executive stands ready to co-operate and to provide evidence.
However, in the first instance, the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee chose to ask the Executive to take on the task of mounting an independent inquiry. I will go over the two good reasons why we declined to do so. First, we believe that the concerns that surround marine fish farming have been identified. Many are well documented, such as wild fish declines, escapes and environmental impacts. Secondly, the Executive is already pursuing a wide range of initiatives that are designed to tackle those concerns. Members have had an opportunity to view a list of those initiatives in the annexe to Ross Finnie's response. For those reasons, we seriously doubt that an inquiry that would involve considerable time and expense would add anything of value. Indeed, an inquiry could divert resources away from the initiatives that are already in train.
In advance of this meeting, my officials provided the clerk with a range of background information about some of the key activities. I hope that members found that information useful, because it demonstrates the extent of the Executive's efforts.
I will move on to the Executive's work plan. The initiatives are closely integrated and have two objectives. First, they will fill in some of the gaps in our scientific knowledge, which will help to inform future decision making and regulation. Secondly, the initiatives will help us to develop a strategic framework within which the industry can develop sustainably and co-exist with its neighbours. In order to fulfil the first of those objectives we are examining nutrient inputs—not only from fish farms—and their impact on the environment. We are also considering where eutrophication is likely to be a problem and why and whether the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is developing or possesses the techniques that are necessary to assess the impact of effluent and therapeutants from fish farms.
A number of the initiatives involve the Executive, fish farmers, wild fishery interests and environmental non-governmental organisations working together to confront the issues and find solutions. Examples of those initiatives include the tripartite working group, which is a system of local area management agreements that is designed to ensure healthy wild stocks and a sustainable fish farming industry. Tackling sea lice is a top priority for the tripartite working group. We have also established the aquaculture health group, which is a joint group that comprises the Executive and fish farmers and aims to improve general fish health, welfare and management. That group has built successfully on the changes in practice that were recommended in the wake of infectious salmon anaemia and on the code of practice that was introduced last year.
We have also set up research and development projects to underpin our initiatives. The Executive is spending in excess of £1 million on research into and development of key health and environmental issues, such as interactions between wild and farmed fish—including in relation to sea lice—improving diagnostic techniques and addressing emerging disease threats.
I would like to highlight another initiative. At the beginning of the year, we started a review of regulation, which will identify gaps in the regulatory system and ways in which procedures could be streamlined and improved. A formal consultation paper will be issued in the next couple of weeks. That is the first of three areas that the committees might wish to consider and assist with. We regard the review as an important exercise that is designed to deliver a better balanced and focused regulatory framework for the future. If, as we expect, changes to primary legislation are required, we will look for early opportunities to effect those changes. The Executive will be happy to meet the committees again to discuss the review or to receive written input to the review from the committees. The formal consultation period finishes at the end of August, but if the committees are interested in commenting, that period could be extended to accommodate the committees' timetables.
Ross Finnie and I are in no doubt that, over and above the substantial effort that is going into tackling the issues that surround marine fish farming, we also need a game plan or strategy for Scottish aquaculture. We recognise the importance of fish farming to the rural economy of Scotland, but we must develop a strategic framework in which we can balance the environmental impact of the industry against its socio-economic benefits. That is the challenge that faces us, and it is also what the range of initiatives that we are pursuing is designed to deliver. It is also the second area in which the committees could become involved.
Improvements are being made to current systems and practices, and the industry, through the likes of Scottish Quality Salmon, is also playing its part in the process by raising its game on quality standards and environmental management. However, we still have a way to go. This is the time for asking ourselves some searching questions about the sort of aquaculture industry that we want in Scotland.
The debate must be public and wholly inclusive. I have no difficulty with that approach; indeed, I would welcome it. I mean to involve all interested organisations and groups that are willing to participate. At the end of that process, I hope that we will have a strategy that will provide us with the basis for a sustainable industry. It will not be easy to achieve consensus on what that should look like, but that must be the goal.
My officials and I are about to start the process. Over the coming months, we will conduct an inclusive and wide-ranging consultation process about the big issues that surround fish farming. At the end of the year, we will develop a more focused debate around a set of strategic proposals, culminating in a strategy for the future, around which I want to muster broad consensus.
I would welcome the views and input of the Transport and the Environment Committee in the coming months. Perhaps we can discuss that this afternoon.
The committee will be aware that we will shortly publish a consultation paper on the implementation of the water framework directive. Among other issues, the paper will consider the scope for reforming how we regulate the environmental effects of fish farming through the water environment bill that we plan to introduce next year. That is the third area on which I would welcome the committee's views. I know that the committee has already earmarked the water framework directive as an issue that it would like to examine.
One advantage of proceeding with the review that we are undertaking is that the results should be available in time to fit into the water environment bill. That is an additional reason why it is important that we make progress. A public inquiry would create the risk of our missing the legislative slot for the water environment bill. The committee will appreciate that, because of the need to transpose the water framework directive by the end of 2003, that bill cannot be delayed.
Against the background that I have described, the work that is already under way and the work that we intend to pursue, particularly to develop a sustainable strategy for the industry, I suggest that the underlying purpose of the petition has been met. The Executive and various other groups with whom we are working should be allowed to press ahead with the work plan to which we are all committed. The committee could help us with the task of developing a strategic vision for the future of fish farming in Scotland. We will be delighted to work with the committee and keep you informed of progress.
The committee still retains an element of disappointment on the issue of a full public inquiry. However, today's meeting is an attempt to establish whether the work that is being done is an adequate alternative to such an inquiry.
We have many members with us today. If a member asks a question on a particular subject, such as sea lice, it would be useful for members who have a related question to ask it at that point before we move on. That will add some structure to the session. I will try to ensure that I include as many members as possible in the discussion.
Questions about chemicals, lice, algal blooms and diffuse pollution have been asked since the mid-1980s—in 1988, in Westminster, Tam Dalyell asked about algal blooms. In the face of the vast body of research on the subject—much of it unpublished—that has been done worldwide and in the UK by organisations such as the marine laboratories in Dunstaffinage and Aberdeen, do you agree that now is the time to publish a review and to act on the available evidence? Do you also agree that the further round of planning, review, research and consultation that you propose will result in a potentially damaging delay in arriving at a sustainable sea cage farming fishery?
That is exactly the opposite of what I want to do. I am aware of the research that Robin Harper mentions, but there remain some gaps in the research. We must examine the carrying capacity of Scottish coastal waters, for example.
We have a lot of information already and many of the issues have been identified. That is why we are carrying out the work programme in the way we are. The Executive is already conducting research, but we do not have the results yet.
Over the coming months, I will talk to stakeholders in the industry, including people who are involved with environmental non-governmental organisations. I want to ensure that we are fully aware of the range of concerns that exist. The difficulty that I have with holding a public inquiry is that we need to do something about beginning to develop a sustainable future for the industry. I am not refusing to face up to some of the undoubtedly difficult issues that confront the industry—I want to emphasise that.
By and large, we know what the issues are and we must move forward and do something about them. That is why I want to develop a sustainable strategy that has been developed on the basis of joint working with various stakeholders. I hope that we can get support for that.
Have you asked your advisers why, after 20 years of investment in research in the subject, we do not have a sufficient body of scientific evidence that would allow us to act immediately?
We have a lot of scientific evidence and we are already acting on it. As I said, we need to carry out additional research in some areas, such as the carrying capacity of the coastal waters in Scotland. In my opening remarks, I described examples of research that is being done, such as research into the continuing problems relating to algal bloom.
There is continuing research, but I believe that we are already aware of some of the challenges that we face. I do not want to spend my time debating whether evidence is circumstantial or whatever; I want to take a precautionary approach. If we see that there are links between escapes from fish farms and the impact of sea lice on wild fish, we need to do something about that. Indeed, through the tripartite working group, we are beginning to do so. The time has now come to get on with real work, but we have to make progress consensually. That is what I want to achieve over the next few months.
As the minister who has responsibility for this area, I do not have a fixed view about what the future of Scottish aquaculture should be. We have to ask big questions about that. Everybody will have an opportunity to feed into that process.
Attached to the letter from Ross Finnie—that I and the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee received on 10 April—was a long annexe that listed all the activities that the Executive is sponsoring or is involved with in relation to sea cage fish farming. The minister has touched on that and I am impressed by the range of activities that are being carried out. To what extent are those activities being correlated? Is a central unit or individual trying to bring the different aspects together? Is it likely that a report that covers the range of activities will be published in future? Are any other activities planned for the near future that would fit in with the list?
I thank Alex Johnstone for recognising that a broad range of initiatives and research is being undertaken. We need to gather that body of information together in developing a strategy for the industry. We have already initiated a series of actions. As a starting point, we need to review the literature and find out what scientific research base exists to underpin the future development of a strategy. We need to plug the gaps where we find them. In the first instance, officials will draw that information together and then we will bring it together as the first part of a strategy.
As I said, there will be widespread consultation with people who have an interest in aquaculture. The consultation will be followed by a consultation document. I will then set up a strategy group that will seek to bring all the responses together along with the research. The time scale for that would be to identify the key issues through public consultation over the next six to nine months—ideally through a series of bilateral meetings. Towards the end of 2001, I will set up a strategy group, which I will chair. We will then begin to hammer out some of the detail of the strategy. That group will meet as necessary. That work will be followed by a major conference—possibly in early 2002. There is a lot of work to be done because we have to bring together the range of initiatives and the broad spread of research.
Can I surmise from your answer that, in your view, the Executive is committed to an identifiable process that will have a conclusion, with which the committee could run in parallel, if that is appropriate?
Yes. The slightly complicating factor is that there is already a legislative slot in spring 2002 for the water environment bill. Committees might want to consider that fact and examine particular areas that could give rise to suggestions for provisions that might be included in the bill. That would not preclude a wider involvement in the sea cage fish farming strategy, which would not be concluded by spring 2002. Indeed, the committee's involvement would have to be in the autumn of 2001, when it considers the water environment bill. Whatever the committees decide to do, my officials and I will ensure that we facilitate their role in possible legislation and their involvement in the development of a longer-term sustainable strategy.
It is important to find out whether the research that is being undertaken by the Executive is sufficiently rigorous. One of the areas where that research has been identified as not being rigorous enough in the past is in relation to sea lice and their effects on wild salmon stocks. It is said that much less work has been done in Scotland than has been done in Norway or Ireland, for example. Is the Executive taking account of research in other countries? Are you co-operating with other bodies, such as the fisheries trusts, in their work on sea lice? How are you supporting the fisheries trusts? Some fisheries trusts have said that they are being asked to monitor sea lice, but are not being given the funds to do it. There is also an issue about the publication of numbers of sea lice. Why do we not publish the numbers for sea lice on individual farms, as happens in Norway?
We recognise that sea lice are a problem, for both fish farmers and wild fishery interests. A lot of effort goes into research and development in Scotland and abroad. We are aware of other research that has been carried out abroad. However, if there is further research of which the committee or other interest groups are aware, we would welcome that input to the consultative process.
We need to be able to draw together as much information on the sea lice problem as we can. We are involved in work at the moment. Members will have read the handout on our research and development programme. An increasing range of medicines is available for the treatment of sea lice. Some of those are only now becoming available, but they should be a great help to the industry.
Medicines are not the only answer, not least because of their environmental impact. Their use needs to be backed up by changes in working practice. That is why the aquaculture health group is important. That group has introduced a code of practice on advocating synchronised production. It has also advocated joint fallowing procedures, for example, in which sea lice treatments can be co-ordinated in the same loch system. Those changes are starting to happen.
Another initiative is the tripartite working group, in which the wild fishery interests work together with the local aquaculture interests and the Scottish Executive. We have to get on top of the sea lice problem. However, that will take time and more research—as resources allow. Of course we must consider what research is available. If the fisheries trusts have particular concerns, I will be more than happy to discuss those.
I have just been passed a note to say that the fisheries trusts have been looking for more funding for biologists. I met the fisheries trust in Lochaber recently. SEERAD does not have money to give them, but they have access to the resources of the freshwater fisheries laboratory in Pitlochry. Assistance in kind is available to them. We recognise the need to keep up the research and development effort in relation to sea lice.
Will there be full co-operation between Pitlochry and the fisheries trusts on that? There has not been co-operation in the past.
There will be.
I want to ask about the control of sea lice in fish cages. There is a need to monitor the chemicals that are used. I want to know about the use of sea wrasse as a biological control. I know that some work was done on that in the past, but I do not know whether the results were very satisfactory. Do you have any plans to continue that work?
I am aware of the work that is going on, but I will ask Gordon Brown to provide the details on Maureen Macmillan's question.
I extend a warm welcome to Gordon Brown.
It is not that Gordon Brown.
Gordon Brown (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
Thank you for the welcome, convener. Wrasse have been tried in Scotland, but there are some problems. It is difficult to obtain sufficient sustainable stocks of wrasse from the wild. Also, their survival in cages is a problem—they do not overwinter well. It is an issue that has been revisited from time to time. I am aware that an aquaculture business in the Western Isles—I think—is trying that approach again. That business might feel that it has a sustainable wild stock on which to draw.
I admit that the Norwegians use wrasse with some success, but they have sustainable stocks from which to draw. It is an issue that has been considered, but it is not without its problems. It is difficult to say whether the use of wrasse can be a sustainable tool for the industry
The other issue on the control of sea lice and transfer of disease concerns the Executive's view on separation distances between salmon farms or between the mouths of major salmon rivers and salmon farms.
An holistic approach must be adopted. When salmon farms are located in neighbouring sea lochs, it is not good enough for one farm to have a fallowing period by itself. We need to consider interlocking ecosystems. On the west coast of Scotland, work has been done on synchronised fallowing, so that when one farm in one sea loch fallows, the others in the neighbouring sea lochs—which are part of the wider marine ecosystem in that area—fallow at the same time. There is much opportunity to do that. Some issues arise for smaller fish farms as a result of that, because they do not have the option of keeping some cages fallow. We must address those issues.
Fallowing is important, as is the question of the degree of separation of fish farms from the mouths of major salmon rivers.
We must adopt an holistic approach. We also acknowledge that a link exists between fish farming activities and impacts on wild fish. We need to be able to act on that and adopt a precautionary approach. Some fish farms have been placed in locations for which consent might not be given today, but we know more now than we did when those consents were given.
We need to be able to consider options, in deciding whether to give consents, to allow us to consider areas where there is faster flowing water and where the impact on the seabed and on farmed fish may be lessened. We must consider those matters seriously in determining sustainable development for the industry.
The minister is right. In the information that we passed to the committees, we provided a copy of "Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters", which contains recommendations on separation distances. In the wake of the infectious salmon anaemia difficulties, the aquaculture health group to which the minister alluded has considered such issues, to prevent disease transmission in the future.
The minister alluded to the tripartite working group and the development of area management agreements. We have not reached that point, but through that process, consideration of the location of farms and whether farms might be moved within an area is a possibility. We have not tackled that yet, but it remains a possibility within the tripartite process.
As a member of the Rural Development Committee, I welcome the opportunity to attend the Transport and the Environment Committee's meeting to ask the minister questions.
I was disappointed by the minister's opening remarks, because although Ross Finnie told members in the chamber on Thursday that his deputy would come to the committee with an open mind on an independent inquiry, she has ruled out that possibility. The debate is unique, because those on both sides of the argument on a controversial subject are singing from the same hymn sheet. The industry, the environmentalists, the angling lobby and two cross-party parliamentary committees believe that the best way forward is an independent inquiry into the relationship between sea cage fish farming and the environment.
Did the minister cost an inquiry and consider its practicalities before she took her decision? Given that the debate is controversial and has raged for many years, many people want an independent inquiry, because they do not trust the Government to deal with the issue and because such an inquiry would help to take the heat out of the controversy. Is that concern justified? An independent, open and transparent inquiry would put everything out in the open after many years of often acrimonious debate.
Aquaculture in Scotland is a growing and diversifying industry. For that reason, would not it be sensible to use an independent inquiry to iron out all the issues and help the environmental and industry lobbies to progress in harmony?
I hope that I have reassured the committees that I have an extremely open mind on the issue. I reassure Mr Lochhead that the potential cost of an inquiry had nothing to do with Ross Finnie's and my decision. We did not support the establishment of an independent inquiry because we felt that it was recognised that the industry faces major challenges.
Much research has been conducted. We described the extent of the research and the extent of the activities that the Executive has undertaken. I said that we need to move on and engage meaningfully to solve some of the identified problems. I was concerned to ensure that we did not spend time looking back over what has happened. We need to look forward.
There is no question of the Executive driving the agenda forward without taking other people with us. We must consider the extent to which we can develop a sustainable aquaculture industry in Scotland. The questions are big and we are aware of them. We are keen to get going and not to lose the opportunity of legislation such as the water environment bill, which has a time slot next spring. Opportunities exist for the possibility of including provisions on aquaculture in that bill. We had to take into account pressing time considerations. I hope that the committees accept that I do not have a closed mind on the issue—the opposite is true.
The debate has raged for many years. Throughout those years, if anybody asked the Government whether it felt that enough was being done, the Government said that enough was being done. As well as being part of the solution, have not successive Governments been part of the problem? Are the industry, the environmental lobby and two parliamentary committees justified in feeling that the only way to examine this controversial debate objectively would be to take the matter out of the hands of the Government and politicians and hold an independent inquiry?
It is obvious that I have some way to go to persuade Mr Lochhead, but I reiterate that the situation has been rather polarised and that we have not moved forward enough. I am concerned that the speed of change has not been fast enough—partly because of the polarisation of debate. I am keen to seek an end to that polarisation and to get some dialogue going openly and inclusively, in order to try to establish consensus on a sustainable future for aquaculture. I repeat that no attempt has been made to dampen down debate—the opposite is the case. I want to encourage and engender a genuinely public debate about the future of aquaculture in Scotland.
Two people want to ask supplementary questions—Mike Rumbles and Des McNulty.
I am confused by the minister's response to Richard Lochhead. As I understand it, the minister's department has refused the request of the two parliamentary committees to hold an inquiry. The committees now have to decide whether to take their own inquiries forward. You say, minister, that you are open-minded about an inquiry—
Absolutely.
I am confused. Will the Executive still consider taking on an inquiry, rather than parliamentary committees having to do it? We have to make a decision: either the Executive will do it, or parliamentary committees will do it. The minister has an opportunity to make the Executive's position clear to me and to other members.
We have stated our position and I will restate it today: we do not think that the Executive mounting an inquiry at this stage is the best way to proceed. I have said that a number of initiatives are already being undertaken and that time constraints exist because of the window of opportunity for the water environment bill. We acknowledge that a series of major issues face the aquaculture industry. We want to get started on action. We believe that some areas require further research; the committees might want to participate in that work. However, at this stage, we do not see a role for an independent inquiry on behalf of the Scottish Executive; but—
That is why I am questioning your response to—
Hang on a second, Mike. Let the minister finish.
If either of the committees decides, or the committees jointly decide, to consider an aspect of aquaculture, we would naturally stand ready to support that work of the Parliament.
That is why I have asked the question. You have just said clearly to Richard Lochhead that your mind is still open about an inquiry, but from your response to me it seems that that is not the case. That is what I do not understand. It seems that your mind is closed to an inquiry.
May I clarify that point, convener?
Please do.
I was at pains to rebut the accusation that I had a closed mind on the subject in general. I have a very open mind on the subject. However, my judgment, and that of Mr Finnie, is that we have a lot of work to get on with at the moment. We want to do that. We are keen to develop a sustainable strategy for aquaculture. We want to do that in an inclusive way, by consulting all the stakeholders and by listening to what the Parliament has to say about aquaculture. We want to make progress. I am keen to get going on the work. We acknowledge that issues need to be addressed. We feel that we are making a start, but there is a lot more work to do. We need to make progress on the basis of developing consensus on a sustainable future for aquaculture in Scotland.
An additional four members now want to ask supplementaries. I trust, members, that the questions are genuinely supplementary to this issue.
I want to be clear about the time scale and the order of process. The minister seems to be suggesting that fairly detailed research information is available but that it is not comprehensive and she wishes it to be so. That research has either been commissioned or is in the process of being commissioned. I presume that that research will inform any investigations that might take place.
The minister has indicated that a fundamental review of aquaculture regulations will take place. Her intention is that that should be tied in with considerations that relate to the water environment bill that will be introduced. Issues to do with regulation—specifically, environmental issues—could be taken care of in discussions on that bill, which I presume will come to the Transport and the Environment Committee, although the Rural Development Committee will also be involved.
The minister seems to want to undertake a comprehensive aquaculture strategy consultation process, without a time scale that is as tight as that for the water environment bill. The intention will be to make research information available and to use the regulations that will be introduced as a framework to allow the provision of support for the development of the aquaculture industry. Is that the order of events that the minister is suggesting?
Mr McNulty, you have very eloquently expressed what I have attempted to express during this meeting. We have prepared for the committee a timetable that shows how the various initiatives slot in. I would be delighted to let members have copies.
I want to be clear on whether priority is being given to environmental issues. In the context of the water environment bill, such issues will have to be dealt with first.
Yes, that is right. The review of the regulations on aquaculture is already under way. The deadline for submissions is August; however, if the committee became involved, we would extend the deadline for the committee, because we would very much welcome the committee's involvement. We have a tight time scale because of the slot next spring for the water environment bill. In addition to that work, I intend to develop a longer-term sustainable strategy for aquaculture. Over the next few months, I will begin that process.
From the big list, I now invite Fergus Ewing to ask his question, which I understand is on the same issue. Bruce Crawford, Robin Harper and Fiona McLeod will also ask supplementaries.
Why is it that Rhona Brankin and Ross Finnie welcome a parliamentary committee inquiry, but rule out an independent inquiry? Given the highly technical nature of many of the issues, would not an independent inquiry, led by an expert, be the best way to proceed?
The minister has said, repeatedly, that if an independent inquiry convened, it would necessarily result in the delay of the slot for the water environment bill in spring 2002. Minister, this is a small country. We know who the experts and witnesses would be. Could not an independent inquiry be convened and concluded long before the water environment bill came up, and could not the recommendations of that independent inquiry be included, if appropriate, in the water environment bill?
Let me reiterate what I have explained. The Executive is already involved in a number of initiatives: we have initiated research; we have set up a tripartite working group to develop area management agreements. A lot of work is already in progress. A lot remains to be done and we are anxious to get on with it.
We have a slot for the water environment bill and I know that the Transport and the Environment Committee will be considering that issue. I acknowledge that many people in Scotland are expert in this area. They are exactly the sort of people that we will draw on in our consultation, in order to develop a strategy for aquaculture. I intend to draw on that range of expertise when I set up a strategy group, under my chairmanship, to make progress on that work.
I listened carefully to the minister's answer. Could she answer the specific question on whether it would be perfectly possible to hold an independent inquiry, and for that inquiry to be concluded without jeopardising the parliamentary timetable for the water environment bill?
That is neither Mr Finnie's reason, nor is it mine, for saying that we do not think that an independent inquiry is necessary. As I have stated about six times, our reasons for that view are that a lot of work has already been initiated and that we are aware of some of the problems that we must address. We are keen to get on and address those problems.
Thank you.
I will bundle together the next three supplementary questions. I invite Bruce Crawford, Robin Harper and Fiona McLeod to put their questions to the minister, after which I will invite the minister to address the points that they raise.
Minister, restating your reasons does not make your view right. You have certainly said the word "strategy" enough during the past hour in which you have been giving evidence. The industry has had 30 years of growth with no sense of direction. In the 1980s, 40,000 tonnes of fish were farmed; the figure today is 125,000 tonnes. Capacity has doubled, but locations have not. There is intensification and there are falling job numbers, which all lead to conflict. Wild fish are declining in other areas and now cod and haddock are involved in even greater intensification. Therefore, there is the potential for even more conflict.
The lack of a strategy has created a void and led to views becoming entrenched over the past 30 years. There are misunderstandings, blind spots, Chinese walls and conflict barriers all over the place. How can we secure change successfully, allow the industry to go through a healing process and move on to manage conflict properly? Many people out there are concerned that the Government is wearing two hats in this arena: an environment hat and a help-the-industry hat. Many members suggested that including the environment in the rural affairs portfolio would lead to conflicts that would seem insurmountable to the outside world. I think that we have reached the first serious conflict.
The committee is imploring the minister to enable healing to take place properly, to facilitate a level of independence and to allow the industry to move on. Your views might be sincere, but our views are equally sincere. The only way in which we will secure a resolution is to hold an independent inquiry.
I ask you to reflect on the two hats that you must wear and on the fact that people on the outside might perceive conflicts. I also ask you a simple question: in the unfortunate event that the parliamentary committees are required to hold a joint inquiry, albeit with help from the Executive, will the Executive stand by any recommendations that that joint inquiry produces?
I will pick up Fergus Ewing's comment. The petition was lodged in February 2000. In February 2001, both committees recommended a full-scale public inquiry. If the Executive had agreed to that recommendation, the inquiry could have reported before the end of the recess. The minister now seems to be expressing the view that setting up a full-scale public inquiry would interfere with the progress of what the Executive is proposing to do and with what it is actually doing. I cannot understand why the Executive seems to be pushing that view. Does the Executive think that even a parliamentary committee would get in the way of what it is doing?
My question is along the same lines. I have heard the minister repeat that she understands the situation and that she wants to take action now. She has told us that she is about to embark on six to nine months of consultation, but I do not understand that. An independent public inquiry could cut out six to nine months of consultation and produce results.
The minister also said that she is doing a lot of work, implying that the inquiry would start from scratch. Does not she intend to share the information and evidence that she has with an inquiry?
It might come as a surprise to Bruce Crawford, but I have a lot of sympathy with his description of the way in which the aquaculture industry has developed in Scotland. It has developed in a way that, if it were to start up now, would give us cause for concern. I recognise that there are concerns out there. I do not have to restate those concerns.
We differ in relation to what we want to do about those concerns. I do not want to look backwards—I want to be able to focus on the future. As I have explained, the Executive is already taking a number of initiatives in order to meet some of those concerns. I know that the Transport and the Environment Committee was keen to hear my evidence on the amount of work that is being undertaken. Where we disagree is that I feel that we need to get on with the job in hand and that we must be able to listen to people's concerns. We must be able to plug the gaps in areas where action must be taken, and the water environment bill will give us an opportunity partially to plug those gaps.
However, during the consultation about and consideration of a longer-term, sustainable strategy for aquaculture, consideration of other legislative vehicles might emerge. I do not rule out that approach. However, I restate that I am keen to get on with the job in hand. I hope that the committees wish also to be involved in that job. I am keen to take action now.
The minister will be aware that more than 1,000 jobs in my constituency rely on a successful fish farming industry. Those jobs are in some of the most remote parts of Scotland. I know many of the people who work in the fish farming industry. They are not concerned about the obscure political debate over whether we should have an independent inquiry or a parliamentary inquiry. They are concerned about whether they have a future, whether their jobs are secure, whether their employers will expand their businesses and take on more staff and whether the industry has a future and will grow. Are you aware of the concerns of ordinary people who work in the fish farming industry? What action is the Executive taking to ensure that that industry, which is so important to much of the Highlands and Islands, has a future?
There is no question but that salmon farming is a major player in the rural economy and that it has the potential to remain a major player. We heard that the industry is worth more than £500 million a year, that the value of fish farming products at the farm gate is around £300 million and that processing is worth about the same again. Farmed salmon accounts for about 40 per cent of Scotland's food exports. The industry is a major player in Scotland's economy and supports a significant number of jobs.
Our challenge is to determine what kind of future the industry will have. People who are involved in the industry understand that as well as the environmental non-governmental organisations or politicians do. We all share the understanding that the industry can move forward only if it is sustainable. We must be able to build on that consensus on the future of the aquaculture industry in Scotland. As I said, we face challenges, but sustainability is at the core of those challenges. We cannot move forward unless we are absolutely sure that we do so on the basis of sustainability.
I recognise that, and it seems to me that the development of the forward strategy is key, as it will give out a signal and will be the basis on which the industry will develop and, I hope, grow to provide even more employment in remote areas. Given the time scale that you have set out for the development of the strategy, I take it that you would welcome the committees' becoming involved in that process. That will give the fish farming industry, the environmental lobbies and all the other public platforms the opportunity to put their case as part of the parliamentary inquiry. They can then be seen publicly to contribute to the development of the strategy.
Do you agree that that would be one way of taking forward this issue? It would restore balance to the debate and would allow the committees, as well as the industry, to shape the future strategy and to ensure that we have a sustainable way forward.
I would welcome that. We can move forward only by developing a consensus between the stakeholders involved.
I will allow two supplementaries to this question. I remind members that these are supplementaries, not speeches.
George Lyon was right to say that a large number of people are employed in fish farming. In my constituency, a large number of people are involved in the processing of farmed fish. At the same time, a significant number of jobs are dependent on wild salmon fishing. As you say, it has been difficult to achieve consensus on the way forward. You mentioned both the consultation paper on the review of regulation and an inclusive public debate on the strategy. How can you and the committees ensure that all voices are heard and that the right balance is struck? You will be aware that during the debate on the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill some representatives of the wild fish and angling interest felt that their views were not heard.
There are a number of ways in which we can ensure that all voices are heard. There is a parliamentary procedure that stipulates a set period for formal consultation on the water environment bill. I intend to set out in a series of bilateral meetings this autumn with stakeholders a sustainable strategy for aquaculture and to issue a consultation paper on the strategy. That paper will have to be issued as widely as possible. I also hope to set up a high-level strategy group to advance work in this area. I am committed to making the process as inclusive as possible—to involving as many people as possible. The Parliament has a role to play in that. I am keen to co-operate with the Parliament and to share with it the on-going work in this area. If there are concerns that people's voices are not being heard, I would be more than happy to address those.
The issue of jobs has been raised. Does the minister agree that there are two main threats to the vital jobs in the west Highlands that we have been discussing? The first is the excessive and continuing delay by SEPA in issuing permissions for the use of necessary treatments—treatments such as Slice that are used by Scotland's competitors throughout the world—to protect salmon against sea lice. That problem could be solved if SEPA were given the resources to take on a handful of extra staff. The second threat is the huge reductions that will come into effect next year for many lochs in my constituency and many other members' constituencies. Without question, those will lead to further redundancies by important companies such as Marine Harvest.
Does the minister agree that the industry supports an independent inquiry because it believes that it has nothing to fear or to hide, and that it can bring to such an inquiry a reasoned case in respect of both the issues that I have raised? Is the minister not prepared to hold such an inquiry because she is afraid of that and of the delays for which Government is responsible being exposed for all to see?
I am not sure whether that was a supplementary to the original question, but I will allow the minister to respond.
I am well used to such questions from Mr Ewing. I ask Gordon Brown to comment in detail on why it has taken SEPA so long to license drugs such as Slice.
I will approach the question in a slightly different way by acknowledging that there have been problems in the past. Those problems are being remedied. There is now a greater choice of authorised product and, as a result of additional resources, SEPA is getting through to farmers. A tremendous amount of work has gone into the modelling exercises. That is helping to bring more product through within the consents. To summarise, there have been problems in the past, but the situation is improving.
I have not answered Mr Ewing's second point. There has been publicity in the press about job losses at Marine Harvest. I want to say that those press reports have overstated substantially the situation. First, Marine Harvest has made clear that, while it is considering outsourcing some of its support services, any job losses will be minimal. In any case, the company will be encouraging the staff concerned to establish their own businesses to provide the services that will be outsourced.
Secondly, and more important, there have been unnecessary scare stories about the introduction of automatic feeding systems. The impact of technical developments such as automatic feeding systems is no different in salmon farming than it is in any other industry. It is important to recognise that, by reducing waste feed, automatic feeding systems bring environmental benefits. We have to be careful about what are, in some cases, overstated claims about potential job losses.
Following on from Fergus Ewing's question, every major quango and environmental organisation that is a stakeholder in this respect has come out and called for a full-scale public inquiry. The organisations include those that were criticised heavily by the petitioner. How, in the face of that body of criticism—
I have to interrupt Robin Harper to say—
Well—
We have been there, done that and had the response from the minister. I would like to move on to a question from Rhoda Grant, as we have explored the question of a public inquiry in great depth. There were five supplementary questions to the original question. Other members have introduced the subject as supplementaries to other questions. We need to move on to fresh areas of questioning. Some members have not yet had an opportunity to ask their original question.
An increase in organic fish farming would lead to a decrease in the use of chemicals. That would go some way to allay the fears of the environmental lobby. It would also secure the future of fish farming. Has work been carried out on how to encourage people to move into organic fish farming?
We support organic fish farming, as it complements our existing salmon farming industry. Our support recognises that there is a need for consumers to have choice. One of the key areas that a strategy for aquaculture will have to address is the extent to which the Scottish aquaculture industry can compete on the world market with major producers such as Chile and Norway. Another key area is the extent to which Scotland can position itself in the niche market of high-quality fish from clean environments. We know that a small but growing market exists for organic farmed salmon. As a result, a few salmon farmers have converted all, or some, of their production to organic methods.
Organic salmon and trout first went on sale in 1999. Total UK organic production, including some organic salmon from Orkney, is thought to be less than 2,000 tonnes a year. Prices are in the region of 50 per cent higher than farmed salmon. Converting to organic production is not always easy; indeed, a demanding process is required to meet the technical standards that are set by the organic movement. In some cases, conversion cannot be considered lightly. Structural funds could be made available for people who are interested in conversion to organic farming as it is an area of development, and one that is of interest to us. Members will see further developments.
First, what percentage of farmed salmon is organic? You mentioned 2,000 tonnes, but I am not sure what percentage that is. Secondly, where would salmon farmers get advice from on changing to organic fish farming?
Graham Thompson (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
Less than 2,000 tonnes of farmed salmon and trout throughout the UK is organic. The total for salmon is 127,000 tonnes and that for trout is 20,000 tonnes. It is currently a small proportion. The organic element of the industry thinks that the market might grow to 5,000 tonnes a year. It is not hugely ambitious; it has a long way to go.
Salmon farmers would initially go the Soil Association to get advice on changing to organic fish farming. It has produced interim standards for aquaculture in the UK. As the minister said, they are demanding standards, which are not easy to meet. It is expensive and people do not do it lightly. Many things can go wrong. As the minister said, quite a few people are thinking of doing it and there is clearly a strong consumer demand for it. People should be offered the option and support is available under FIFG—the financial instrument for fisheries guidance.
Bruce Crawford has assured me that the question is on organics. I am a trusting chap.
I do not know why the convener would not trust me.
Organic fish farming and the foodstuffs that are used, rather than the current feed stocks, are important for the sustainability of the industry. The feed stocks that are currently being used mainly comprises eels, mackerels and so on, which are human foodstuffs. How confident is the minister that the feed stock and processes currently being used are sustainable? Should we not be putting more effort into the organic route?
As I said, structural funding is available to people who are interested in converting to organic. It will be an important route for some people to follow. Not all people will want to follow that route; they will have to make that choice. It is an interesting option in Scotland, given the scale of the aquaculture operations of some of our competitors, such as Norway and Chile. We must examine a sustainable strategy for fish farming.
Are you committing yourself to specifically examine the issue of foodstuffs and whether what is currently being used is sustainable?
Yes. That must be part of determining the extent to which aquaculture has a sustainable future in Scotland.
Margaret Ewing and Maureen Macmillan have short supplementary questions on organics.
My question is not on organics.
This question is connected to organics: it is about the possibility of GM salmon. There have been some scare stories about that. I would like an assurance that the Executive will not consider that the industry might go down that road.
It is important to stress that no GM salmon are currently farmed in Scotland. The public has great difficulty with GM salmon, as do many of us politicians. It is not my expectation that we would go down that road. I remain firmly of the view that it would not be publicly acceptable.
Good afternoon, and welcome to the minister. I am confused, if not disappointed, that we have had to have this debate this afternoon. I am delighted that the minister has come to the meeting and, as I said, I welcome her, but we have already had this debate. The Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee have taken the evidence previously, come to a conclusion and presented it to the Executive, which has rejected it.
You have already responded to that, minister, and have given the reasons for it. As my colleague Bruce Crawford said a few moments ago, even if the committee conducts a review or investigation into sea cage fish farming, will our recommendation then be accepted or rejected by the Executive? We have no guarantee of what will happen. That is of concern to me.
Having said that, I thank you for the responses that you have given us this afternoon. However, what is to be the benchmark for undertaking the several reviews that you have suggested? The salmon farming industry in the UK probably has a benchmark that it has not compared or identified with other sea cage activities in our neighbouring European states, in Norway for example. What is to be the benchmark of the proposed survey or review? How in-depth is it to be, and what will it be compared against?
I am not absolutely sure that I understand that question but, in response to John Farquhar Munro's first point, if a committee undertakes or two committees jointly undertake an inquiry, I will of course consider the conclusions very seriously. That goes without saying.
Can I clarify what John Farquhar's question meant? I am sorry—I did not understand.
If I could help out, there was a question about who we could compare ourselves with when carrying out the various studies. Is the benchmark with neighbouring European states, or is it an internal UK benchmark? Is that a fair representation, John?
Yes, precisely.
I have touched on some of the issues that face us in looking to the possible future of the industry. The industry in Chile, for example, has very much gone down the commodity route, with very high levels of production. Norway has done so to a certain extent. We have had contact with our counterparts in Norway. I discussed aquaculture with the Norwegian fisheries minister just last week. That is one of the critical areas that we need to take into account. We are aware that we in Scotland will probably have to go down a different route compared to Norway and Chile, but that question of going down the commodity route is one that the consultation and the strategy group will need to address.
We are coming to the end of a fairly lengthy session, but Margaret Ewing wishes to ask a question.
I have found this fascinating. I feel as if I have been at an evidence-taking session rather than at a decision-taking meeting. Given the variety of issues that have been raised, which, it seems, could well have been dealt with in the context of an inquiry, and if all those matters are to be examined, does the minister really believe that the time scale that she has set out is realistic for the implementation of a strategy for the aquaculture industry soon?
Yes.
I see that the two Alexes—Fergusson and Johnstone—have their jackets on, which indicates to me that we are rapidly reaching the end of this joint session with the Rural Development Committee. Unless there are any other pressing matters that members wish to raise, I think that we have had a fair crack of the whip with regard to the issues that we wanted to raise.
Thank you very much, convener, for your invitation to take part in this session. I and my fellow members of the Rural Development Committee will now withdraw from this meeting and will briefly discuss our conclusions separately in committee room 4.
I thank the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development and her officials for their attendance. We have had an enlightening session, and we will allow you now to make a swift exit.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
We will now discuss what we will do, based on the information that was given to us by the minister.
I ask members to make succinct and targeted comments. We have had a fairly long session, with a wide range of varied questions, and I think that we are in a position in which members can express their views clearly.
I do not think that the minister told us anything new. Everything that she said that the Scottish Executive is going to do, it has been doing already, with the exception of the large-scale consultation, which will take six to nine months to identify further issues. Much more could be achieved by the holding of a public inquiry and I think that we should continue to press for one.
I agree with that. It is clear that there are huge conflicts and uncertainties around this issue and that many aspects need to be balanced. The minister more or less said that it would be inappropriate to examine that situation further, but that she would co-operate fully with the committee if it decided to do so. I do not know what the point of that was; it seemed like an invitation to us to do all the work. I am not in a position to teach myself all the relevant science, much of which is specialist. People who have that specialism should be involved in the necessary inquiry.
We should not take on the responsibility for the inquiry; we should invite the Executive to reconsider its position and to do the work that is necessary. As Robin Harper has made clear, all the stakeholders—a favourite ministerial expression—in the industry, for various reasons, want the matter to be addressed and resolved once and for all. If we put that to the Executive again, it may reconsider its position and make a different decision.
It is important that the matters are addressed effectively. Conducting an inquiry jointly or on our own would be almost impossible, given our work load and the amount of expertise that we would have to acquire to conduct the inquiry properly.
We need to put down some markers on how information should be brought to us, and what task we want to be achieved. We need to ask the minister to ensure that the comprehensive portfolio of research that she said was incomplete is made complete so that, by the time that we consider aquaculture regulation in the context of the water environment bill, we are properly informed about the issues that relate to our environmental responsibilities. Equally, it is important that the consultative approach to aquaculture that the minister talked about is underpinned by appropriate research.
We need to say to the minister that she must ensure that comprehensive research is done. We need to indicate to her that we want to be in a position to consider the environmental regulation issues in a well-informed way. We also need to say that we want to be sure that the process that takes us towards the aquaculture strategy will be satisfactory in relation to the issues that have been raised and the interest groups that are involved.
I am in general agreement with what I am hearing. We need to keep up the pressure. Certain issues that were raised today have not been fully thought through by the Executive. In particular, the committee warned about potential conflict-of-interest difficulties arising from the merging of the environment and the rural development portfolios. This process makes that conflict of interest evident.
I remain concerned that the Executive will have to wear two hats in this process. Unless there is some sort of independent inquiry, or another process that is undertaken by the parliamentary committees, the problem will not go away and we will not be able to resolve the conflict that has built up over 30 years. Although I accept that we must keep up the pressure, I reserve my position on whether the parliamentary committee system can deal with the matter appropriately. I need to ask the convener whether, if we decide to continue to press for an independent inquiry, we will return for a final decision on whether the committees will undertake a parliamentary inquiry of their own. That will colour my judgment about which side of the line I fall on.
I was not a member of the committee when the decision was made to ask for an independent inquiry, so I do not know much about the background to that. I am concerned that there should not be polarisation of the debate, as that would not be helpful to the industry. I do not think that raking over the past is helpful either. The Executive is dealing with the issues.
However, clearly there are still issues on which we want to shadow the Executive. I do not know how that can best be done. I leave it to the convener to say whether, in his opinion, there is time for the committee to take even a very focused look at specific aspects of what the Executive is doing, perhaps in conjunction with its handling of the water environment bill. The important thing is that there should be a strategy for the industry.
I agree with many of the comments that members have made. It is clear that there are major issues relating to the fish farming industry that need to be addressed. Those issues are of concern to the people who manufacture the food, those who are involved in processing, those who are involved in angling, people with an interest in wild fisheries and the environmental organisations that have given us evidence in correspondence. I recognise that the Executive is examining all those issues, of which it has been aware for some time.
Given the constraints that exist on our time, because of other work that we are required to do in the second half of the year, it would not be practical for us at this time to conduct an inquiry into the matter. We should reiterate many of the key points to the Executive. It is essential that the work to which the minister referred is completed and is broadly shared. All relevant bodies should have an opportunity to feed into that process and we should urge the minister to develop a comprehensive aquaculture strategy, on which the committee would want to be consulted and which we would want to influence. That is the way forward.
The minister's responses indicated that the Executive recognises the importance of the matter and the need to make progress on it. We should re-emphasise that it is the committee's view that the issues that we have been discussing should be dealt with.
I am not in any great hurry to come to a conclusion. We should explore the matter as much as we can now—although not until 7 or 8 o'clock at night. I would like the minister to be asked one last time whether she will set up a full-scale public inquiry. Her answer will almost certainly be no.
I do not share Murray Tosh's reservations about our conducting a committee inquiry, in alliance with the Rural Development Committee. That would be the next most appropriate way forward. If we set up such an inquiry, with an adviser to help us, it would at least have some independence and that would help to allay public concern.
There must be an investigation of salmon farming, insofar as it relates to the water directives. We could ask to have that investigation started as soon as possible. We could begin taking evidence here and there, which we could upgrade with the help of an adviser. We should be able to have a combined inquiry that starts soon and is spread over as long a period of time as possible.
Our work on this matter must take place in the context of our consideration of the water environment bill. We know that that bill is coming and that it will be the appropriate context within which to examine the environmental issues. We do not need to take oral evidence at this stage, but it would be appropriate for us to identify the kind of written evidence that we may want to take. Perhaps we could have a dialogue with the Executive about the evidence that it is commissioning and the research gaps that exist. That would enable us to identify what research relevant to the environmental issues that the petition highlights needs to be available to us. There are ways in which we could undertake this exercise.
In the short term, we need clarification from the Executive on the environmental thresholds that it is operating and intends to operate in the future. I am talking about cleanliness of water or pollution indicators. When listening to the evidence that we were given, I was not clear about how the Government's current procedures for regulating spillages and nutrients in the water were being operated. We require information from SEPA and other relevant agencies to ensure that that matter is being taken care of properly. The main issue for us is how to plan our work in a sensible way.
Like other members, I would like us to have a sustainable fish farming industry up and down the west coast. I know the economic benefits that the industry brings to many of our rural communities, in which it is about the only source of employment. Fish farming is necessary in such places. It would be catastrophic if we were to lose that industry, but I fear that that will happen unless we conduct an in-depth inquiry. Currently, the other fishery interests are in daily conflict with the salmon farming industry. The two sides are polarised and have taken up entrenched positions, from which it will be difficult to move them. For that reason alone, the inquiry is merited.
I believe firmly that the parliamentary committees are not in a position to undertake the sort of detailed inquiry that is required. We should encourage the Executive or the Parliament to reconsider their previous position, with a view to initiating an independent inquiry into the aquaculture industry. At present, all that we have is a lot of comment and innuendo, which is doing nobody any good, particularly the fish farming industry. The sooner that the inquiry is undertaken and the position is clarified, the better that will be for all concerned. We need this industry and we must sustain it.
I will try to pull together the comments and, I hope, reflect what committee members think.
We will continue to press for a public inquiry. That is a given. I tried to indicate to the minister at the start of our questions that the committee still takes the view that there should be a public inquiry, accepting our limitations.
We need to reflect on the evidence that was given to us today. There are issues—such as the ministers' two hats—that were not addressed. Other issues that we need to reflect on will have arisen during today's hour and a half of evidence. My suggestion is that Shelagh McKinlay, I and others dissect what came out during the question-and-answer session and prepare for members a paper that not only indicates areas that were not covered, or to which we did not get responses that were of interest to us, but lays out—I have to be honest—realistic options for the way forward.
For instance, do we appoint a reporter to sit on the shoulder of the Executive to ensure that the research projects are undertaken, that we are constantly updated about their progress, that the work does not slip, that the projects are properly resourced, that they are properly and publicly accountable, and that those stakeholders who should give evidence to the Executive are given that access? The reporter would oversee the research process to satisfy the committee that what the Executive is doing is being done properly and in accordance with our view on the issues.
In addition, the salmon consolidation bill will come before the committee. There will be a degree of symmetry with the bill on some of the issues. We will need to deal with that as part of our consideration of the bill.
The door is not closed on whether we should pick up the issue and run with it. We continue to discuss our work plan. When any of those discussions take place, if members can make the case for the issue as a priority, we will do what we think is necessary.
We are all unhappy with what is going on. We all accept that there are issues that need to be addressed but which are not being addressed in the manner in which we would like them to be addressed. If that continues and the Executive retains its current view—which, as Robin Harper said, is likely—we need to revisit the issues to find out what changes have occurred since we started the process.
In summary, we should reflect on the evidence, bring to the committee a paper that gives realistic options for what we can do and sets out the other priorities—such as scrutiny of legislation—to which we have committed ourselves. We should also lay down a marker, as Murray Tosh rightly says, on the sharing of information on the aquaculture research that will play a role in the water environment bill. Perhaps we should consider the appointment of a reporter here and now to oversee what Rhona Brankin has just presented to us. I am not taking a view on whether we consider it satisfactory, but, as that is the way the world is, let us ensure that we are content that the process that the minister discussed is being rolled out correctly. At an early date, we should revisit the committee's opinions in the light of the options paper.
If we were to do anything more than that today, we would be making a hasty decision that we may repent of at our leisure, as the saying goes.
You have outlined a reasonable process, convener. Appointing a reporter, particularly as we are going into the recess, would be a good interim step. It would enable us to watch over what the Executive is doing and ensure that we are still alive to the issues.
I hope that, when the recess is over, we will decide what the committee will do to advance the issue and which of the options that will be presented we will take. It might be of most benefit to do that at the first meeting after the recess. The last thing that the industry or the environmental pressure groups want is a drift in the committee's decision making. They need a decision to be made once we have pressed the minister again—we cannot let the Executive off the hook. They need to know exactly when the committee will step forward and take concrete measures.
That is taken as read.
Bruce Crawford has made some of the points that I was going to make. We should agree to make our decision at the committee's next meeting after the recess.
I hesitate to give Shelagh McKinlay any more work than she has already, but it might speed things up a little bit if we could have a report on how to go about setting up a committee inquiry, how quickly we could set up such an inquiry and some ideas of how to implement an inquiry as expeditiously as possible. That would be useful to us at our next meeting.
That will probably be part of the options paper. I want to go into that level of detail in that paper, which would be issued over the summer recess in time for consideration at the committee's first meeting after the recess.
The only matter that is left sticking to the wall is whether we want to appoint a reporter today who will, over the summer, keep an eye on the initiatives that the Executive undertakes. I seek a volunteer from the committee for that role.
I see that Robin Harper is volunteering. Is anyone else interested in that role? Is the committee happy that Robin Harper be the reporter or do we want two reporters?
Considering that committee members have made holiday arrangements, it might be a good idea to have two reporters, if anybody else wants to volunteer.
I think that Maureen Macmillan is having an argument with herself about whether she should volunteer—she is already the reporter for the committee on CalMac.
She has also sorted out the pigeons.
She is becoming a—
A dream reporter.
A reporter extraordinaire.
I will be reporter until the next meeting, then we can decide whether we need a further reporter.
Bristow Muldoon is also interested in the role. We can afford to have a couple of members as reporters. I remain to be convinced about the amount of work that will be involved. The minister presented a lot to us today and the reporters' role will be to review what she told us. I am happy—if the committee is happy—that Bristow Muldoon and Robin Harper perform the reporting role for the committee over the summer. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of the public part of the meeting. I thank those members of the public who attended. I hope that they were not just sheltering from the rain, but that they enjoyed and were interested in some of today's proceedings. I appreciate their coming to the meeting and taking an interest in our work. That applies equally to the members of the press, who have just left us.
Meeting continued in private until 17:24.