Rural Affairs Committee, 26 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000

Official Report 168KB pdf

---

Salmon Conservation Bill

Item 2 is the proposed salmon conservation bill. The bill has not yet been lodged with the Scottish Parliament, but I believe that it will be soon. The paper from the senior assistant clerk outlines a possible programme for the stage 1 inquiry into the general principles of the bill. As requested, more information has been provided on the Executive's consultations.

The paper suggests that we take evidence on 31 October and report on 7 November. However, given that we also will be involved in the budget scrutiny and discussions with ministers on amnesic shellfish poisoning, it may be a good idea for us to extend the timetable slightly. Rather than take all the evidence on 31 October, we could take evidence on the bill on 7 November and still aim to agree a report for 14 November. That schedule would fit in with a request that we complete the report by the middle of November. Do members have any views on the paper and the suggested change to fit in with other pressures?

It would be sensible to take evidence on 7 November. I know that time is short. Until a recent meeting of the conveners group, I thought that we were allowed to visit outwith Edinburgh only once a year. That is no longer my understanding of the situation. I cannot think of anything better than for us to go outwith Edinburgh to take evidence on the proposed salmon conservation bill. I draw members' attention to the work of the Dee salmon fishery board in Banchory. It is a leader in conservation, and the committee would benefit greatly from taking evidence from it. It would be appropriate to move up to the north-east for one meeting. The Dee salmon fishery board has pioneered work on catch and release, bag limits, gender limits and close seasons. It has experience of the way in which the details of the proposed bill are to be implemented. We would benefit from that experience, and the board would welcome a visit by the Rural Affairs Committee—we would all benefit. It would be appropriate if other members felt the same way.

Had we come prepared to do so, I expect that each of us could have made an equally strong case for one of the many salmon rivers. We may have a problem if we go to only some areas to take evidence on an issue that affects the whole of rural Scotland.

Salmon fishing issues are not uniform throughout Scotland. If we feel that it is important to go out and have a look, we could split into smaller groups and visit the four corners of Scotland—north-east, south-west, south-east and north-west. There would be more value in that than in visiting one area, because results are not uniform throughout Scotland.

If committee meetings are to be held on the same days as they currently are, I would face a difficulty, as I suspect other members would, because I have another committee meeting to attend on Tuesdays. Normally I am sympathetic to the approach that Mike Rumbles is suggesting of going out to speak to people. However, not only is there a lot of variation across Scotland, but my understanding is that the bill is a matter of great urgency and is to be dealt with as speedily as possible. It is important that we are seen to tackle the issue as quickly as possible and put in place some mechanisms to tackle the problems that have been identified. The greatest pressure on us is to deal with this matter as fast as we can. We should disentangle what Mike Rumbles has suggested. There is an argument for going out to look at salmon and fish-farming issues in Scotland, but the greatest pressure on us is to get the matter sorted.

I would be prepared to support Mike Rumbles's suggestion that we visit one of the east coast salmon rivers. I have no great objection to that but, if it were approved, I would have to suggest that there is a distinction between the east and the west. I do not need to tell anybody here that the wild salmon and sea trout stocks on the west coast have been almost eliminated. If we agree to seek information on east coast rivers, we would need to consider a west coast river.

The shellfish ban stretches from St George's channel up to the north coast. There is little incidence of shellfish poisoning on the east coast, and there must be good reasons for that. There are distinct differences between the situations on the east and west coasts, and we would need to compare the two.

It is an excellent idea for the committee to meet outwith Edinburgh as soon as possible to discuss our investigations. However, is Mike Rumbles suggesting that we meet as a committee or just visit to take evidence?

I would like the committee to meet en bloc outwith Edinburgh to send a message to rural Scotland, but I understand people's reservations in relation to time and the difficulties that would be associated with going to just one area. If we had more time, we could visit more than one area, but I understand why that would be difficult. I am happy to accept Alex Fergusson's suggestion that we split into two or three groups, in which members can go off to take evidence. I am suggesting not that we have a full, formal committee meeting, but that we take evidence from two or three areas.

I acknowledge what Mike Rumbles says: we are not talking about a meeting of the whole Rural Affairs Committee, but we cannot conduct this investigation without visiting a couple of salmon rivers to find out what is happening on the ground. During the summer recess, I made a productive and useful visit to the Dee with the freshwater fisheries department. A similar visit for this committee could be invaluable.

I take on board Mike's suggestion about Banchory; however, a third of committee members already represent that area and live within a few miles of it. If we were to visit the east coast, I would prefer the committee to visit the Tay or the Tweed. We should also visit the west coast.

We are putting the cart before the horse. I am going to visit the West Galloway Fisheries Trust on Friday. We are taking further oral evidence to supplement the written evidence that has been gathered, and we should be thinking about whom we need to take evidence from to answer our queries or to address the main issues. We should do that as quickly as possible, given the urgency of the bill. Although we have not yet decided from whom we need to take evidence, we are talking about where we should go—we seem to be approaching this the wrong way round.

I agree with what Alasdair Morgan has said. We are losing sight of the fact that this is enabling legislation. We can look at what people are doing, but that is not part of the enabling legislation. I suggest that, as Des McNulty said, we deal with this as quickly as possible, as it is important to have the legislation in place. Perhaps next year we can conduct an inquiry into best practice for wild fish conservation. That would be about not the enabling legislation itself, but what people would do after the enabling legislation had been passed.

I agree with everything that Alasdair Morgan said but his conclusion. In examining enabling legislation that allows conservation measures to be taken, we must identify whom we should visit and what constitutes best practice. My attention has been drawn to the Dee salmon fishery board, which is in the vanguard of organisations that take progressive measures in conservation. That is one suggestion of a body that we should consult.

We are in the second year of this Parliament, and we have undertaken only one trip outwith Edinburgh—although it was an extensive and worthwhile trip. It would send the wrong message if we sat here in Edinburgh scrutinising the legislation that comes before us and inviting people to come here to give oral evidence, without being prepared to go out to take oral evidence in situ, which would not delay the introduction of the bill. We may want to go to more than one place. If we could establish what is best practice and what the effects of the bill would be, we would be able to draft a better bill. That is my motivation in suggesting such a visit.

As you know, I am not a member of this committee. However, I have a suggestion. The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, which covers all the boards in Scotland, always holds its annual general meetings at Battleby near Perth. That might be a good place to secure a representation from all fishery boards, instead of just a specific board.

We have now had a series of suggestions and members seem to feel the need to meet representatives of fishing interests in their area. However, I suspect that most committee members believe that it would be inappropriate to have a full, formal committee meeting. There is definitely an interest in ensuring that representation is spread evenly across Scotland and I get the impression that there are north-east, south-east and west of Scotland interests.

As we will be taking evidence on a bill, we need to meet formally, with the official report present, so that we can produce a report for Parliament. Members have made worthwhile suggestions, but perhaps we should pursue those in an inquiry later in the year.

We will not meet as a committee outwith Edinburgh; we will simply visit a salmon river, which makes sense if we are taking evidence on a salmon conservation bill. It might be helpful for us to go to a salmon river, speak to the scientists and river managers and familiarise ourselves with the issues, instead of sitting in Edinburgh and asking witnesses to come here.

I wonder whether we need to divide the committee into three groups to visit three separate sites such as the Dee, the Tweed and a river in the west.

The west coast has quite a number of fishery organisations, the biggest of which in the Highlands is the Ness fishery. As that fishery still addresses the fishery interests of the east coast, we will have to travel to the north-west or perhaps down into Mr McGrigor's territory in Argyllshire. Do you have a fishery board in that area?

We have the Awe district salmon fishery board, Lochaber district salmon fishery board in the north and plenty in the west of Sutherland.

To try to bring this part of the meeting to a close, I suggest that we agree on a familiarisation visit, during which we could take evidence, and that we pick one location on the east coast and one on the west coast. Members could choose to visit either location. Perhaps the clerk could e-mail us a couple of options for both sides of the country.

We must move quickly to ensure that there is adequate time for the visits, which—to allow us to deal with any information that we gather—should take place before we take evidence. Should we try to fit the visits in during the recess, or will they have to take place after?

I thought that, instead of simply having a familiarisation visit, we could take formal evidence without needing to meet formally as a committee.

The official report needs to be present if we are to take formal evidence. However, the information that we gather during the visits can be fed back in as evidence at a later formal committee meeting.

Richard Lochhead suggested that we appoint three reporters to investigate specific issues surrounding the potential visits. As John Farquhar Munro and Mike Rumbles have been particularly keen on organising such issues, would they like to act as reporters?

Members indicated agreement.

Perhaps we can combine the visit to the West Galloway Fisheries Trust with some investigation into the issue.

Yes; we could treat that visit as an investigation.

I could feed in some of the information that I received on my recent visit to Lochaber district salmon fishery board, which is undertaking scientific research. I think that most members have visited their district salmon fishery board.

That represents fair coverage of the country.

Would you like to be appointed as a reporter?

I do not see that that will make a difference to what I do. However, I accept, if it keeps you happy.

Frankly, I am not terribly happy with the way that the committee is handling the issue. We are only paying lip service. That is not what I suggested in the beginning.

I take Mike Rumbles's point about the Rural Affairs Committee going out into rural Scotland, but I am not happy to do so at this stage without examining the responses from different areas to find out whether we have a representative cross-sample. Individual members bidding for particular rivers that they happen to know is not an objective way of taking evidence.

For the forthcoming land reform bill, we familiarised ourselves with the issue by speaking to people, then fed reports back to committee. Why cannot we take a similar line with this subject?

Would it be appropriate to appoint reporters, and ask them to arrange visits and to pass the information that they gather back to the committee so that we can formalise arrangements for a subsequent meeting?

We must decide from whom to take oral evidence. Mike Rumbles and others have pointed out that, in taking such evidence, it might be appropriate to ensure that we get a reasonable spread of experience from different parts of Scotland. I presume that the committee accepts that suggestion. If we ask any organisations from the north-east, north-west and south of Scotland to Edinburgh to give oral evidence, it might also be helpful for two or three committee members to visit the area and be given an information briefing as part of the process of taking evidence. That might satisfy Mike Rumbles that we are addressing the matter systematically and the committee that we are doing things in an organised and coherent way.

I back Des McNulty's comments. We could ask the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards to organise a trip to a venue where it thinks that we will most benefit. However, it is important that we turn up as a committee.

Do members agree to make a formal approach on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I want to declare an interest. When I mentioned the Awe district salmon fishery board, I should have said that I sit on it.

Richard Davies's paper suggests that we make a supplementary call for evidence to ensure that organisations and individuals who have responded previously to the SERAD consultation can respond at this point. We will draw to the attention of those who wish to submit evidence the fact that they will be able to comment on the bill as published.

When we write to those organisations, it is suggested that we mention that we would like to take oral evidence on a specific date and that we ask them to indicate their availability for that date. That would allow us to accelerate the process by organising the oral evidence session on a shorter time scale than usual.

As members have no other comments or questions about the paper, would it be appropriate for us to proceed roughly in accordance with the proposals that are set out in the paper? There will be an additional provision: we will contact the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards.

Members indicated agreement.

The paper mentions 31 October as the date on which we will hear oral evidence. It is suggested that we might have to allow that date to slip back to 7 November, to accommodate other items on 31 October. We plan to have a stage 1 report prepared for approval by 14 November; that is in accordance with the time scale that will be required to pass the bill.

Do members agree with that process for dealing with the proposed salmon conservation bill?

Members indicated agreement.