Official Report 168KB pdf
We move to consideration of petitions, which is item 3 on the agenda.
During the time that has been afforded to us to consider the petition, it has been decided, according to the SPICe paper, that additional resources of £3 million to £4 million are to be devoted to agri-environment schemes. I am content that the matter is being addressed.
I suspect that the real issue is resources. The evidence supported the petitioner's claim that resources were inadequate. It is not for us to know whether the NFUS considers that the terms of modulation are adequate and meet the call that is made in the petition.
We have been given to understand that the budget increases will include money for agri-environment schemes. It is difficult for us to do anything further with the petition while the situation is developing. Perhaps we should refer the petition back to the NFUS.
It could be said that the issues that are raised by the petition will, of necessity, form part of our consideration of the budget at stage 2, given that increased resources for agri-environment schemes are mentioned in the published papers. I suppose that it is up to the Rural Affairs Committee to investigate the nature of those increased resources and to identify whether they satisfy the demands that have been voiced by many people, including the NFUS in its petition.
I agree with Mike Rumbles. The concern that was raised in the petition has, to an extent, been addressed. We should note what the petition says and carry forward that concern for consideration as part of our inquiry into agriculture. The issue has been addressed for the time being and we should move on.
In light of what has been said, are members content to note the petition and to consider further the issue that it raises during our inquiry into agriculture in Scotland and our scrutiny of the Executive's budget?
The next petition is PE96 from Allan Berry; it relates to sea cage fish farming. The petition asks
I do not think that there is any doubt about that. I do not need to tell anyone here that the situation is quite serious, particularly on the west coast where there is a high incidence of caged salmon farming, which has extended over the years and created its own problems.
I support John Farquhar Munro's comments. No one would deny that our more remote communities have benefited economically from fish farming. However, for years there has been a heated and vigorous debate about the implications of fish farming for wild fish stocks and the environment, and accusations have flown back and forth.
I support the call for an inquiry. In addition to the environmental issues that are laid out in the petition, there are the broader economic issues that we considered in the report we are preparing. We require much more detailed and effective scientific evidence than we have received before we can decide whether to go down the route of fish farming.
I agree that an inquiry is required. There is a great deal of public concern on both sides of the argument. We should go into this with our eyes open and realise that we may not be able to reach a neatly packaged conclusion or point to a clear way forward. I suspect that, given the plethora of scientific and pseudo-scientific evidence that exists, we may need expert advice. Quite how we would ensure that that advice was not predisposed towards one side of the argument or the other I do not know, but that is not a reason for not going ahead. We are bound to encounter such difficulties in the process.
I agree with everything that everyone has said, including John Farquhar Munro. Having talked to people in the salmon farming industry, I know that they are pledged to coexistence and sustainability, but a review would certainly help to clear the air. The industry has grown in a short time from being quite small to being enormous. The effects on wild fish stock and the environment seem to have been problems of late and should be investigated, as there are all sorts of people who depend on the marine environment, especially on the west coast of Scotland.
I think that we all agree on the need to do something, but what windows do we have in our timetable?
I have discussed the matter with the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee. We agreed—and it is certainly my view—that the matter has been on the agenda queue for rather longer than it ought to have been, and that we must progress the matter as quickly as possible. However, during our discussion, a number of questions were raised about how an inquiry might be progressed and what the resource implications might be, for the cost of the inquiry and for clerking requirements.
I suggest that one of those reporters should be John Farquhar Munro, who has considerable constituency interests in the issue.
I suggest Richard Lochhead.
Would the committee be happy for John Farquhar Munro and Richard Lochhead to act as reporters?
I emphasise the urgency of the matter, which we must progress as quickly as possible. Are there any other comments?
I am quite happy to accept my appointment as reporter, but we will require some direction from the committee. You suggested that we would have support from the Transport and the Environment Committee.
That is right. The primary reason for appointing reporters today is that I fully expect the Transport and the Environment Committee to appoint two reporters as well. John Farquhar Munro and Richard Lochhead can work together with the reporters from that committee to develop a proposal that is agreeable to both committees as soon as possible.
I shall come back to the committee with a formal proposal for where and when that meeting should take place. It would be interesting for members to meet their Canadian counterparts.
I am sure that it would, but if one wants to take such meetings to a level above a simple exchange of polite conversation, one might want to identify specific topics on which work could be done so that the meeting is more productive. It would be sensible for us to form relationships with people from other parts of the world who have similar concerns, and Canada is an interesting example. However, we need someone to identify the topics that would allow us to get the greatest benefit from that exchange of views. The clerk could investigate that and prepare for us, a month in advance, an outline of the meeting and what we could expect to get out of it. The meeting should be organised, rather than just something that happens on the day.
That is fair comment and I will take that on board. If we are heavily involved in an investigation by the time of the December visit, that investigation may also throw up one or two issues that we would like to discuss with the visitors.
I have a question about the appointment of reporters, as I am anxious about the mechanics of how the work will be done. It is probably a good idea to appoint reporters at this stage to do a trawl of the areas that need to be identified, but I would be concerned if two members of the Rural Affairs Committee and two members of the Transport and the Environment Committee were carrying out an inquiry. That would be almost like setting up another committee to deal with the issue, which is probably not the most effective way to work.
The function of the reporters in this case is to consider the issues and report back to the committee on what the inquiry might consider, rather than to conduct the inquiry.
We may need to appoint an adviser. The task of the reporters and committee clerks might be to identify the terms of reference of a possible inquiry and the parameters within which we could progress that inquiry. We may still want to appoint lead members to carry the inquiry through, but I suspect that, considering the time scale and members' commitments, we may not want to leave work of that scale too much in MSPs' hands. The reporters should identify the task and what needs to be done, then map out with officials a way of ensuring that that is done properly. That way, we will get the kind of investigation we want.
From the paper that was presented to us I understood that Richard Lochhead and John Munro would be discussing the mechanisms and terms of reference for such an inquiry, before reporting back to us. Is that what is happening?
Yes.
Previous
Salmon Conservation Bill