Chamber and committees

What about the resourcing for that?

I think that the committee broadly agrees that revoking the Clyde cod SSI was the right thing to do. We saw that from all perspectives during the committee’s round-table meeting. It is important that there is something in place to protect Clyde cod. Ideally, there will be a new SSI early in the next parliamentary session that offers better protection measures. We need external scientists, such as those from the University of Strathclyde who came to the meeting, fishers and conservationists around the table, with the marine directorate, to find a workable solution.

From the letter that the cabinet secretary sent to the committee this week, we have learned that a science programme is under way, but it is my understanding that that does not include the academics from the University of Strathclyde, despite their having produced the most comprehensive research that we have on the condition of Clyde cod stocks. In light of that, I want to raise my deep concern about how meaningful the science programme will be. Without proper impartial science, it is unlikely that future protection measures will be effective.

Clyde cod is important because it is unique and because the Clyde could once again be a sustainable fishery, given the space to recover. To create a sustainable fishery, we need the Government to urgently review how it approaches science and to recognise the evidence from the scientists who attended our round-table meeting a few weeks ago. It is only with rigorous peer-reviewed science that we can begin to work out how to protect the Clyde cod and enable its recovery. The revocation of the SSI is important. It was a considerable effort on everybody’s behalf to raise with the Government the fact that what it was doing was not working, but we absolutely need the right people in the room for the next steps.

Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I remind members to ensure that their devices are on silent.

The first item on our agenda is stage 2 consideration of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, we are not able to take this item of business this morning. It came to our attention yesterday that beginning stage 2 today would have been in breach of rule 9.5.3A of the Parliament’s standing orders. Under the rule, the minimum period that must elapse between the day on which stage 1 is completed and the day on which stage 2 starts is 12 sitting days. Stage 1 finished on 19 February and there have only been seven sitting days since then. Do members agree to defer the item to our next meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item on our agenda is formal consideration of four negative instruments. Do any members have comments on any of the instruments?

Does the committee agree to invite the minister to return to the committee to help us to understand the SSI and the Government’s approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I apologise to all those involved for the short notice of the change to our business.

Does the committee agree that we do not wish to make any recommendations on the other three instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 09:31.

I want to confirm that you cannot respond to my question on whether you think that SEPA’s current regime for monitoring sea lice is satisfactory.

I want to continue the line of questioning about public confidence and transparency. My sense is that wild fish and farmed fish exist in two completely different systems. One belongs to nature and the other is under human care—or so I would like to think.

I feel that the committee is not getting the sense that we have transparency and confidence in the data. I get the point that the fish health inspectorate has enough data to do its job, but this is about public confidence. An Aquaculture Stewardship Council audit states that input mortality was high during the previous production cycle at Scotasay, but Salmon Scotland reported 0 per cent mortality. I am hearing from one side that the mortality is high, but then we get a 0 per cent figure. Something is missing, transparency wise, in the way in which things are reported. Do you dispute that, Mr Hadfield?

We have just had an extensive session on salmon farming. One of my concerns about the marine licensing SSI is that it is potentially premature. We are aware of an on-going appeals process in which SEPA is involved, and the SSI will expand its workload. I am concerned about how much resource SEPA has available to implement the changes. Although some who responded to the consultation said that they agree with the changes, the key concern that comes up in the responses is about whether SEPA has the capability and capacity. Given the appeals process that is tying up SEPA, I wonder whether the SSI has been laid a bit too soon.