Chamber and committees

I will let Tavish Scott in, if he can be brief.

Our next item of business is an evidence session on the draft delivery plan to accompany the Scottish Government’s new biodiversity strategy. The committee is continuing work that it started last autumn, when it took evidence on the draft strategy. It was clear that the practical delivery of the strategy was going to be crucial, and this session is about the new draft plan. Today, we have a panel of experts on marine biodiversity to share their views on the draft. We will discuss the terrestrial aspects of the plan early in the new year.

This morning, I am pleased to welcome Dr Clare Cavers, senior projects manager at Fidra; Calum Duncan, head of conservation, Scotland, at the Marine Conservation Society; Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation—gosh, that proved a bit difficult to say—Tavish Scott, chief executive of Salmon Scotland; and Phil Taylor, head of policy and operations at the Open Seas Trust. Vicki Paxton, partnership manager for Moray Firth Coastal Partnership, was going to participate remotely, but she is, unfortunately, unwell and so is unable to join us. Thank you to those who are here. We have just over 90 minutes for the session.

Before we move to questions, I will declare an interest, which I always do when we discuss salmon in any shape or form. So that the committee and the panel are aware, I am the joint owner of a wild salmon fishery on the east coast of Scotland. That wild salmon fishery generates income and employment in the local economy and, to my mind, is not affected by aquaculture on the west coast of Scotland, because the salmon that migrate from the river that I am involved with do not move through that aquaculture zone. For clarity, I take the importance of wild salmon to heart. This morning, I was concerned to see that wild salmon is on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that I have an interest. I am and have been passionate about the subject for about 40-odd years, so I am not going to change.

On that note, we will move to questions. I will put the first question to each of you in turn, so you will all have a chance to answer it. I have read your submissions to the committee. I do not think that anyone universally supports the way in which the delivery plan is going forward. Some people think that it does not go far enough and some think that it goes too far as it is. I will start with you, Clare. I am not giving you a platform of an hour and a half, but you can take a couple of minutes to say why it is either good or bad. I will come to each of you in turn.

I do not want to stop you going through all of the points, but everyone on the panel is thinking, “Oh, she’s stealing all my points”.

I will move on but, before I do, may I say that my manners left me briefly at the beginning of the meeting, for which I apologise. I should have welcomed Finlay Carson, convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, and Rhoda Grant, both of whom have joined us and will get a chance to ask questions at the end. Sorry to cut you off, Clare. I move now to Calum Duncan.

Tavish Scott wants to explain why the industry will not invest in a five-year plan. Or will it?

If any witnesses think that we have missed out particular things in the plan, it would help if they commented on that. I will ignore Calum Duncan now, because I need to go to the next member, but if you have additional stuff that you would like to see, please come back to us. The next question will come from Mark Ruskell.

You can keep your answer to this one brief, then. [Laughter.]

Mark, we are quite tight for time, and I would like to give Finlay Carson and Rhoda Grant two questions each but not to every member of the panel. That is just to be clear, Mr Carson.

Okay. I am afraid that we are at our time limit, Rhoda.

I will ask a final question, which will require a yes or no answer and one sentence. You will all get a chance to answer it.

My problem is that what I have heard this morning is that there needs to be a balance between nature, environment and jobs, and that is absolutely critical. However, we have some dichotomies. For example, are there unseen effects on other species from electro-fishing for razor clams? Do we know what that truly means? Is there habitat destruction from dredging, and is a huge length of time required to recover from that?

I am not going to pass comment on aquaculture, except to say that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee report was apposite in 2018 and it remains apposite today. However, there are potential conflicts there between wild salmon and other crustaceans.

When it comes to renewables, that balance may affect demersal fisheries, and it may affect the chopping up of seabirds that are suffering from avian flu. Should we be taking steps to stop the sand eel fishery and ensure that seabirds have enough food? What damage is plastic waste doing to our flora and fauna?

We all want to be good neighbours, but we are all competing for the same space. Is it possible to be good neighbours and to develop everything that the Government wants—yes or no? What is the one thing that each of you needs to do to make sure that that happens?

Does Tavish Scott want to start off on that?

Good morning, and welcome to the 36th meeting in 2023 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

The first item on the agenda is to consider whether to take items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Item 3 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today on the biodiversity delivery plan, item 4 is consideration of the list of candidates for appointment to the role of committee adviser, and item 5 is consideration of the list of recommended candidates for appointment to the Scottish Land Commission. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Does Bob Doris have any further questions?