Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Official Report 520KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

A83 (Rest and Be Thankful) (PE1540)

The next item of business is consideration of three new petitions. The committee agreed to hear from the petitioners in all three cases. The first new petition is PE1540, by Douglas Philand, on a permanent solution for the A83. Members have a note by the clerk and a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition.

I welcome Councillor Philand and his colleagues, Councillor Donald Kelly and Councillor John McAlpine, from Argyll First. Mike Russell MSP will stay for consideration of the petition, as he has a constituency interest. Jamie McGrigor MSP is also in attendance, as he, too, has a constituency interest in the petition.

I believe that Councillor Philand wants to make an opening statement.

I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to present the petition. I give special thanks to Michael Russell and Jamie McGrigor for their support today, which illustrates the level of cross-party support that we have among MSPs. We also have the support of our MP, Alan Reid, Argyll and Bute Council, our community councils and our business community. In effect, we are advocating on behalf of Argyll and Bute, although the petition is in my name. That is an important point to start off with.

It is equally important to point out the tremendous amount of work that the Scottish Government has done up to this point. There is absolutely no doubt that, when we lodged a previous petition two or three years ago, we would not have had as much attention focused on the A83 had it not been for the intervention of, initially, the Public Petitions Committee and then the Scottish Government. That must be recognised. The evidence that we are presenting to the committee is intended simply to point to the vulnerability of what has been agreed and put in place. Is it a permanent solution? We believe that it is not. That is what we will put forward in evidence and in answer to any questions that the committee may put to us.

There was a meeting of our task force on 14 January in relation to our most recent event, the landslide in October 2014, and a report was given back. Specific mention was made of the netting that was installed to protect the roadside. The notes of the meeting state that, according to Eddie Ross of BEAR Scotland,

“2500 tonnes of material came down the hillside”

and that he

“made reference to fence 4a being struck during that event.”

The notes go on to say that Eddie Ross

“indicated that the previous largest landslide was 1000 tonnes”

and that he

“confirmed that 1700 tonnes of material was caught by the fences, including boulders, ultimately saving the A83 carriageway structure.”

Eddie Ross then

“indicated that the fence was designed to withstand 1000 tonnes, so it successfully held more than anticipated.”

It is a poignant point that, although the fence was designed to withstand a landslide of 1,000 tonnes, we cannot predict the size of a landslide. Here we had a 2,500-tonne landslide and its effects.

There were other consequences arising from that particular incident. At that meeting, Michael Russell brought up the fact that the old military road had been flooded on two occasions, meaning that our contingency route was cut off and motorists had to make a 65-mile round trip to get into Argyll. Also, particularly if there has been a landslide at night, risk assessments have to be done, which takes time. That is totally understandable for safety reasons.

The problem is the unpredictability of the events. We hear that the nets can take a landslide of up to 1,000 tonnes, but we have a 2,500-tonne fall. What effects will that have, and what other sizeable landslides will there be? That is important factual evidence for the committee to hear. As I have said, we advocate the creation of a permanent solution. We believe that, despite all the hard effort and hard work that have been put in, the current solution is not a permanent one, and the evidence of that can be seen in some of the reports that we have had.

With your permission, convener, I ask Donald Kelly to give the committee some more information, after which we will, of course, be happy to take questions.

10:30  

To add to the points that my colleague Councillor Philand has made, I note that Argyll and Bute Council signed up to the single outcome agreement. As everyone in the room knows, we have suffered greatly from depopulation; the A83 is the main arterial route into Argyll and Bute, and the problems that we have had and which we continue to have with the Rest and Be Thankful are certainly putting businesses off from moving into the area, with all the uncertainty that they are creating. The regular flashing lights on the Rest and Be Thankful mean that, even if there has been no landslide, there is a pre-warning of one, which also leads to a lot of uncertainty. Every time it is wet, the lights seem to go on, and Transport Scotland widely distributes an email about the risk of landslide. Numerous businesses have been affected by all that. People—tourists, in particular, and even students at university—are being put off, feeling that the travel is just too onerous. For example, they find themselves unable to link up with buses or trains at the other end in Glasgow.

We came here with our previous petition in 2012. Although three of that petition’s component parts have been addressed, its key part was the establishment of a permanent solution for the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful. At the time, the committee agreed to take that forward. However, despite the various measures that have been put in place, we have had what is basically a piecemeal approach. Every time there is a landslide, more netting is put in place in that location to resolve things. What the community has referred to as a sticking-plaster approach has been going on for three years now. Our petition was signed by 10,000 people in Argyll and Bute, more than 400 businesses within and outwith the area, all the community councils, all the MSPs who represent the area, the MP, the chamber of commerce and so on, and those people are still looking for a permanent solution. The bottom line is: if this situation had occurred on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, something would have been done and it would have been resolved by now.

I feel very aggrieved in some respects. Although I take on board Councillor Philand’s comments about the money that has been spent, the report that was commissioned from Jacobs put various options on the table and obviously the cheapest option was the one that people went for. However, that is still causing problems. When I have asked at several task force meetings that the task force and the Government consider working up one of the other options to ensure that it is ready should a major landslide occur on the A83 that cuts us off, I have been told, “No. We’ll just continue with this approach for the moment.” Argyll First will continue to campaign until a proper solution to the problem has been put in place.

Do you want to add anything, Mr McAlpine?

Not at this point, convener. I am happy with what my colleagues have said—they have summed things up very well—and I welcome any questions that the committee might have.

Do members have any questions?

As you know, convener, I support the intention behind the petition, but I should point out that the most recent meeting of the task force was attended by the council’s deputy leader, Ellen Morton. She heard a presentation from the new minister, who accepted the principle of continuous access that I think we are talking about; moreover, in response to a point that I made, the task force agreed to meet earlier than July, which is when its next meeting was scheduled for, and to start the consideration of an alternative route that could be put in place. As a result, a lot of what the petitioners are arguing for is already happening.

Now that the council is fully represented on the task force, I wonder whether it is possible for it to use the task force in a way that I am conscious it has not been used up to now and to put forward the strong argument from the council’s perspective as well as the perspective of the elected MSPs and the community that the planning for the alternative route now needs to be put in place.

There is no agreement yet on what that alternative route should be. Some options, such as the tunnel, have been ruled out, but others, such as the forest road, the upgrading of the old military road, or a lid over the road—the Donald Clark option as it is known, because he writes letters to the papers about it every week—are still open. Would your group, as part of the administration of Argyll and Bute Council, start to use the A83 task force for that purpose?

Yes. It was unfortunate that, on that particular day, Donald Kelly and I could not make it, as the weather was particularly bad. However, we have attended regularly and we were represented on that occasion.

To answer Michael Russell’s question, there are avenues and possibilities to explore, which is what we are doing. We are using the democratic process and exercising our right to ask for the support of the committee, too. Even though the task force was in place, the committee was extremely effective in allowing us to move to where we are at.

The only point of difference is whether continued investment in mitigation, which is not yet finished, should take place before there is further planning for a permanent alternative route or whether the two things should proceed in parallel. Whatever position the committee chooses to take, I agree with Donald Kelly, Douglas Philand and John McAlpine that, although mitigation is necessary, it needs to happen at the same time as planning for an alternative route. That is the point of agreement and the most effective course of action.

Am I right in saying that, Douglas?

Yes.

I fully appreciate what Mr Russell is saying and I take his point on board. However, the bottom line is that, when we came to the committee three years ago, the committee agreed that a permanent solution would be the ultimate objective. After another three years of disruption in Argyll and Bute, we still have no permanent solution. The issue needs to be fast tracked. If we continue down this line, without pushing and pushing hard, we will get nowhere. I fully take on board what Mike Russell is saying, but we need to have an endgame. We need a timeline for how we will move forward because, if we do not have that, I fear that we will be in the same position in another 10 years’ time.

I apologise for arriving late.

To follow on from what Mike Russell said, I remember the previous petition, although I think that it had a long-running history before I joined the committee. I am slightly unsure as to what you are asking us to do. When I look at your current petition, it appears that you are asking us to urge the Scottish Government to find a permanent solution. I am sure that the committee would be happy to write to the Scottish Government encouraging it to do exactly that. However, as far as I can see, the petition is not asking us to become some arbiter as to what a permanent solution might be.

Some members of the committee might be slightly less familiar with the area. Like others, I have been on the road and have been diverted, so I understand the issue and I would be bereft if Jamie McGrigor and Mike Russell were prevented from arriving at Parliament because of some landslip on the road—I am sure that that would be a great loss to us all.

If you are asking us to find a solution, I am not sure that we are the ones to do that. As with the previous petition, we are very keen that a solution be found, because it is a problem of enormous longstanding. However, from the submissions that I have received, I am not clear about any more detail, other than, as Mike Russell rehearsed, the various outline options that have previously been advertised.

What exactly do you want the committee to do?

As far as I am concerned, we are back to square 1. We have come back to the very start of the petition. There has been an attempt to find a permanent solution, which, as the committee agreed three years ago, should be the ultimate goal, but that has failed. There is a piecemeal approach to landslides, which are adversely affecting the whole community of Argyll and Bute. There are also problems with the continuing work on the A82 so, if there is a problem with the A83, we are cut off completely.

I urge the committee to write directly to the Government and put a bit of pressure on it to take up one of the solutions that are already on the table, because it is not moving the matter forward at the moment. A couple of task force meetings back, when Keith Brown was the minister responsible, he said that the Government had done the red route as it calls it—that is, the work on netting the Rest and Be Thankful—and that that was as much as it would do at that moment. To me, that is not acceptable, because we are in the same situation as we were in when we first came to the Parliament to petition on the matter.

I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but I feel strongly about the matter. There is a lot of dismay in the wider Argyll community about how it is being moved forward. Closures adversely affect businesses, which affects jobs. They also affect tourism. I mentioned the single outcome agreement. We are trying to portray Argyll and Bute positively as open for business. Regardless of how much work is done elsewhere removing pinch points and on road surfaces, for example, the A83 is the arterial route and the matter needs to be addressed.

Convener, I do not want to pre-empt the discussion and I know that Jamie McGrigor would like to comment, too, but it seems to me that all that the committee can do at this stage is write to the Government and Transport Scotland and, perhaps, having considered what they have to say, take further evidence if that would assist in trying to move the matter forward. I am at a loss as to what we can usefully contribute beyond that at this point.

That is effective and would be very welcome, because you would be helping the residents of Argyll and Bute as a cross-party committee. You have taken the issue seriously but, as Donald Kelly says, we need to get to the end point, which is a permanent solution. Therefore, your support would certainly be welcome.

I am most grateful to have the opportunity to comment. I would like to make a short statement, if I may.

I support Councillors Kelly, Philand and McAlpine, as I did three years ago, and commend them for their continuing and impressive efforts to maintain pressure on the Scottish Government on this major strategic transport issue. I have been doing that myself.

The A83 trunk road is the arterial route into Argyll and Bute and the repeated closures of it because of numerous landslides at the Rest and Be Thankful leave much of the region cut off. Closures hit businesses throughout Argyll, inconvenience local residents and commuters and are bad for tourism. They also send out negative messages to all sorts of other visitors and people who would consider investing in the area.

In Argyll and Bute, we cannot afford for that to continue, not least because we face a real problem with trying to tackle predicted depopulation in the region, which was the subject of my members’ business debate in the Parliament only last month. A first-class road network is key to tackling depopulation. If anyone disagrees with that, let them speak now and say why they disagree.

The irony of the Rest and Be Thankful, as it is called, is that the rest is at the top, not halfway up, which is where people are getting stuck. That is not good enough.

We recognise that the Scottish Government has made some investment and we now have a relief road that can be used in emergencies under a convoy system in the event of landslides closing the Rest and Be Thankful. However, it sometimes takes hours to activate that and the convoy system is painfully slow and time consuming. Also, the A819 between Inveraray and Dalmally, which I know very well, is most unsuited to being a constant diversion, especially for heavy lorries.

We have a sticking-plaster solution, and the petitioners are entirely right to call for a permanent one. That might be a canopy, and we should look to the European continent, where countries have been able to use canopies or tunnels to protect vital road links in, for example, the French Alps. The Scottish Government could do worse than start by costing a canopy for the 400m section, which I believe has been referred to as the Donald Clark solution. Private estimates suggest that such a canopy might cost less than £5 million.

There is a strong feeling in Argyll and Bute that, if a trunk road in the central belt had encountered similar repeated problems, a permanent solution would have been found already.

Jackson Carlaw got to the nub of it when he asked what the petitioners are actually asking for. That point was put well by a 90-year-old constituent, a Mrs Valerie Cox, who lives near Lochgilphead. She handed me a card saying,

“Mend the rest and we’ll be thankful.”

I think that that is what the petitioners are asking the Scottish Government to do.

10:45  

Are there any further questions or statements?

I do not want to make a statement like Jamie McGrigor’s, but I want to ask about something. The petitioners mentioned the problems with the old military road and the flooding that has taken place. Has there been any discussion at the task force meetings about resolving the flooding issues? I know that it is not a permanent solution, but if there is a landslip and there is flooding on the old military road, what action is being taken apart from the 65-mile detour that people have to take to get into the region?

I remember the petition well from our original discussion, and I know that there were economic arguments as well as arguments about transport and the route. Jamie McGrigor alluded to those economic arguments and the issues for tourism and local businesses, and to the need for the community to be able to go about its business freely. If the alternative route is subject to flooding, what action is being taken to resolve that?

Michael Russell was at the previous meeting, so perhaps he could feed back on that.

Part of the old military road has been relaid to raise the surface of the road and to improve drainage on it, so it is hoped that the problem will not recur again, but sometimes these things happen. There was a particularly dreadful night when there was so much rain that the alternative route was flooded, but people are reasonably confident that that will not happen again.

For people who do not know, the old military road lies directly below the Rest and Be Thankful, so most of what comes to the Rest and Be Thankful ends up on the military road from time to time. Therefore, albeit it is a bypass road and it has worked in some shape or form, there are still problems with it.

I travelled the road quite frequently when I was a child because my grandmother came from that part of the world, so I am well acquainted with it. The issue for me is about trying to ensure that we get a permanent solution. The last time that a similar petition came to the committee, the committee was unanimous in its support to allow the petition to go forward. We thought at that time that there had been agreement with the Scottish Government and the task force to take it forward.

However, if a permanent solution has not been identified, clearly we need to apply pressure again, not only on the Scottish Government but on Argyll and Bute Council. As we said at the time, there has to be co-operation and joint working with Argyll and Bute Council to ensure that whatever solution is reached is worked out jointly and in co-operation. There are issues that Argyll and Bute Council has to take on board, too; the solution cannot all come from the Scottish Government side. There has to be co-operation from the council as well.

As there are no further questions, I ask the committee to decide what action it wishes to take on the petition.

I would like to follow up the proposal that I made earlier. We should write to the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland in the first instance to highlight the matters that have been raised and refer, of course, to the fact that this is a recurring petition—we have discussed the issue before. We could consider taking oral evidence at a later date on the back of whatever we hear.

When we write to the Scottish Government, should we urge it to look for a permanent solution and an associated costing?

We should remind the Government that we have previously urged it to do that, and that our understanding was that there was a consensus that that should happen. We are looking for an update from the Government on where it thinks that whole process has evolved to.

I agree completely with Jackson Carlaw on writing to the Scottish Government, but we should also ask it for an indication of the timeline that it is working towards for a permanent solution; it should not be open ended.

Perhaps the task force could meet more regularly to consider the solution to this issue. I am keen that the solution should be arrived at in partnership, not decided by either Transport Scotland or Argyll and Bute Council. The solution must work for the community and for everybody concerned.

In essence, three parties are involved: the Scottish Government, which has responsibility for the roads through Transport Scotland; Argyll and Bute Council, which is a key player and is involved in the task force; and the wider business community, which is represented on the task force. The timber transport group, the chambers of commerce, and a variety of others are represented. It would be useful for all three parties to hear from the committee and for us to ask for their views on the solution.

Jackson Carlaw makes a key point. I do not think that there is any longer any dispute about the need for additional capital to be spent on a permanent solution. However, there is no agreement on what that permanent solution should be. It is a variant of something in this major report but it could be a combination of two parts of it.

The other thing to do is to urge an early agreement on what that solution is, because of Donald Kelly’s point about investment in drawing up those plans. That can go ahead, even without capital having been identified. That is another key point: no capital has been identified for this but the Scottish Government should be persuaded to spend some money drawing up the detailed plans for the agreed option and to identify the capital while it is doing that. That is what I have argued at the task force meetings. That would be a useful step forward, in addition to Jackson Carlaw’s proposal.

Is everyone agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Councillor Kelly, Councillor Philand and Councillor McAlpine for attending. I suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes.

10:51 Meeting suspended.  

10:53 On resuming—  

---

Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Maximum Sentence) (PE1544)

The next petition is PE1544, by Olivia Robertson, on increasing the maximum sentence for convictions under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Members have the petition, a note by the clerk and a SPICe briefing. I welcome the petitioner, Olivia Robertson, to the meeting and invite her to give an opening statement on the petition, after which we will move to questions.

Good morning. I will begin by illustrating why I started this campaign. I am sure that you will all be aware of the social media site, Facebook. Being a user of the site, I have come across a number of disturbing videos of unimaginable animal abuse that have caused me great distress. The thing that really bothers me about those online videos is that the people who commit those heinous acts are proud of what they are doing. They see it as entertainment and something to show off to others. I have no doubt in my mind that they will have carried out that type of abuse on further animals after those videos were made.

Under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, the maximum sentence for dog fighting or causing an animal unnecessary suffering is 12 months’ imprisonment. Under the same act, there is a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment for cruel operations, mutilation or administering poison. I would like to draw attention to the logic of that. Putting an animal through a cruel operation, mutilating it and/or administering poison to it is still putting it through unnecessary suffering. What purpose is served by halving the sentence for applying the suffering in a different way?

On 10 February, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals publicly released statistics for sentences handed out by the Scottish courts for animal abuse cases. It has been stated that the statistics show that the number of animal cruelty cases is the highest on record.

The article revealed that there has been a 66 per cent increase in disqualification orders since 2010, with the number of orders rising from 38 to 63, 12 of which were for life. Fines have totalled £23,000 and there have been 35 community service orders. However, those figures barely reflect the extent of animal cruelty cases, as a total of approximately 78,000 cases of neglect, cruelty or abandonment have been attended by inspectors and animal rescue workers.

One of the most harrowing cases that the SSPCA dealt with last year—members might have heard about it—was one in which a man admitted to taking someone’s dog, tying the dog to a tree, covering him in lighter fluid and setting him alight. The man received only a nine-month prison sentence. Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn of the SSPCA said:

“The number of people banned from owning animals in Scotland is now at a record level and some of the cruelty we encounter is unimaginable. We rely on the public to be our eyes and ears and while it is reassuring that so many people are willing to stand up and speak out, the violence and abuse of animals we are dealing with is unacceptable. I have worked for the Society for 28 years but the cases reported to us continue to shock and disgust me. The incident involving the burned dog in Fife was particularly harrowing. It is disturbing that anyone could carry out such a barbaric, premeditated attack on a defenceless dog.”

Another article from the SSPCA reflects the leniency that is shown towards people who cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. The article outlines a case in which a man admitted to throwing a cat over his fence after he found the cat to be injured and held in his dog’s mouth. The man failed to do anything to provide treatment for the cat and caused further injury. The cat, which was found on the other side of the fence, had suffered hypothermia, shock and nerve damage, and it later passed away. The man received only a £300 fine.

Psychological studies have revealed that committing violence against animals is a symptom of deep mental disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals do not stop there—many move on to their fellow humans. Robert K Ressler of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States has developed profiles of serial killers. He states:

“Murderers ... very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids”.

A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found that all of them also exhibited high levels of aggression towards people. According to a New South Wales newspaper, a police study in Australia revealed that

“100 percent of sexual homicide offenders examined had a history of animal cruelty.”

To researchers, a fascination with cruelty to animals is a red flag in the backgrounds of serial killers and rapists. According to the FBI’s Ressler,

“These are the kids who never learned it’s wrong to poke out a puppy’s eyes.”

11:00  

Too often, people who are convicted under the 2006 act are perceived as getting away with murder. In today’s society, violence towards animals is on a par with violence towards humans, and it should not be accepted. It has a devastating effect on the family and the community. I experienced that at first hand last week, when my family cat was aggressively kicked and suffered a broken pelvis and lost the function of his bowels and urinary tract. We had to put him down last Wednesday. To put it bluntly, my family was absolutely heartbroken, and that was caused by a stupid, brutal and cruel act. I am sure that, if anything happens to the person who did it, he will receive a petty sentence, but our family cat is gone forever from our lives and we cannot bring him back. Nobody in our community should consider that to be an acceptable thing to do.

We are a nation of animal lovers, with approximately 22 million pets in the United Kingdom. Having a pet creates an emotional connection and bond, and losing anyone, whether it be a human or an animal, is difficult. Anyone who is responsible for that loss of life needs to be appropriately dealt with. The courts need to recognise the seriousness of the offence and the similarities between animals and vulnerable people. When someone causes suffering to an animal without much thought, what reassurance is there that they will not go on to abuse a child or vulnerable person who also may not have a voice or be able to defend themselves?

Australia has taken the lead in standing up against animal abuse, having raised the sentence to seven years’ imprisonment. That has sent an appropriate message that the offence is serious and will not be tolerated and that people will be held accountable for their actions. Violence is never acceptable, be it towards a human or an animal, and steps need to be taken to further protect the public from such violent and aggressive people.

The campaign is not just about raising the sentence; it is about preventing animal abuse from happening in the first instance. Therefore, the steps that I would like the Scottish Government to take are to amend the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to include a higher sentence in order to deter the crime and convey the seriousness of the offence; to create an automatic lifetime ban from owning animals for those who are convicted under the act; to promote better welfare education; to recognise the issues of psychological welfare for animal abusers and take steps to tackle that; and to recognise the effect that such crimes have on the greater community and that animal abusers are fully capable of continuing violence against children, vulnerable people and the general public.

Thank you for that presentation, Ms Robertson. Do members have any questions?

Are you aware of whether any members of the judiciary, who are involved in sentencing, or the Crown or procurators fiscal have expressed concern about the inadequacy of the sentencing powers?

I am not sure. There have been other campaigns to try to get the sentence increased, but I am not aware that the Crown has had any involvement. I suppose that if it had, the act would have been amended.

As there are no other questions, I ask the committee to decide what action it wishes to take on the petition. We have a note from the clerks that suggests possible actions.

I am happy that the petition has been brought before us, as it is some time since we looked at the legislation. The clerks have provided a useful table that is based on the answers to questions that were asked in 2010. It would be helpful to seek to get that brought up to date. Once we have that information, we should ask the Scottish Government for its views on the legislation and the success of its operation. I am not sure what its views will be on some of the recommendations that have been made, but it would be perfectly sensible for the committee to establish what view the Government takes of the success of the legislation and for us to consider the issue in that light.

I support Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion that we write to the Scottish Government. If we are looking for figures, would it be possible to get the Scottish Government to break down the figures according to the type of animals that were involved in the offences?

I am aware that a local farmer not far from where I live was banned for life from keeping livestock because of his cruelty to the livestock that he kept, but he can keep horses and ponies. The petitioner asked what is to stop someone who causes cruelty to one form of animal translating that into cruelty to others, such as horses and ponies.

We should ask the Scottish Government to break down the offences that are listed so that we can see whether they involve animal welfare in the wider sense as well as how they impact on domestic animals. The petitioner is concerned about the welfare of dogs, cats and other domestic animals, but some of the offences might incorporate much wider offences under the animal welfare legislation.

It would be appropriate to write to the Government, as we need some clarity on the matter. I am not aware of what common-law offences we would prosecute under in other scenarios, and there might be a gap in the law. It would be interesting to know.

It might also be worth while asking the SSPCA what it thinks, because there are still some issues with the legislation in relation not simply to sentencing powers but to what the SSPCA can do. From speaking to Mike Flynn, I know about the difficulties that it sometimes has in storing animals pending the outcome of a court case where the animal is not signed over. There are some broader issues that are not simply to do with the sentencing powers, and it might be worth while for the committee to hear from the SSPCA as well as from the Government on whether there should be a review in due course of not simply the level of penalties, but how the law operates in practice.

Do we agree that we will write to the Scottish Government to seek its views and to ask for a breakdown of the figures, and that we will also write to the SSPCA?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for your attendance, Ms Robertson.

Thank you for having me.

I will suspend the meeting briefly.

11:06 Meeting suspended.  

11:07 On resuming—  

---

Scottish Wild Salmon (PE1547)

The third new petition is PE1547, by Ian Gordon and the Salmon & Trout Association (Scotland), on conserving Scottish wild salmon. Members have a note by the clerk, an updated SPICe briefing, which has been placed on members’ desks, and the petition.

I welcome Andrew Graham-Stewart, director of the Salmon & Trout Association (Scotland). I invite him to speak to the petition for about five minutes, after which we will move to questions.

Good morning and thank you, convener. I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence this morning in support of our petition. Looking round the room, I think that many of you, like me, are old enough to remember when salmon were truly abundant. That was back in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, wild salmon was widely available in fishmongers, restaurants and so on. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

What has happened? As I am sure most people will know, each spring, young salmon that are about six inches long leave their rivers of origin and migrate to sea. In the 1960s and 1970s, for every 100 young salmon that migrated to sea, some 25 to 30 would in due course, after one, two or three years at sea, return to our coasts. Marine survival, as it is known, was then 25 to 30 per cent. In stark contrast, it is now less than 10 per cent. In the River Bush in Northern Ireland, which is probably the most closely monitored salmon river in the UK, marine survival has fallen to less than 3 per cent in the past two monitored years.

What has caused those declines? Changes in the environment, pollution, parasites—particularly parasites from fish farms on the west coast—predators, fisheries, bycatch and, probably most important of all, problems in young salmon finding food while they are at sea. The latter factor is probably due to climate change and, as I am sure most people will agree, climate change is here to stay. Despite what Lord Lawson might say, climate change is not going to be reversed; if anything, it is likely to get worse and the impacts that it is producing will get worse.

The result is, to quote from a Marine Scotland Science report of January 2015:

“The overall strength of the Scottish salmon stock (all populations combined) has declined markedly in the last fifty years due to increased mortality at sea”.

Coinciding with that decline has been a great reduction in the coastal salmon netting industry, which has acted as a “buffer”, as Marine Scotland Science puts it, allowing the number of salmon reaching their rivers of origin to remain reasonably healthy. Worryingly, however, we are now seeing significant falls in the numbers reaching key rivers. Marine Scotland Science closely monitors the North Esk river: a counter on the lower river counts all the returning adult fish as they come in from the sea. The five-year average from 2007 to 2011 of the upstream count was just over 14,000; the average for the three years from 2012 to 2014 was 9,300, which was a 35 per cent decline on the previous five-year average. I emphasise that that fact is slightly at odds with the impression given by the briefing that SPICe prepared.

We have now had three poor or very poor years in terms of salmon runs. Although the writing has been on the wall, the Scottish Government has been slow to react and reluctant to employ the powers that it has. However, in the past six months or so, there has been a sea change in the Scottish Government’s approach; indeed, there has been a willingness to address the problems, which we welcome. A year ago, the Scottish Government set up the wild fisheries review, which reported in September 2014 and tacitly spelled out the problems, recommending that any harvesting must be sustainable and that there should be no exploitation without a licence to kill.

I had a meeting at Marine Scotland in November 2014 with a senior civil servant who agreed that we do indeed have a problem. I am pleased to say that there is no longer a denial that there is a problem. The Scottish Government is now starting to take some remedial action. In recent months it rushed through a Scottish statutory instrument for the season that has just started to ensure that there should be no killing of any salmon before 1 April. That is a recognition that the earliest-running fish are the most depleted. However, we believe that that is somewhat unambitious because, on the basis of the 2013 catch figures, the number of salmon killed in Scotland before the end of March was just 200. If the ban on killing salmon was extended to the end of June, that would save 6,500, on the official figures.

In the Salmon & Trout Association Scotland’s response to the consultation on the measure, we urged ministers to give urgent consideration to introducing another order in time for the 2016 season to say that there should be no exploitation or killing of salmon before 1 July. We have re-emphasised that point in the petition.

The Scottish ministers are now consulting on a licence-to-kill system to be brought in for 2016. We support that, but believe that it should be allied to a presumption against any killing of salmon before 1 July. There is simply no surplus of early-running salmon to enable a crop to be taken.

The second part of our petition addresses the issue of mixed-stock fisheries, which are indiscriminate coastal fisheries for salmon that exploit salmon before they reach their rivers of origin. They are indiscriminate because we do not know whether the fish being caught are from river stocks where there is a sustainable surplus.

11:15  

The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization met in June 2014. Scotland is a member of NASCO, through its membership of the European Union, and all salmon-producing countries are members of this important conservation organisation, which meets for a week every summer. At the June 2014 meeting, Scotland was singled out for criticism, because of its failure to develop conservation limits for individual rivers in line with a NASCO agreement on the adoption of a precautionary approach.

Given that failure and the fact that it will take years to address it, Scotland should now, if it is to live up to its international obligations, move swiftly to end exploitation by mixed-stock fisheries. Regrettably, Scotland is moving in the other direction.

The net catch increased by 50 per cent in 2013 compared with 2012. In the past three years, several netting stations have been reopened, having been dormant for several years. That is contrary to basic conservation principles, particularly at a time of declining stocks.

Our petition, if enacted, will go a long way towards giving vital added protection to our declining wild salmon runs.

You have just mentioned that the net catches have increased significantly over the past year or so. There was a voluntary ban on the coastal netting of salmon in the spring. As you know, however, that voluntary ban by the netsmen has been lifted, unfortunately.

One solution to commercial coastal netting would be the commercial buy-out of the operators—the netsmen—through one-off compensation for the commercial netters. That would have a major impact on the numbers of wild salmon coming through. Are you aware of any costings that may have been made for the buy-out of coastal netting stations and of what the total accumulated costs could be?

The total accumulated costs would be in the low millions of pounds. There is no reluctance on the part of wild-fish interests to enter negotiations with the coastal netting operators, but the main coastal netting operators are refusing to negotiate. They say that they will not sell, whatever is proposed. We therefore have an impasse, and there is nothing that one can do if they will not come to the negotiating table.

That issue clearly has to be examined closely in the future.

We emphasise that there is absolutely no reluctance on the part of wild-fish conservation organisations to engage in a proper negotiation.

This is an area in which you have considerable specialist expertise, which I certainly do not have. You were talking about percentages and the supply being bountiful in the 1960s and 70s. Can you actually quantify it? I would be interested to know what the estimated fish population was then. What is it now? What do you think the trajectory will be? I want to get a picture in my own mind of the relative decline.

To estimate the numbers of a fish that goes thousands of miles out to sea and then returns is obviously not an exact science.

No—but if we are able to estimate a decline in percentage terms, you must have an idea.

Clearly, there must have been a population returning to Scotland of perhaps 10 million or so in the 60s and 70s. These are very rough figures. That allowed a very substantial netting catch of up to 500,000 salmon a year at times. It is clear that the number is possibly as low as 1 million now.

That is quite a dramatic picture.

Before we make a decision, we should look at the note by the clerk suggesting possible courses of action. Since the note was written, SPICe has updated its briefing to detail more current action that is being taken in this area. The Scottish Government consultation is running until the end of April and a further consultation on a draft wild fisheries bill is due before the end of this parliamentary session. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee is doing work on the wild fisheries review and is currently taking evidence on that. In those circumstances, I suggest that the petition be referred to that committee now. Do members agree?

I certainly agree with that, convener, given the urgency of the issue and the fact that the rural affairs committee is taking evidence from the wild fisheries review group—I think that the group is at tomorrow’s meeting. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee will then take further evidence from stakeholders and the environment minister. Given the urgency, as I say, we should refer the petition to that committee as soon as possible; it is an opportune moment for that committee to look at the petition.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Mr Graham-Stewart for attending.

I will add that my chairman is appearing before that committee next week.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

11:21 Meeting suspended.  

11:22 On resuming—