Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Official Report 445KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Decision on Taking Business in Private
- Subordinate Legislation
- Common Agricultural Policy Implementation (Application Process)
- Petitions
Petitions
Scottish Wild Salmon (PE1547)
The next item is petition PE1547, from Ian Gordon and the Salmon and Trout Association, on the conservation of Scottish wild salmon. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that no Atlantic salmon are killed before 1 July and to end coastal netting of mixed-stock fisheries.
The committee has heard back from the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform following its decision to write to her on the petition as part of the wild fisheries review. We also have a response from the petitioner on the correspondence.
I refer members to the paper and invite their comments.
I have considerable sympathy with the first part of the petition, which talks about a ban up to a certain date in the year for a five-year period. However, the second part of the petition, which focuses on one sector, is unfair.
The minister has made it fairly clear that she intends to go ahead with her consultation. I think that the committee agreed with that. It might have to be quicker than had been talked about, but it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the matter until the consultation is over.
One thing is clear: if there is to be any reduction in or suspension of take, it will have to apply to all the sectors and not just one. It is unreasonable to expect one sector to take all the pain. If that comes back as an issue after the consultation—as it will do—major change will have to take place for everybody who is involved in taking salmon.
I agree with Mike Russell. We have to let the consultation take its course and consider the matter after that.
There is an associated issue on which we perhaps need to get a bit more information. Recently, I saw some information about the number of salmon that are being taken by seals. It is a phenomenal amount and it looks like more scientific evidence is becoming available on that. Perhaps we need to get more information and do a little bit of work on the impact of seals on salmon stocks because there is no point in doing anything about netsmen and anglers if huge amounts of salmon are disappearing in the high seas and round the coasts because of the seals.
I make it clear that I am not taking a position on that, but I would like more information on the latest science.
Those points are well made. If we need more information, that will lead us to a certain conclusion at the end of the discussion.
The sustainable harvest of wild salmon is extremely important. Other committee members, including the convener, have made that point in the past and might well do so again.
The petition is something of a blunt instrument in that it has a certain date on it up to which there should be no killing of salmon. The catch-and-release process has functioned much better, but I agree with members that all sectors should take the pain, and pain there will indeed be.
When we heard from the minister on the wild fisheries review, I had concerns about the scientific research, and her letter about the petition highlights the concerns about science. I want to be sure that there is robust scientific evidence on which the Scottish Government can make future decisions about the way forward.
11:15
The point about the science is well made. To follow on from Dave Thompson’s point, we also need to be as assured as we can be about the impact of climate change on the migratory patterns of salmon and how that is impacting on the situation. Gathering the most robust and reliable scientific evidence from all sides is imperative.
I am concerned about the one-sidedness of the petitioner’s view, because doing what he seeks is impossible without having reached scientific conclusions. His written submission to the committee states:
“Mixed Stock Fisheries cannot be deemed ‘sustainable’ unless one can be certain that all the salmon killed in such fisheries are destined for rivers which have sustainable surpluses.”
That is not correct, and it is not clear and balanced. Working out a sustainable harvest will be done on the basis of the stocks of salmon. It is a migratory species and the stocks will have to be measured in several different ways.
The sentence that I quoted just does not grab the reality; it is a partial view. I do not think that the committee would like to take the petition forward on that basis. From what I hear from members, I think that we need to get scientific information. The Scottish Parliament information centre could provide us with some background, but we are looking to the Government’s review to include scientific information. Whatever we say on the petition, we should convey to the Government that we need scientific information to clarify what a sustainable harvest actually is.
At this point, the petition should remain open, as the salmon stocks situation is inconclusive and we have more questions on it. For example, as Dave Thompson said, we need scientific information about the impact of seals on salmon stocks. Such questions need to be answered, so I suggest that we keep the petition open until we get answers to our questions. We can speak to the petitioner in due course, which could be once we have the outcome of the review, or whatever. However, it will be helpful for us to suggest to the minister what we need to know about, which can be fed into the review. Is that fair enough?
That suggestion is sensible and I agree with it. The review will give us crucial scientific information. We should also wait for the forthcoming secondary legislation and consider the points in the petition when we get that legislation. However, we would like it as soon as possible so that we can get on with addressing the issue.
That point is well made and adds to what I said. We need to find out more before we make a decision on the petition, so we will let the Government know our view and will keep the petition open. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Dairy Farmers (Human Rights) (PE1542)
The next item is to consider correspondence from the Public Petitions Committee on PE1542, on human rights for dairy farmers. I refer members to the paper on the petition and invite comments on it.
As the constituency MSP for Argyll and Bute, I have worked with the Mundells. My view, which I believe is the same view as that of both my predecessors as MSP for Argyll and Bute, is that this distressing matter can be dealt with only in the courts. There was a democratic decision by the farmers in Kintyre to have the ring fence, and the only way in which that could be declared to be illegal would be to have a judicial review of the decision. The decision on the ring fence was taken a long time ago by a Tory Government and it was supported in the Argyll and Bute area and across Scotland. I do not believe that any benefit would come from undertaking further activity on the petition, which is the petitioner’s second or third petition on the issue. It has to be a matter for the courts and a judicial review. That advice has been given to the Mundells by a number of people, including me.
As a member of the Public Petitions Committee, I have made clear my views on the petition, which are on record in the Official Report. It is worth noting David Stewart MSP’s comment in the Official Report that the petitioners have contacted “more than 50 lawyers” to no avail, because there has been no satisfactory outcome for the petitioners. It is also worth putting on the record again that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has advised the Public Petitions Committee that only a court could rule on the issue of the petition. We should take that point on board. Given that we are where we are with the petition’s situation, I think that we should write to the Public Petitions Committee advising that the petition be closed.
I have followed the concerns of the Mundells over the issue through the pages of The Scottish Farmer for many years. I feel very sorry for them, because it has clearly become a burning issue. However, I want to put on the record the fact that, as Mike Russell said, the whole situation is the result of a democratic decision that was taken and one cannot do anything about that. As Angus MacDonald has just said, it is widely recognised that the only resolution can be through the courts—if there is a resolution, which I suspect there is not. For the record, I therefore endorse the proposed action on the petition.
I get the impression that we should write to the Public Petitions Committee and inform it of our views on the petition, and that we should leave it to that committee to convey our views to the petitioner. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
For the next meeting of the committee, we will be in Kirkwall grammar school in Orkney to begin pre-legislative scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s proposals on land reform. Like all committee meetings, that will be a public event, and tickets for it can be obtained via the Parliament’s website.
As agreed earlier, we will now move into private session for item 8, which is to consider evidence heard this morning. I close the public part of the meeting and ask for the public gallery to be cleared.
11:22 Meeting continued in private until 11:37.