Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Official Report 430KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Wild Salmon and Sea Trout (Protection) (PE1336)

Item 6 is consideration of two petitions that have been referred by the Public Petitions Committee. We have a set of papers on the petitions. I will invite comments from members on each petition, but we will take one petition at a time, beginning with PE1336, which is on wild salmon and sea trout protection.

I have read the helpful note from the clerk on the petition, which sets forth several recommendations. It is open to the committee to come up with any other proposal, but I propose that we go along with the suggestion to note the petition and associated evidence and agreed to consider it as part of our consideration in due course of the aquaculture bill. It would make sense to do that in light of the fact that the legislation will shortly arrive on our doorstep.

I agree with that suggestion.

It seems sensible.

The aquaculture bill is likely to arrive in the late spring of next year, which is quite a distance away, but we can take evidence ahead of that. It is important that we get the people involved around a table and discuss the various views. There is Mark Pattinson, for example, who was involved in the successful reseeding of the River Carron, where trout and salmon are now much more plentiful, despite the fact that there are major fish farms there. There are people in the wild angling lobby and the fish farm lobby who have points of view, and there is the third element of the aquaculture bill.

I suggest that, ahead of the bill, we get people together round a table that is bigger than this one to explore the issues on the basis of the science. There has been much discussion in the fishing press and in many other places that is a bit like shouting from one hilltop to another. I think that it is our duty to try to bring people together so that we can discuss the issues in a civilised and scientifically based fashion.

That suggestion is fine, if we can find time to fit it in. If we are to have evidence, can we try our best to ensure that we have a geographical spread of witnesses that reflects the whole of the country? There may be specific issues for specific areas, so it would be good if we could guarantee a geographical spread of witnesses.

I agree with the convener’s and Graeme Dey’s suggestions. We should bring in the people the convener described to try to get a handle on the issues and to try to ensure that, whatever happens, it suits all.

It seems that the committee agrees with recommendation B in the papers. Do members agree to set up a round-table discussion?

I just want to make an observation. I hear what Graeme Dey is saying, but the conflict between wild salmon and trout, and aquaculture is specific to certain parts of the country. In my area, where we have salmon and trout fishing, there is not much aquaculture, so there is not really a problem. There is much more of a problem on the north and west coasts. It might be difficult to have a total geographical spread of witnesses in that regard.

Absolutely.

I have a very strong constituency interest in this subject, as some of the petitioners are the sort of people I know very well and they have strongly held views. I am sure that we can get people from different parts of Scotland to take part.

You mentioned the River Carron. Before I was an MSP, I had the pleasure of releasing some smolts in that river, so I know exactly what you are talking about. There are areas in the south of Scotland where we have aquaculture as well as some very—

There is not the same issue there.

There is still the potential. The Tweed Foundation is doing some good work. There are some freshwater trout farms, which might have an effect. I concur with Graeme Dey: we should make sure that we have a geographical spread of witnesses.

Indeed. We note that the south of Scotland is heavily represented on the committee and it would be unwise to exclude that area.

This is not as big an issue in the south. There are different issues there. I have problems in my constituency, but they are not related to salmon farming. There are different issues in different parts of the country.

With those provisos, we have agreed on recommendation B.

---

Inshore Fisheries (Management) (PE1386)

Petition PE1386 is on inshore fisheries management and relates directly to my constituency. Do members have a view about it?

Again, the note from the clerk is very helpful. I would be inclined to support recommendation B, whereby we write to obtain further information from the fisheries management and conservation group. We can consider the further information received on another date.

Thank you. It is essential that we get a clear idea of the management structures that Marine Scotland intends to put in place. At the moment, there are pilot schemes in the Clyde, on Shetland, on the Berwickshire coast and in the Sound of Mull. Those are aimed to be for a period of four or five years and include detailed proposals. The management of an area such as Loch Torridon is not part of that, but it will be in future. It will be helpful for us all, from various parts of the country, to understand how all that will be rolled out. We also have to understand how it relates to inshore fisheries groups and, because it is the first time I have heard about it, to the fisheries management and conservation group, which has been set up.

There seems to me to be a complex set of regulatory procedures, so it will be important for us to see how they interact. The people on inshore fisheries groups have a particular issue about catching, but there is a difference between fixed-gear creelers and trawlers.

We have a complex situation that extends beyond getting information from the fisheries management and conservation group. I suggest that we seek evidence from Marine Scotland and from whoever runs inshore fisheries groups as well as making sure that we understand the relationship of the fisheries management and conservation group with those existing bodies; otherwise, we will not be able to make progress. Once we get that information, I suggest that we decide how we take forward the petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. We can let the petitioners know what we have decided.