Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Official Report 537KB pdf

---

Public Petitions

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

The next item of business is consideration of two public petitions. Petition PE1236, by Jill Fotheringham, is on safety improvements to the A90 and A937. The petition was previously considered by the Public Petitions Committee, and the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. The Minister for Transport and the Islands has given us an update on the Laurencekirk junction and I direct members to the supporting papers. In light of what the minister has said to me, until we have the further information that the minister has volunteered to let the committee have, it is appropriate for me to suggest that the committee should allow the petition to remain open and consider it again once we have that information from the minister. Does anyone have any comments?

I agree. As Mike Rumbles said, the previous petition was closed in expectation of developments. Until we see things progress a bit further and get that extra information from the minister, it is important that we keep the petition open.

Does the committee agree that we will keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Protecting Wild Salmonids (PE1598)

PE1598 is by Guy Linley-Adams, on behalf of Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland. This is the committee’s first consideration of the petition. Members have a paper that provides details of consideration by the Public Petitions Committee. I invite comments from members; I will want to make a comment, so I remind members of my entry in the register of interests, as I am involved in wild fisheries.

The issue is important and we need to understand the Scottish Government’s position. A lot has gone on. We have got the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s position and those of various other people, but it is important that we know what the Scottish Government’s position is. I suggest that the next step is for us to ask for that and keep the petition open until we receive it.

Do all members support the view that we should write to ask the cabinet secretary for his opinion and further advice on the matter? In the meantime, the petition will remain open.

I have a quick question on a procedural issue. From reading the notes, I believe that SEPA identifies this as a matter of animal welfare rather than of the environment. What implications does that have for any other case that might come up? I am not talking just about salmon lice but, for example, puppy farming, which is an animal welfare issue rather than an environmental issue. Are we setting a precedent by acknowledging receipt of the petition?

There are two sides to the petition. Wild fish are being affected as well as the caged salmon, but the particular point is that the wild fish are being affected as a result of the farming of salmon.

Is that the default? Because the issue affects a wild animal, that is where we cross the line.

The cause of the problem lies within the committee’s remit. Aquaculture falls within the remit of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which is why the petition is before us. Are you happy with that?

Yes, that is fine.

Are we all agreed that we should write to the minister to ask for further information?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes today’s business. I would like to go into an informal private session to explain to members about the meetings that I had yesterday. It will take no more than five minutes.

Meeting closed at 12:22.