Official Report 595KB pdf
Salmon Farms (Closed Containment) (PE1715)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of petition PE1715. I declare an interest in a wild salmon fishery. Although that does not directly relate to the petition, some people might feel that there is a link.
PE1715, which was lodged by Mark Carter on behalf of Marine Concern, is on the closed containment of salmon farms in Scotland. The committee is invited to consider what it wishes to do with the petition. I remind the committee that we considered the issue as part of our research on the aquaculture industry.
I acknowledge the representations that we have received in respect of the petition. The Public Petitions Committee has considered the petition, and the Scottish Government’s response referred to on-going work by the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. I would like to hear from it about its particular views on the issue and, indeed, from the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation. I am sure that other interested parties that are listening could contribute as well. It is important that we keep the petition open and seek the views of those organisations.
I agree with the points that John Finnie has made. I have had the benefit of being on the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and this committee. I do not see any evidence for the petition, but I am quite happy for letters to be written and to await further discussion.
I thank the petitioner for keeping this important issue on the committee’s table. It is fair to say that the committee has done a substantial amount of work on the issue and that it put a lot of time and effort into the aquaculture report. However, that was a year ago. I know that we had a recent update from the cabinet secretary earlier in November. Although people might have views on, and agree or disagree with, the petition’s premise, it has been a very helpful way of ensuring that the matter is still in the public domain and that the committee’s report is still valid and still has substance and importance.
I suggest that we engage with any stakeholders who have a view on the content of the petition and would like to comment on it. It would be very interesting to hear their responses and, indeed, the Government’s view on them in due course, if that is appropriate. We could take a view from there, again parking aside any individual views on the matter. That would be helpful and respectful to the petitioner.
I support what John Finnie has proposed as a way forward for the committee. However, in looking at the wording in front of us, I think that it would take a very powerful argument to persuade me to accept the petition. Let me explain why. It includes the wording
“solely utilises a closed-containment method”.
That is a fundamental problem, which I have difficulty with. Even more than that, it talks about
“a closed-containment method with full water filtering in Scottish waters.”
The meaning of that is slightly ambiguous, but it appears to suggest that the salmon fishing industry must remain offshore, whereas I know that there are trout farms, for example, that operate onshore. I would not want the petition to make it difficult to have onshore farms, if that is the appropriate solution to certain problems. I therefore have some difficulties with the wording of the petition.
I think that we should be informed by what is going on, and the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre’s work is a clear and obvious place from which we should solicit information before coming to a conclusion.
Like my colleague Mr Lyle, I was on both the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee a while back, but I was not on them when the salmon inquiry was conducted. I would like to see further information, and I am interested in what the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre has to say and in further evidence on the subject.
I, too, have the benefit of having been on both committees, and I was previously deputy convener of the Public Petitions Committee, so I have followed the petition since it came before the Parliament. It is clear that the jury is still out on whether the technology exists to make closed containment economically viable, so I support John Finnie’s suggested course of action. I support seeking the views of the SAIC, and we should also seek the views of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation regarding the commercial viability of closed containment.
I think that the petition is quite clear, whether you agree with it or not. I was not going to say much, but I am somewhat confused by Stewart Stevenson’s contribution, which has muddied the waters for me. I think that it would be helpful to find out more information about the matter.
I agree with John Finnie’s proposal. When we carried out our inquiry, we took a lot of evidence from people who were strongly in support of closed containment systems, but there were also people who gave evidence who questioned their current viability—although viability changes over time. It would be good to examine the issue and see whether there has been any change since we carried out our inquiry and did our report.
I basically agree with John Finnie’s suggestion. We should look at the most recent evidence on closed containment—it is right and proper to do so. I, too, have serious doubts about whether the technology is up and running to the extent that it could be viable in future. However, let us look at the evidence and not close our minds. I am content to do that and to leave the petition open at this time.
I agree with the majority that we should get some more information before we decide how to proceed with the petition.
I want to make a point of clarification. I did not express a view one way or another on the merits of the petition. As it happens, I am not persuaded, but I want to have an open mind, as Peter Chapman and others have suggested we should. The way to address the matter is to get the most up-to-date evidence and make a decision thereafter.
11:45
Thank you, everyone. I think that everyone has now had a chance to say something, so I will sum up the position, although I will add a wee comment before I do that.
Having done a detailed and, I think, well-received report on the aquaculture industry, it is important for the committee to continue to consider the matter. I have looked at figures that the Scottish Government has produced on mortalities in fish farms. As members know, the figures are produced one month in arrears. However, on the website, it is only possible to see them up to the end of September, so that is not quite up to date.
There were 747 cases of mortality across fish farms in Scotland, in 108 of which how many fish were lost was never reported. That was interesting. There was one farm or producer in particular that had the majority of those 108 incidents. During the period, 3.5 million fish were lost to the industry. In my opinion, that is quite a large figure. That is why I support the committee’s desire to examine the matter further to see whether there are ways in which the industry can consider what it is doing and to help it to develop a way forward.
I think that we all agree that we should write to the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre to seek further information on how it is supporting innovation in the field and on what is going on, and that we should write to the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation to ask it to provide details of the research on closed containment that is being undertaken by the industry.
Would it be appropriate, as part of that, to write to the relevant Government minister responsible for the area or to a Government agency?
I think that it would be appropriate to decide what we want to do next in that regard once we have that information. The information that we get from those two organisations may help to chart a path forward.
For the sake of due process, I do not know whether the petitioner, Mr Carter, is listening to this, but should we let him know what we are doing?
Of course the petitioner will be kept informed of exactly what the committee is doing.
If members are happy, I propose to do as I have described. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
11:47 Meeting continued in private until 11:55.