Chamber and committees

I say at the outset that there are a lot of moving parts in the regulations. We have heard from all the committee members about the difficulties of identifying the different types of vapes and whether they are reusable or single use.

What would concern me more than anything else is if not everyone in the United Kingdom went forward with the approach on 1 April next year. That would cause me grave concern. However, as an individual, I am perfectly happy to support this on the basis that everyone will move forward on the same date.

Given the points that have been made, as the legislation progresses and comes into force, it would be helpful for the committee to be kept aware of how it is actually working and whether it is achieving its aims. Does anyone want to ask the cabinet secretary anything that they have not asked already or to make a comment? Bob Doris has his hand up.

The committee is agreed, and we will report on the outcome in due course. I invite committee members to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve the draft report for publication.

Members indicated agreement.

Our next item is consideration of a type 1 consent notification for a proposed UK statutory instrument. On 5 June, the Minister for Climate Action notified the committee of the UK SI. The instrument will involve the UK Government legislating within devolved competence and it seeks the Scottish Government’s consent for it to do so.

The Scottish Government proposes to consent to the instrument, which, as the clerk’s paper explains, would require producers of products to pay the full net cost of managing their packaging at the end of life.

The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making those regulations within devolved competence, and in the manner that has been indicated. If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In so writing, we have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments.

If the committee is not content with the proposal, it may make one of the two recommendations that are outlined in the clerk’s note. We can recommend that the provisions should not be made at all, or that the Scottish Government take an alternative legislative approach—for example, by bringing forward its own Scottish statutory instruments.

I hope that that is all clear. To help to inform our decision, we have invited the cabinet secretary to stay and give evidence. I am not going to welcome you back again, Gillian, but you are here with us.

We are also joined by a number of Scottish Government officials. David McPhee is doing a third tour of duty in his role as deputy director for the circular economy; Alex Brown is, I think, joining us for the first time as circular economy policy officer; and Carolyn Boyd is on her third tour of duty, too. Thank you for joining us.

I now move to questions from members, with the first question coming, I believe, from Jackie Dunbar.

Yes. I reiterate that I have an interest in a salmon fishing partnership on the river Spey, which relies on wild salmon. Those salmon migrate around Scotland’s coast as smolt, heading north. However, there are no salmon farms in the Moray Firth that could come into conflict with them.

I also declare that the salmon fisheries are normally members of salmon fishery boards, which represent proprietors’ interests. I am not on the board in my area—the Spey Fishery Board—although my partnership contributes to it, and I believe that the board contributes to Fisheries Management Scotland, whose chief executive, Alan Wells, we will hear from later. However, I have had no interaction with that organisation through the fishery board or through my role as a proprietor.

I have read your report, which I think was published in May 2020. You will be as proud of it as I am of the Rural Environment and Connectivity Committee’s report, which had 65 recommendations. Do you think that I am right to be disappointed that few of those recommendations have been implemented?

Okay, so that is where you and I agree. I think that salmon farming should definitely continue—it is important—but, as a good neighbour, as far as salmon fisheries are concerned, you probably ought to look at the Government’s latest report on salmon fishing and the number of jobs and amount of money that the industry brings into local economies, which are probably as significant in remote areas as salmon farming.

I probably agree with you. If you look at the North Esk counts, returning smolts used to be about 25 per cent. They are down to about 2 per cent now, which indicates a wider problem.

You question whether people should be fishing for an endangered species. I know for a fact, because I follow the issue regularly, that, on the Spey, 96 per cent of salmon are returned—a very small number are killed. If salmon fishers should give up, could it not be argued that salmon farmers should give up, on the basis that they are probably damaging more fish than fishermen are?

One of the things that has come out of the process that we have been engaged in is the fact that salmon farmers, wild fish interests and other users of the sea need to be good neighbours. Do you think that salmon farmers are good neighbours?

My final question is a simple one. We have heard from industry on numerous occasions that some of the most vulnerable times are when young smolts are put to sea to be put into cages. They have soft skin and often need to prophylactically medicated before they go out, in order to give them long-lasting protection against sea lice. Let us say that a wild smolt from a river swims past a fish farm where there are sea lice. If the smolt picks up two or three sea lice, will it survive?

My problem is that there is no monitoring of wild fish when they go past fish pens, so we have no idea of the effects. I absolutely take your point that wild fish have always had sea lice on them. Animals have always had liver fluke and various types of worms, but the more intensively that they are farmed and the closer that they are kept together, the more they have to be treated for those conditions. If other animals have liver fluke and other worms, farm animals are more likely to pick those up in paddocks.

Looking at the salmon farming and wild fish sectors, what would be the one thing that salmon farming could do that would make the biggest difference to both of them getting on better?