Chamber and committees

We have run out of time, which is annoying, because I had one further question, but I will let the witnesses write in with a response, if they want to. At the beginning of this session, you all said that the bill would not create any more agricultural tenancies. I would like you to consider providing us with a note of what you think might create more agricultural tenancies. It would be helpful to get one idea from each of you. I would be happy to receive written answers on that after the committee meeting. If you crib Lord Gill’s words about making agricultural tenancies simpler, I will know where that has come from.

Thank you very much for the evidence that you have given this morning, which has been very helpful. We will look at the bill again after recess. At this stage, we are not quite sure when we will take it up again—that will depend on what happens with other legislation.

We will have a brief suspension to allow the witnesses to depart. If committee members could be back here at 11.25, that would be very helpful.

The next item on the agenda is consideration of a type 1 consent notification relating to a UK statutory instrument. On 29 May, the Minister for Climate Action notified the committee of the proposed UK SI. As with the previous item, the UK Government is seeking the Scottish Government’s consent to legislate in an area of devolved competence. Again, the committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making the regulations within the area of devolved competence in the manner that the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government.

If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In writing to the Scottish Government, we have the option to pose a question or ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments. If the committee is not content with the proposal, we can make recommendations, which I can go through. Before we do that, do committee members have any views?

Agenda item 3 is on a United Kingdom subordinate legislation consent notification. We are considering a type 1 consent notification relating to a proposed statutory instrument, the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024. On 21 May, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy notified the committee of the proposed UK SI. The instrument will involve the UK Government legislating in a devolved area of competence, and it is seeking the Scottish Government’s consent to do so.

Members will recall that we discussed our approach to consideration of this UK SI on 11 June and agreed to write to the Scottish Government and stakeholders to seek their views on the proposal. The Scottish Government’s response is provided in an annex in the committee papers. Other responses were circulated to members last Friday.

The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making the regulations within devolved competence and in the manner that the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government. If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly.

In writing to the Scottish Government, we have various options. We can draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions to it and/or ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments. If the committee is not content with the proposal, it may make one or two recommendations, which we could come to.

Do members have any comments?

I was hoping for a positive start to the meeting, but it sounds like we have a negative start. Douglas Lumsden will ask the next question.

Good morning, and welcome to the 23rd meeting in 2024 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. We have apologies from Monica Lennon and I welcome her substitute, Sarah Boyack, to the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is a decision on taking items 5, 6, 7 and 8 in private. Item 5 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Item 6 is consideration of correspondence about appointments to the Scottish Land Commission. Item 7 is consideration of correspondence about an appointment to Environmental Standards Scotland. Item 8 is consideration of the committee’s work programme. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In the past five years, how many fish farms—apart from the one at Poolewe—have closed down and moved or consolidated to better sites?

Nick, thank you very much for your evidence. I will ask you a couple of questions to make sure that I understand it. The precautionary principle is that, when the environmental hazard is uncertain or the stakes are high, you do not do it. Do you agree with that?

Do you have any idea why those deaths happened? If it was to do with gill health, the transmitter of poor gill health would have had an effect on the rest of the environment, would it not?

It seems that we are doing something that we know has an adverse effect on the environment, so we are not sticking by the precautionary principle. You also went on to say that fish farming is a new industry and that they have not got it right and that, as legislators, we might not have got it all right. I think that that is a summation of what you said. With 25 per cent mortality among fish that are put to sea, can we just allow for things to carry on as normal if you believe in the precautionary principle?

Fish farmers themselves have said that 25 per cent is unacceptable. They lost 35,000 tonnes of fish in 2022 and 33,000 tonnes of fish in 2023. The mortality rate is not moving. Does the precautionary principle tell us to just continue and let things go?