SCOTS Project - www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk

Document : 1168
Title    : Scottish Parliament: Committees: Transport and the Environment:
Official Reports: Meeting 31, 2001
Author(s): Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

Copyright holder(s): Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body: © Scottish
Parliamentary copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the
Queen's Printer for Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary
Corporate Body.

Text

Session 1 (2001) 
Scottish Parliament
Transport and the Environment Committee
Official Report 
Meeting No 31, 2001 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
12 December 2001 


CONTENTS

Wednesday 12 December 2001


TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 31ST MEETING 2001, SESSION 1
   
INTERESTS
CONVENER
AQUACULTURE INQUIRY
PETITIONS
Public Transport (Passenger Safety) (PE59) 
Raptors (Licensed Culling) (PE187) 
Quarrying (PE225) 
Opencast Mining (PE346 and PE369) 
ITEM IN PRIVATE



TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
31st Meeting 2001, Session 1

CONVENER

*Bristow Muldoon (Livingston) (Lab)

DEPUTY CONVENER

*Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD)

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

*Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green)
*Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP)
*Angus MacKay (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
*Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP)
*Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
*Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
*John Scott (Ayr) (Con)

*attended

THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED:

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab)

WITNESSES

Dr Kenneth Black (Scottish Association for Marine Science)
Professor Randolph Richards (University of Stirling)
Dr Dick Shelton

CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE

Callum Thomson

SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK

Tracey Hawe

ASSISTANT CLERK

Alastair Macfie

LOCATION

The Hub
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
12 December 2001 



Scottish Parliament

Transport and the Environment Committee

Wednesday 12 December 2001

(Morning)

[THE DEPUTY CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:36]

The Deputy Convener (Nora Radcliffe): Good morning and welcome to the 31st
meeting in 2001 of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I welcome
Angus MacKay as a new member of the committee. I have received no
apologies, but we have been told that Fiona McLeod has been delayed. She
will be here as soon as she can, trains permitting.

I open the meeting in my capacity as deputy convener of the committee,
following the appointment of Andy Kerr as the Minister for Finance and
Public Services. I am sure that all members of the committee will want to
join me in thanking Andy for his substantial work on this committee during
his time as its convener.

Before we move to agenda item 1, I advise members and the public—who have
not yet arrived—that a revised agenda for the meeting was published in
this morning's business bulletin. Unfortunately, for family reasons, Allan
Wilson is unable to attend today's meeting. We hope that we will be able to
reschedule for next week his appearance to give evidence as part of our
aquaculture inquiry.

Interests

The Deputy Convener: Item 1 on our agenda concerns a declaration of
interests. I invite Angus MacKay to declare any interests that are relevant
to the work of the committee.

Angus MacKay (Edinburgh South) (Lab): I declare a Lothian Buses
concessionary bus pass, which I obtained on Monday and which I intend to
enter in the register of members' interests.

Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): Can I declare my pass as well?

The Deputy Convener: We will take a late declaration of interests from
Robin Harper.

Robin Harper: I will enter my concessionary bus pass in the register of
members' interests as soon as possible. I had forgotten to do so.

Convener

The Deputy Convener: Item 2 on our agenda concerns the election of a new
convener. The Parliament has agreed that the convener of the Transport and
the Environment Committee should come from the Labour party. I request
nominations from members.

Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): I nominate Bristow
Muldoon.

The Deputy Convener: Bristow Muldoon has been nominated. Do members agree
that he should be the committee's new convener?

Members indicated agreement.

Bristow Muldoon was chosen as convener.

The Deputy Convener: I congratulate Bristow Muldoon on his election and
hand over the chair to him.

The Convener (Bristow Muldoon): I thank colleagues for electing me as
convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Maureen Macmillan: Did your nomination come as a surprise?

The Convener: It came as a complete surprise. I thank Nora Radcliffe for
her extensive stint convening this morning's meeting, a task that she
performed very ably. I am sure that she will perform it equally ably in
future, if ever she needs to.

I, too, welcome Angus MacKay to the committee. I am sure that his
experience in local government and as a minister will enable him to make a
valuable contribution to our work. I look forward to working with him on
the committee and hope that other members will work with him
constructively.

Before we move on, I would like to acknowledge the role that the previous
convener, Andy Kerr, played over the past two and a half years. Andy Kerr
is widely recognised as having been an effective convener, who guided the
committee well during the first two and a half years of the Parliament's
existence. I offer my best wishes to him in his new post.

Robin Harper: Can we acknowledge Andy Kerr's contribution, which was
considerable, in a formal way? Andy did an extremely good job over the past
two and a half years.

The Convener: I would be more than happy to write to Andy Kerr on behalf of
the committee to express our recognition of his contribution and to offer
him best wishes in his new role.

Item 3 on our agenda is consideration of lines of questioning for the
witnesses from whom we will take evidence as part of our aquaculture
inquiry. Previously we agreed to take that item in private. I recognise
that my first act as convener is to take the committee into private session
and apologise to the people who were responsible for writing the
consultative steering group report. I invite members of the press and the
public—who are not yet here—to leave the room. We will move back into
public session in 10 to 15 minutes' time.

09:41

Meeting continued in private.

09:59

Meeting continued in public.

Aquaculture Inquiry

The Convener: I welcome the press and public back to the meeting. The main
item of business is further evidence taking on the committee's inquiry into
aquaculture. I also welcome our three witnesses—Dr Kenneth Black,
Professor Randolph Richards and Dr Dick Shelton.

Before we start, I will say a few words about the proposed appointment of a
research co-ordinator for the committee and the Executive on this matter.
Reporters from the committee are discussing proposals with officials from
the Scottish Executive. We hope, by next week, to have put more flesh on
the bones of the proposal that the committee discussed. We hope to hear
from the reporters next week on their recommendations on how we should
proceed.

We will now move to questions to our three witnesses. We will go through
several specific issues on aquaculture. When the questions are asked, could
the witnesses indicate who wants to answer first? You may all want to
comment on the same issue. We will try to ensure that supplementaries are
related to the initial questions.

Robin Harper: On our travels, the committee's reporters—Maureen
Macmillan, Bristow Muldoon and I—have picked up an almost unanimous view
that an assessment of the carrying capacity of Scottish coastal waters is
needed. What work needs to be undertaken to assess carrying capacity?

Dr Kenneth Black (Scottish Association for Marine Science): A lot of
research has been done over the years in the name of contributing to
carrying capacity estimations. Internationally, a lot of effort has been
made. In Scotland, there are estimates of carrying capacity in both benthic
effects and sea loch level effects. Fairly simple modelling approaches have
been taken. We need more of those. We must consider them loch by loch and
region by region. We also need more definitions about the aspects that
limit carrying capacity. One could argue that the best use of funds would
be to focus on the issues that are likely to limit capacity. Sea lice
should be included, as well as aspects such as nutrients.

Professor Randolph Richards (University of Stirling): The current
estimation of carrying capacity is carried out quite well by the Scottish
Environment Protection Agency through the impact assessments that are done
as part of the licensing process and the continuing ability to hold fish in
stocked areas. The factors other than fish farming that contribute to the
relative carrying capacity of loch systems should also be considered to
find out whether the total effects can properly be estimated. That is
probably not being done yet.

Dr Dick Shelton: If we are to include sea lice in the carrying capacity
calculation, I can say confidently that the carrying capacity of Scottish
coastal waters is already substantially exceeded. I have prepared a
background paper for the committee, which I hope members have received.

Sea trout populations in the north-west of Scotland have collapsed—a
situation that is unique to that part of Scotland. Sea trout spend the
entire summer in inshore waters where they are exposed constantly to high
levels of young sea lice. That exposure has caused the collapse in the sea
trout population. Given the collapse of many of the wild fish populations,
the staple diet for young sea lice now has to be caged salmon. As a matter
of urgency, the salmon industry needs to be regulated and inspected. As I
said, I have given the committee a full background paper on the subject.

Sea lice are the biggest threat to wild salmonid fish in north-west
Scotland. In some of the more fiordic systems, salmon are also affected. In
contrast to sea trout, which hang about in the inshore waters, young salmon
go to sea rapidly. Sea lice larvae treat long fiordic systems such as Loch
Fyne and Loch Linnhe as bomber alleys. I would like a moratorium on the
expansion of salmon farming in Scottish coastal waters until the problem
has been resolved properly. The carrying capacity is exceeded
substantially.

Robin Harper: In the absence of scientific certainty about carrying
capacity, what steps should the Executive take to manage the environmental
risks of fish farming? Should there be a moratorium on the issuing of new
consents for large-scale salmon farming.

Professor Richards: To expand salmon farming in certain areas would produce
greater risks. A moratorium would have to be carried out on a site-by-site
basis. However, the salmon farming industry is important to Scotland. A
blanket moratorium, which may be based on insecure facts, would not help
the industry to develop.

We are at the early stage of the development of fish farming in other
species of marine fin fish. It is likely that that development into other
fin fish, including cod, will depend in the first instance on the ability
to try out cod farming in association with salmon farms. Such associated
development would help to determine what factors are important to the
development of other fin fish species. The future of fish farming in
Scotland may depend on the substitution of new species for salmon. A
moratorium at this time on new species farming would be detrimental to
Scotland.

Dr Black: I agree with Professor Richards's last statement. However, we
need to get salmon farming out of the most sensitive locations and a
moratorium might not be conducive to that. We need to find good offshore
sites that have fewer sea lice problems. We need to take farms away from
the heads of sea lochs and other places where there are known problems and
where the farms have difficulty in controlling sea lice.

The Convener: Two members want to ask supplementary questions. I will
return to Robin Harper in a moment.

Maureen Macmillan: We heard evidence from Scottish Natural Heritage that
the definition of carrying capacity should be broadened to include
shoreline development and visual impact. Do you agree with that? Do we need
to broaden the definition of carrying capacity to encompass aesthetic as
well as scientific aspects?

Dr Black: I am not an expert on the visual aspects of carrying
capacity—neither is anyone else. When people start to talk about such
issues, they mean integrated coastal zone management. That would ensure
that all users have an equitable stake in the environment. It would include
coastline developments and, potentially, tourist developments—we have to
consider more than just carrying capacity. There may be people who can make
judgments on carrying capacity and scenic amenity, but I have not yet seen
a robust approach to those issues.

Professor Richards: I agree with those comments. A great start has been
made in involving a number of different users of the coastal areas—the
tripartite working group has been set up and area management agreements are
being developed. It may be sensible to expand those arrangements to include
other interested parties.

The Convener: Dr Shelton, do you wish to comment?

Dr Shelton: Not really—coastal amenity is not my area of expertise.

Angus MacKay: There seem to be slightly conflicting views on moratoriums.
Robin Harper referred to scientific uncertainty. On what kind of evidence
could there be either a wholesale moratorium or localised moratoriums?

Dr Black: We have to be clear about what scientific uncertainty we are
talking about. On sea lice, there is limited scientific uncertainty, in my
view; Dick Shelton explained that well. On nutrients, there is more
scientific uncertainty. Which issue are you referring to, because the
issues are different?

Angus MacKay: What evidential basis would support local moratoriums or a
national moratorium, in either circumstance? I am not clear which
circumstance you were talking about.

Dr Shelton: The evidential basis for the need to be precautionary is the
collapse of populations in the affected area. On the north coast of
Scotland or west of the outer Hebrides, salmon farming goes on with very
little effect, as far as we can see, on sea trout or wild salmon. In Orkney
and Shetland, there are problems. However, on the mainland coast, to the
north, west and south-west of the farmed area, the wild salmonid fisheries
are functioning perfectly normally.

Having seen the problems, we have to be careful about the way in which the
industry spreads. In particular, we do not want it to spread to new areas
in the east of Scotland, which has some of the most valuable salmonid
fisheries. I will give members a case in point: the proposal to put a
smolt-rearing operation on the River Ettrick. The River Ettrick system is
the driving force for the remaining spring salmon population in the Tweed.
The introduction of such an operation would be absolute lunacy, given the
worries about the impact of the two industries on each other, but I do not
know how it can be prevented.

Under the precautionary principle, until there is better regulation and
inspection, we have to be very cautious about allowing the industry to get
bigger and spread further. My view is that the future of the industry lies
not in expansion and chasing the world salmon price; my view is like that
of Dr Michael Foxley, who would say, "Let's go for the quality end of the
market, let's do so in good places, and let's not try to chase the world
salmon price because we can always be beaten by countries such as Chile.
Let's do what we are best at—producing high-quality farmed salmon at
lower stocking densities."

Professor Richards: The decline in sea trout and salmon stocks has been
going on for a considerable time. It certainly predates the beginning of
salmon farming in Scotland. Although in some areas sea lice may be a
contributing factor to that decline, they are hardly the main cause. It is
important to acknowledge that.

However, the industry is determined to bring sea lice under control and is
doing so reasonably well in many areas. We have a range of medicinal
compounds to treat sea lice. Much of the urgency is focused on ensuring
that those products are available and can be used effectively in the fish
farming areas. In that way, the risk from sea lice will be dramatically
reduced for the industry and for wild fish operations. Perhaps the ability
to use such treatment compounds effectively should be taken into account in
the siting of fish farm operations.

Dr Shelton: I want to say a little bit about the wider problem of the
decline in the abundance of salmon and sea trout. This circumpolar problem
affects specific salmonids and is associated with changes in the growth and
survival opportunities provided by marine climate, which is currently not
particularly conducive to high survival rates of subarctic fish. As a
result, the return rates of fish are about a third to a half of what they
were in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The problems in north-west Scotland are of an entirely different character.
They are major and quite unprecedented changes in the abundance and
structure of the stocks and are unrelated to the wider problem, which is
driven by changes in world climate.

10:15

The Convener: I ask Adam Ingram to make his question brief, as I want to
make progress.

Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP): I wanted to follow on from Robin
Harper's question about moratoriums. I take on board Professor Richards's
point about improving the hygiene of the fish farms to ensure that the
natural balance is not disturbed. However, given the delicate balance in
the north-west of Scotland, does it not make more sense to establish an
exclusion zone for fish farms in such areas and perhaps to relocate the
farms outwith those areas? How feasible would that be?

Professor Richards: We are actively following up the possibility of
relocation. Fish farming has modified the sites that it uses to farm fish.
We should also realise that, after major investigations and discussions
about the effects of infectious salmon anaemia, there is a greater
understanding of the need to fallow sites to maintain single-year classes.
However, such an approach requires more sites, not necessarily with
increased production. Although the siting of those operations should be
made on a case-by-case basis, there is a requirement constantly to modify
the areas where fish are being farmed.

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): What are the key factors in
determining carrying capacity? Might they include the physical geography of
the coastal area, the farming practices that are used—or some combination
of the two—or the incidence of latent carriers of disease that might be
present? Can we draw any useful international comparisons with Norway or
other countries with a similar physical geography that would allow us to
find out how different factors could be manipulated to influence carrying
capacity?

Professor Richards: The current system tends to encourage sites with better
water exchange. We have traditionally moved away from inland sites with
good protection against wind and wave action—which might lead to the
build-up of solid waste—to more open areas. The same approach applies to
the use of medicaments, as their build-up or otherwise is an important
factor in the allowable amount of material that can be used. That factor is
taken into account in the licences to discharge that SEPA issues; it is
constantly monitored and can be modified if the modelling suggests that the
level is not correct. As a result, the current system prevents the
development of major problems such as the build-up of waste and the
possible effects of treatment products. Our system is probably more
advanced than that in most other areas where fish farming takes place. We
are already very regulated and controlled and the industry is developing
its own systems of environmental management to take account of the issue.

Dr Black: I would like farmers to have more incentives to take advantage of
developments in technology for cages in locations that are further offshore
and more exposed. Some new technologies are coming along and the
regulations need to create incentives for farmers to expand into less
sensitive areas and to move out of the more sensitive areas.

The Convener: Sorry for the extensive delay, Robin.

Robin Harper: Before I ask my third question, I have some quick
supplementaries to sum things up on that section. SEPA supported Professor
Richards's view that there is a case for localised moratoriums. Do the
three witnesses agree that the argument is between Dick Shelton's view of
loch moratoriums and localised moratoriums, not between no moratoriums and
localised moratoriums?

Dr Black: Having a moratorium on new development will not solve the
problems in places where there are existing sites. The issue is more about
relocation than about moratoria.

Professor Richards: The issue is about evaluation of cutting the capacity
of those areas. An assessment might suggest that, rather than a moratorium,
there should be no expansion of farming or a reduction in farming in
certain areas. That might extend to a whole loch system, but it is just
another example of local evaluation of the risks and opportunities in those
areas.

The Convener: I will let Dr Shelton carry on, Robin, but Maureen Macmillan
would like to ask a supplementary before you get to your final question.

Dr Shelton: There is a wider issue where the scientific uncertainty is
greatest—the problem of algal blooms in open waters in the Minch. 

Conventional wisdom and all the modelling that has been done suggest that
the algal blooms are unrelated to the large quantities of nutrients that
arise from the rearing of salmon in cages. Allan Berry's view is that
perhaps there is a link. We do not know for certain whether he is right or
wrong. If there is any possibility that he is right, that would be another
reason to hold on for a minute; we should find out whether he is right
before we allow a large industry, which already pours enormous quantities
of nutrients into confined waters, to get bigger.

I am not an expert on the generation of algal blooms, but I know that it is
a complex area that is full of uncertainty. Over a 30-year scientific
career as an environmental and fisheries scientist, I have never before
come across a situation in which scallop fishing had to be banned over
10,000 square miles of sea. We need to be cautious—we are not necessarily
just dealing with problems in the lochs. I am perhaps being alarmist in
saying such things. However, we need to be sure and that will require
high-calibre work.

Maureen Macmillan: When I discussed relocation of fish farms with senior
executives in the industry, they said that moving fish farms offshore
creates the problem of stress on the fish, because of the pounding of the
seas. What is your response to that?

Dr Black: There is a risk of that happening, but I believe—although far
more would probably disagree—that there are plenty of good, relatively
sheltered offshore sites. There are ways round the problem. We do not want
to put the farms in a situation where the fish will not grow and thrive,
but there are places of high dispersion that are nonetheless relatively
sheltered. We have an absolutely marvellous coastline for that sort of
thing.

Professor Richards: I agree with that. Lots of opportunities exist—we do
not have to go out into full open sea, where the fish can be pounded and
suffer major mortality rates.

Although algal blooms appear to be more common around the Scottish coast,
many scientists who work specifically on such matters have evaluated that,
for example, the contribution from fish farming to the total nutrient
loading in the Minch is very small compared to that from the run-off from
agricultural land. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is of the
order of 15 per cent. Therefore, although fish farming contributes to
nutrient build-up, it does so to a lesser extent than agriculture.

It is recognised that many of our algal bloom problems originate far out at
sea and drift inshore. The direct comparison of salmon farming effects and
non-effects was probably best evaluated by the Irish, who have been
monitoring such things more carefully and for longer. The Irish have found
no evidence of a link between fish farming and the development of algal
blooms.

Robin Harper: In a sense, you have already begun to answer my last
question. If you are operating a rope, you do not operate it at breaking
strain—if it has a breaking point of a ton, you use a daily load of only
a couple of hundredweight. Is there any possibility that we can move to a
reasonably transparent assessment of carrying capacity in order to have a
reduced load precautionary assessment of fish farming releases into the
environment? Is it necessary to take a more holistic approach to the
monitoring and control of coastal enrichment rather than treating
aquaculture in isolation? Is the regulatory framework appropriate and
adequate for a holistic approach that must, by its nature, deal with
diffuse pollution?

Dr Black: I am not an expert on regulatory frameworks, so I would rather
address the first part of your question. Someone having a hypothesis that
there is a strong link between one thing and another—it might be a
justifiable hypothesis—is not a justification for stopping an activity.
One could produce hundreds of hypotheses. We could not stop everything we
do simply because we have ideas about it. It is reasonable to find a
position where we know, given the current practices, what is Scotland's
current capacity for salmon production. That is a reasonable and achievable
objective.

The Scottish Executive is funding some modelling work on fish farming
nutrients. That study will be complete next year and its results will be
very interesting. The study will give us a good idea of the impact of fish
farming and its nutrient inputs. We need to concentrate on the carrying
capacity. We could be miles from it and we could be above it. I do not
think that we are above capacity and I do not think that we can stop the
industry in its tracks for a long period while people argue it out. We need
to take it on board quickly. To some extent, that has already happened.

Professor Richards: I agree. I would also point out that most of the models
in use have large built-in safety factors, to allow for uncertainty. That
is backed up by measurements that determine that the models are safe.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con): I want to address the international dimension. Are
we similar to other countries, such as Chile and Canada, in relation to our
carrying capacity?

Professor Richards: I am not sure what the regimes are in those countries,
so I speak from a position of some ignorance. The controls in those
countries are probably rather fewer than those applied here. Fish farming
in Chile is rapidly increasing in scale. I do not know what environmental
assessment is carried out there, but I do not believe it to be as strict as
that in the UK.

Dr Black: I am sure that that is correct. I know a little about the
carrying capacity for sea lice. In Norway, the issue of lice from farms is
treated more seriously than that of medicines. The Norwegians purposefully
err on the side of caution in respect of lice, whereas we have gone the
other way, by erring on the side of caution in respect of chemical use.

Dr Shelton: I can add a few points about Canada. Cage rearing of salmon
takes place on a large scale in the Bay of Fundy. There are two main sorts
of salmon population there. One group migrates to the open ocean—to the
wide Atlantic—much as our salmon do. There are other salmon
populations—bearing in mind the fact that sea trout do not occur
naturally in Canada—that behave in a sea-trout-like way and spend their
whole lives close inshore. There is a group of populations of that kind in
the Bay of Fundy that have almost collapsed. That is new, and it correlates
strongly—we do not know the cause for certain—with the advent of
relatively large-scale salmon farming in the Bay of Fundy. That is another
carrying capacity issue. It is part of the whole world story.

10:30

The Convener: We will try to make progress now. I am conscious that I have
been quite liberal in allowing a range of supplementary questions. We
should move on to the next area that we wish to examine, which Professor
Richards touched on in one of his earlier answers. I invite Angus MacKay to
ask his questions on new species and polyculture.

Angus MacKay: I have three questions, the first of which has a number of
parts. Ministers have decided to take a more pragmatic approach to
multi-species farming. What are the implications of that decision? Should
polyculture be encouraged at all? What risks are there, if any, with
multi-species farming? For example, one risk could be the proximity of
sites.

Professor Richards: When new species are developed, it is unlikely that
massive farms will be set up soon after the young stages are produced in
numbers. It is likely that to gain experience in the production of those
animals, a cage in a complex will be given over to the development of the
new species. As the young stages come on stream and are produced in
numbers, it is unlikely that there will be polyculture; rather, there will
be individual cage farms for each species. However, there will have to be a
transitory phase in which polyculture takes place.

Work to evaluate the risk of the transfer of disease agents from salmon to
new species and from new species to salmon is going on. That is an
important part of the science that underlies the issue. A new condition may
appear in time. We know, for example, that cod and salmon suffer disease
from common agents; that will always be the case. The risk from new species
will be monitored carefully, because people will be on a learning curve.
Monitoring will principally and initially be carried out by salmon farmers
who switch part of their production to new species. That makes sense in
terms of the development of the industry.

Dr Black: The polyculture of new fish species with or close to existing
species is one thing, but integrated polyculture, where a variety of
different trophic levels exist in the same area, and where each feeds off
the waste products of the other, has been practised in the world for many
centuries, particularly in south-east Asia. Lots of experiments have been
done in the Bay of Fundy, the Baltic and Scotland to see whether we can put
species together so that one mitigates the impact of another. That is
particularly appropriate for shellfish, and perhaps also for seaweed
culture.

At present, regulation is oriented towards salmon. Perhaps that has
contributed to what I call the segmentation of the industry. The way
forward is not to have a salmon industry but to have an aquaculture
industry, where farmers are encouraged to farm a variety of species, and
not just different fin fish species, but different shellfish and perhaps
seaweed species. That will have positive environmental benefits and
probably economic benefits, because one of the problems that shellfish
farmers have had is a lack of infrastructure, whereas salmon farmers have
good established infrastructure and marketing organisations. I feel that
putting them together more and more is a good way forward. One or two of
the smaller, more Scotland-based companies are beginning to do that.

Dr Shelton: All I would add is, as Randolph Richards said, that we need to
be especially vigilant at this time. We do not want to rush bald-headed
into things and make the same mistakes with other species as have already
been made with salmon farming. We must remain vigilant.

A point in favour of bivalve culture is that it really is farming: it uses
the production of the sea rather than uses it simply as a source of salt
water to keep fish in. Bivalves live on phytoplankton, which is greatly in
their favour.

Angus MacKay: My next question was going to be about the scientific risks
involved in the farming of new species and how those problems could be
addressed, but Dr Shelton and Professor Richards have already touched on
that in flagging up the fact that we need to think about what may lie ahead
in future. You may want to say a little more about that.

I would also like to pick up on what two, or perhaps all three, of you
seemed to be saying about polyculture. Do you foresee any positive
advantages in polyculture? Dr Black seemed to imply that there could be
some positive advantages in a polycultural approach to the industry.

You mentioned the existing marketing infrastructure in the salmon industry.
You seemed to be saying that there is potential to add considerable value
to the existing industry by developing a wider range of products and
tacking them on to the existing infrastructure for producing salmon. Is
that what you were saying?

Dr Black: Yes, I think that that is right. The risks for new fin fish or
shellfish species, or even for plant species, are fairly clear. There is a
risk of transferred diseases and transferred genes. Those are big issues.
As Dick Shelton said, the risks must be carefully assessed, particularly if
non-indigenous species are to be moved around. There is lots of literature
about the disasters of moving non-indigenous species
around—intentionally, through aquaculture, or unintentionally, through
such things as ballast water. The effects can be catastrophic and we would
obviously want to study the literature and consider the risks. There is
already plenty of regulation.

Professor Richards: Regulations to prevent that are already in place. In
France, the introduction of new species to the shellfish industry has
introduced new diseases, which have had a severe effect on the existing
industry. That is not to be recommended.

John Scott: What are the regulations that militate against polyculture?

Dr Black: I was referring to the guidelines on separation distances. They
are guidelines rather than regulations. They seem to imply that shellfish
farming and salmon farming should not occur close together. In my view,
there is no particular reason for that. From a scenic point of view, it
might not be very attractive, but in terms of science there is not a great
deal wrong with such polyculture. Perhaps there is a fear that diseases may
be retained in cultivated shellfish populations as a residue that could be
transmitted on to farmed fish again if they were on a different production
cycle, which they probably would be. That may be one aspect of the
concerns. However, we can get round such problems. I do not think that they
are insurmountable. The current regulations try to separate species. I do
not think that that is necessarily a good thing.

John Scott: Are there examples of existing polyculture fish farms?

Dr Black: There are two companies that I know of that have both shellfish
and farmed fish interests. There are probably several more that I do not
know about. They tend to be the smaller operators.

Des McNulty: Does polyculture make the modelling process that you referred
to more difficult? From what you said about salmon farming, it appears that
there is a balance of risks between those associated with parasites, those
associated with the chemicals that deal with the parasites and those
associated with nutrients. Those seem to be the three main sources of
pollution. If you are dealing with a single fish species, it appears that
you can map out a model based on that balance. If a polyculture in which
the risks may be different species by species is being dealt with, does
that make the process of modelling and planning more difficult?

Professor Richards: That would probably not affect waste modelling, for
example. The systems are similar. The differential usage of medicaments and
risks from disease agents are taken into account. It would certainly be
possible to model that easily into the system.

Dr Black: That is absolutely right. The more complex the model, the more
interested the modellers will be.

Angus MacKay: We have already touched on my final question. Ministers have
announced an intention to regulate on reporting escapes of farmed fish. How
important is the prevention of escapes and the containment of escaped fish?
Can more be done to minimise the risks to wild stock of escapes?

Dr Black: Containment of salmon and escaped salmon is crucial to the
genetic integrity of wild stocks. However, there is a potential problem.
One might want to ensure that farmers use the best available technology for
containment and the best maintenance regimes. One might want them to move
offshore, into a more hostile environment. They will be required to report
losses. If farmers are penalised too heavily for reporting losses, there
might not be such good reporting. That needs further work. There must be
proper policing, but for much of the time we rely on the farmers to give us
information.

A potential way around the problem is to tag. Salmon could be marked like
slightly marked sheep—that is becoming feasible, although I imagine that
farmers would not like it because it is an additional cost. However, it is
a possible way of policing the system.

The Convener: Des McNulty has a question about locational guidelines, which
we have already touched on.

Des McNulty: If locational guidelines are introduced, they will be based on
scientific evidence. How will we get the people running fish farms to buy
into the scientific, evidential basis of locational guidelines? How can
locational guidelines be revised to take account of advances in scientific
knowledge since being published? Is there a role for locational guidelines
in zoning issues—in creating exclusion zones, for example? Dr Shelton
highlighted that as a possible route forward.

Dr Black: Absolutely. The scientific basis for locational guidelines should
be transparent. I do not think that they are sufficiently transparent at
present. Perhaps they could be on a web page that is continuously updated.
The underlying rationale for their designation could be publicly
available—I do not see any problem with that.

Locational guidelines are almost the first step towards a proper data
system for integrated coastal zone management. We need more information on
that, but technology is developing so quickly that we can envisage putting
together useful geographic information system-type tools and the
decision-making process can be embedded into the software to become
transparent to everyone. Rules can be developed and applied. In principle,
that was done 15 years ago, but it needs to be implemented—it would
clarify and make public and transparent many issues that we have discussed
today.

Dr Shelton: I associate myself totally with Dr Black's views.

Professor Richards: I think that the industry would also support that. New
planning guidelines are coming in and the industry wants to ensure that
standard features are applied uniformly throughout the country—from
council to council and so on. It makes sense for the industry to realise
exactly what the guidelines are, to enable it to assess individual sites
for fish farming.

Des McNulty: I want to ask about a contingency that could arise. It will
take time and money to move a salmon farm from one location to another.
What if the evidence suddenly shifts? What if there is a new scientific
breakthrough, or a new mode of analysis designates that there is excess
capacity in one area and that there will be a move towards enforcement? How
will we deal with the dialogue that will inevitably ensue between the
scientific evidence and the real economic circumstances that fish farmers
will have to face as a result of scientific breakthroughs or development?

Dr Black: That is part of the integrated management process. There will
always be conflicts. The right way of resolving them is to have all the
information on the table so that all users can access it and to do things
in a fair and open way. How one relocates a farm is a political problem
that I do not feel able to address.

10:45

The Convener: The next issue that I would like to address is that of best
practice in disease and parasite control. We touched on that when we
discussed carrying capacity and gave considerable attention to sea lice. I
ask members and witnesses to address themselves mainly to issues that we
have not yet considered.

Maureen Macmillan: In the seminar that I chaired at the aquaculture
conference last week there was an extremely lively discussion of what we
should do with sea lice. The seminar included someone from an environmental
group, a representative of a firm that makes a well-known brand of medicine
for dealing with sea lice, representatives of wild fish interests and fish
farmers. We discussed the way forward in controlling sea lice. What are
your views on the issue? Should sea lice be controlled through
management—for example, through synchronised fallowing—or through
chemical intervention? Is there a way forward with biological controls such
as sea wrasse? If you see a role for all three methods, how do you think
they should be balanced?

Professor Richards: We need to use all the methods of controlling sea lice
to which the member referred. At the moment, a great deal is done through
husbandry to reduce the impact of all sorts of diseases, including sea
lice. Techniques such as fallowing are very important. A panel of different
medicinal treatments is now available for dealing with sea lice. It is
important that resistance to those chemicals does not build up in stocks.
That is why integrated pest management is a way ahead. We need to modify
the compounds that are used, to prevent repeated use creating resistance.

There is a requirement to treat entire loch systems to reduce dramatically
the overall impact of sea lice. Whether that can be done depends on the
availability of materials for use. SEPA should consider the overall risk of
allowing slightly increased overall use of a particular product within a
loch system instead of narrowly determining daily allowances for treatment
on a site-by-site basis. I think that the overall benefit to be gained from
treating all sites at the same time outweighs the possible risk from
slightly increased usage at one site.

The other possibility is to use other forms of control. Considerable
efforts are being made to produce a vaccine against sea lice. It would be
ideal if such a vaccine could be produced, but we are still a long way off
that. Over many years, the industry has considered all the different ways
of controlling the problem of sea lice.

Dr Black: I would like to make two points. What Randolph Richards just said
is absolutely right. However, one problem with that approach is that SEPA
is in control of the medicines and someone else is in control of the lice.
I know that SEPA is reluctant to have anything to do with sea lice because
it believes that that would put it in an awkward position, but I believe
that we should join up sea lice regulation and place a constraint on SEPA
regarding lice numbers. SEPA would then have to deal with the problem from
both ends. I accept that that would be a very awkward spot for SEPA to be
in, but the farms that cause the most trouble are the ones that are clearly
in the wrong places. In time, we want those farms to move on. Farms that
cannot regulate their lice burdens under the available discharge consents
should eventually be moved on.

My second point concerns AMAs. Everyone agrees that they are a good
starting point. One problem with the process is the degree to which
information is held back both within AMAs, in some cases, and from the
general public. Farmers hide behind commercial confidentiality. At the
moment, lice burden data, production data, feed input data and so on are
supplied every month to SEPA or some other regulator. There is no
commercial reason why all farmers should not be obliged to put such
information on the public register.

Dr Shelton: I agree with everything Kenneth Black has just said,
particularly about joining up the regulations that relate to lice levels
and the giving of consent for the use of the chemicals that are used to
control them. The AMA system has been helpful, as it has brought out
information that would otherwise not have been considered, but there is far
too great a degree of confidentiality; the lice levels in the area of least
one AMA are having a harmful effect on the local sea trout population. We
know about that because the area happens to be monitored by Fisheries
Research Service scientists.

Maureen Macmillan: You will be aware that we are still researching this
issue and are trying to determine whether we should have a national
strategy on it. What is your view on that?

You have touched on the conflicting evidence relating to whether sea lice
should be controlled under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937, which was amended
by the Diseases of Fish Act 1983, or under the auspices of SEPA. SEPA
seemed to suggest to us that it did not want to get involved with the
aspect of the situation that relates to disease. I felt that the result of
that could be that although a fish farmer has been told that he has to do
something about the sea lice in his farm, SEPA would not give the consent
for the appropriate treatment. Presumably, that would result in fish being
slaughtered.

What legislative regime should we have to control sea lice?

Dr Black: At the moment, one organisation passes the buck to another and
the problem is not dealt with. We come down on the side of the careful
regulation of medicines. By contrast, Norway came down in favour of the
closer regulation of lice. The choice must be made on the basis of
information about the environmental risks. I am clear that there is a
severe risk to wild salmonids. I am not clear about the risks that arise
from the current level of medicine use, but I think that the balance of
evidence suggests that the lice are causing the problem at the moment.

Professor Richards: It is perhaps worth mentioning that some of the newer
medicaments offer much more practical ways of controlling lice than we had
even two years ago. Greater access to those products would give us rapid
control that could be more easily maintained.

Dr Black: Membership of Scottish Quality Salmon depends on adherence to the
compulsory sea lice management strategy. That is a sensible and laudable
scheme. Although many of the non-members have signed up to that strategy,
the fact that many farmers are not members means that we must ensure that
medicine is used strategically so that one medicine is not used
continuously. That is probably more important than the commercial
implications for individual farmers. Perhaps the matter should be dealt
with by a statutory or other body rather than left to a voluntary scheme.

John Scott: Previous witnesses have suggested that SEPA should apply an
environmental consent rather than a discharge consent. The environmental
consent would include conditions regarding site management, husbandry, best
practice, food quotas, feeding practice, number of cages and the
positioning of cages. What is your view of that proposal? Is it feasible to
apply a best-available-technology regime to aquaculture? If not, should
what I suggest be introduced into the new planning regime?

Dr Black: On the first question, I think that everyone agrees that SEPA
should have the powers to regulate processes. I do not think that there is
any argument about that. What was your second question?

John Scott: Should best available technology be incorporated into the
planning regime?

Dr Black: As opposed to it being regulated by SEPA?

John Scott: As opposed to it happening at the time, I suppose. Is it
necessary to have a plan?

Dr Black: I want common standards throughout Scotland. I suspect that if
the matter is left to local authorities, different standards will be
applied. However, I have no strong views on the subject.

Professor Richards: Current quality schemes take on board many of those
issues. It is not so much that the many people who are involved in quality
schemes are at risk, but that people who do not conform need bringing into
line. Perhaps regulation should have a role in ensuring that that happens.

John Scott: Many previous witnesses highlighted the importance of
synchronised production, fallowing arrangements and disease treatments and
the difficulties that those measures can impose on small operators. How
important are those techniques for disease control?

Dr Black: They are vital. I am not sure how one gets round the problem of
farmers who cannot use those techniques because of the techniques' scale.
Perhaps they should be encouraged to link with other farmers to form
co-operatives so that they can get the benefits of scale. If not, perhaps
those farmers should be encouraged to farm new species that might not need
the same fallowing regime. However, I do not know what to do about the
problem of farmers who cannot use those disease control techniques. There
is no doubt, however, that those strategies are crucial to disease and pest
control.

Professor Richards: Those techniques, which have been developed over a long
time, were developed particularly because of the infectious salmon anaemia
outbreak. The joint Government-industry working group has helped to develop
best practice, which is being widely undertaken in environmental quality
schemes, to prevent disease from occurring. However, others are also aware
of that work and are making improvements where they can. It is more
difficult for the small operator who, for example, has to raise multiple
year classes on a particular site and has difficulty in implementing
extended fallowing periods. However, a move towards those practices is
important for the future.

John Scott: Would not that be more complicated in polyculture sites?

Professor Richards: One would have to take that into account when one was
deciding how to use those sites. If one was carrying out fallowing at a
salmon site, one would have to ensure that fish that were in an adjacent
cage—for example, cod—were also removed, to ensure that the entire site
had a fallow period. It is important to do that.

The Convener: We move on to the last section of this morning, which
concerns the effectiveness of harmonising the regulatory regime.

Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD): The minister is investigating having parallel
applications for planning and discharge consents and considering methods of
aligning the two application forms. What might be the implications of that?
Where should the work of the fisheries research services and the Veterinary
Medicines Directorate fit in such a proposed structure?

Professor Richards: It would be sensible to have parallel applications for
planning and discharge consents. However, there would be a cost implication
for the industry, which at the moment applies for one consent before the
other. That means that if the first one is turned down, there is no need to
pay a fee for the second—which is why parallel applications would be an
issue for the industry. However, that practice would cut down the time that
the process currently takes.

You specifically mentioned the VMD, which licenses medicines in the same
way as for all other farmed species. I see no need to change that role. It
is perhaps worth pointing out that when fish products are examined,
representatives from SEPA are invited to assess the environmental aspects
of using medicines. That is considered when the decision is made whether to
grant a licence for a medicinal product. SEPA is well aware of that work
and has a chance to contribute to the discussion around it. Even when the
product is licensed, SEPA considers its use on a site-by-site basis, which
is the correct approach.

Nora Radcliffe: I would be interested in your comments on how robust the
current monitoring, audit and enforcement arrangements are in respect of
environmental protection issues, such as nutrient enrichment and the use of
medicines and chemicals. Is the current regime sufficiently robust in
relation to planning and siting controls and consumer protection? The
difficulty with asking those questions at the end is that they have been
partially answered already.

11:00

Dr Black: The level of enforcement is low. The penalties for farmers who
misuse medicines are fairly trivial in comparison with the benefits that
they might gain, and more of an obligation should be imposed on them. I am
not suggesting that that practice is widespread, but only small fines have
been imposed in the cases that have gone to court. That issue should be
addressed.

Professor Richards: I agree. The penalties for farmers who breach
guidelines should be severe. However, I point out that the industry carries
out much of the measurement independently—it uses outside bodies to carry
out the measurement to the required standards, and the results are passed
on to organisations such as SEPA. The codes of practice are mandatory for
those who are involved in quality schemes. If they are found to be in
breach of those codes, they are thrown out of the schemes, which has a
severe financial effect on the industry.

The arrangements are robust and the system is constantly improving—the
problem is with those who are outwith the quality schemes. For example,
samples of fish flesh are monitored regularly by the Veterinary Medicines
Directorate, by quality schemes and by the supermarkets. Breaches that are
found when those measurements are taken should be punished quite severely.

Nora Radcliffe: You are saying that the regime is fine; the difficulty
comes with implementing it and ensuring sufficient sanctions.

Dr Shelton: I will add a little point. We are right to say that what gets
measured gets done—that is a bit of cliché, but it is quite valid.
However, louse levels are not inspected or measured uniformly, although, in
my view, they should be.

Dr Black: I entirely agree. Inspection would be required if a lice maximum
burden were set. I understand that, in Norway, state-funded veterinarians
carry out that inspection. The issue is partly to do with money. SEPA has a
limited budget for monitoring the environment. It is a question of who
should pay for that work. Some people would argue that the polluter must
pay but, at the same time, the public purse must make an investment and
increase SEPA's financial resource, so that it can undertake that
monitoring and counting of lice.

Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP): Dr Black summed up the answer that I
was looking for. Professor Richards talked about the amount of
self-monitoring that goes on, and we heard from Scottish Quality Salmon
that it expelled a member when monitoring showed that they were not up to
standard. Dr Black put his finger on the problem—self-monitoring is
effective only to a certain level. Earlier, we were told that SQS monitors
for lice, but we were also told that that monitoring is not sufficient to
control the problem. Will Dr Black confirm my belief that one cannot rely
on self-monitoring and that a statutory body must underpin regulation?

Dr Black: Yes. What we do is like auditing. Farmers have an interest in
counting lice, as they need to know how many they have so that they know
when to treat them. That work goes on for other reasons, and other
monitoring programmes, such as self-monitoring programmes, are laudable.
However, some statutory auditing must take place if we are to gain public
confidence. Some auditing takes place already, but it is not enough. That
is where the issue of resources comes in.

Professor Richards: I agree. The monitoring of environmental impact is
carried out within quality schemes by independent outside bodies, not by
the farmers. Some monitoring by SEPA backs up that work. The issue of how
much monitoring SEPA can carry out is connected with resources. Lice
monitoring is not carried out by outside bodies—unless veterinary
surgeons conduct that monitoring, it is done by the farmers themselves. It
is essential to carry out lice monitoring in order to determine the right
time for applying treatments. We do not want to apply treatments every
fortnight in order to ensure that there is no problem—treatments should
be applied when necessary. If farmers get it wrong, they will have a severe
problem because lice will affect their fish.

It is necessary to carry out that monitoring in order to control lice on
the farms. I guess that the additional question is whether there should be
another form of external monitoring to determine that the level of lice
that builds up is not dangerous for other populations, such as wild
salmon.

Dr Shelton: That is the nub of the louse problem, in regard to the wild
resource. The level of ovigerous lice that can be tolerated on a fish farm
is considerably higher than the level that would represent a danger to wild
fish. That is the great difficulty. In my view, external surveillance is
required if louse levels on fish farms are to become low enough to protect
wild fish.

The Convener: That concludes our questions. I thank our witnesses for their
evidence, which was valuable to our inquiry into aquaculture.

As the deputy convener said at the beginning of the meeting, Allan Wilson
MSP, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, was
originally scheduled to give evidence to the committee today on the
aquaculture inquiry, but he is unable to attend for family reasons. I hope
that we will be able to reschedule his appearance as soon as possible. We
might be able to do so next week, but that will depend on his
availability.

I offer MSPs and members of the public a short comfort break, because I
realise that the room is not very warm. We will reconvene in approximately
five minutes.

11:07

Meeting adjourned.

11:19

On resuming—

The Convener: I allowed the previous session to run on for longer than
scheduled as the evidence was valuable and members wanted to ask quite a
few supplementary questions.

Petitions

Public Transport (Passenger Safety) (PE59)

The Convener: I welcome John Home Robertson, the MSP for East Lothian, and
Jackie Baillie, MSP for Dumbarton, who are here to give their views on
particular petitions.

The first petition is PE59, from Mr Frank Harvey, which is about passenger
safety on public transport and the issue of taking dangerous dogs on
trains. We have twice corresponded with the Scottish Executive on the
subject. That correspondence is attached to the covering note on the
petition. Members will see from the covering note that the issue of
passenger safety on public transport is a reserved matter.

The petition has been on-going for almost two years. We would wish to try
to bring the issue to a conclusion and to respond to the petitioner with
our views on the petition.

The suggested option for action, as set out in the covering note, is to
conclude the petition by writing to the petitioner, informing him which
areas of his petition refer to reserved matters; to draw his attention to
members' comments on the petition, as set out in the Official Report; and
to forward him copies of the responses from the Scottish Executive. I seek
views from members on the progress of the petition.

Fiona McLeod: I am sorry, but you are not going to like this. In the most
recent letter that we received from the Scottish Executive, the final
bullet point is entitled:

"Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC)".

The letter goes on to state that the

"PIXC regime in Scotland applies to the Fife commuter lines to Edinburgh
only"

in recognition that it is a

"near-monopoly of ScotRail".

I would contend that the Glasgow to Edinburgh route is also a near-monopoly
of ScotRail. I know that it will delay a response to the petition, but I
wonder whether we can write yet again to ask why PIXC is not applied to the
Glasgow to Edinburgh route. PIXC applies only when 3 per cent of passengers
have to stand.

The Convener: I suggest that we should address that broader issue in any
review of the ScotRail franchise. I have no problem with our writing to the
Executive on that issue, but it is not necessarily specifically related to
Mr Harvey's petition, which was on safety. Safety on public transport is a
reserved issue and a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

John Scott: It might be helpful to Fiona McLeod to point out that the last
sentence in the next paragraph might, in a way, address her question. It
states:

"Apart from additional capacity negotiated through the franchise
replacement process, the options to control overcrowding include altered
stopping patterns through timetable changes, and longer or additional
trains."

That is a pragmatic and commonsense way of addressing overcrowding, which I
would expect the rail companies to use.

Mr Ingram: The only question is one of the effectiveness of the procedures.
I would be interested to get information on what action has been taken with
regard to overcrowding, on the basis of the surveys that the Strategic Rail
Authority and so on were undertaking. I note that there is a members'
business motion from Sylvia Jackson on overcrowding. We seem to have
on-going problems with it. It would be useful to obtain that information on
what action has been taken under the franchising arrangements.

The Convener: That is not directly related to Mr Harvey's petition. It is
my intention as convener that we consider the broader aspects of the
railway industry, in particular Scotland's passenger franchise. Those
issues might be better addressed in that way rather than by way of the
petition. The petition is specifically about safety on passenger services,
which is clearly a reserved matter. That should form the basis of our
response.

Maureen Macmillan: I agree with that, convener; the issue is one of health
and safety and is therefore not within our remit. However, we should write
to the petitioner to say that the committee intends to examine railways in
Scotland and that his concerns might be dealt with in some way. The
petitioner's concern is

"especially about overcrowding on trains"

and he thinks that

"there is no limit to standing passengers".

For the reasons that we have mentioned, it would be worth pursuing those
questions—whether or not they are reserved—on behalf of the petitioner.
We all must get on the trains every morning.

The Convener: My point was that the committee's remit does not extend to
reserved issues. I did not say that the quality of public transport
services is not an important issue. Overcrowding is an aspect of the
quality of service. However, it would be unhelpful and improper of us to
delve into reserved issues when an appropriate mechanism exists by which
the petitioner's concerns could be considered further.

Angus MacKay: Will you clarify the reserved nature of the issue? I do not
dispute what you said, but I am new to the committee and I would like to
understand the matter better.

The Convener: Regulation of the railway industry falls under the remit of
the Health and Safety Executive, which is a United Kingdom body and is
responsible to the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament. That is
why the matter is reserved.

Angus MacKay: Does that mean that the content of the petition is a matter
for Westminster?

The Convener: Yes.

Angus MacKay: So why are we discussing it?

Mr Ingram: Are we not in the realms of the franchise agreement, which is
not reserved? When we review the franchise agreement, we will consider
whether measures to prevent overcrowding are being implemented. Therefore,
it is relevant for the committee to consider the matter.

The Convener: The subject of the petition is:

"Passenger safety on public transport in Scotland."

Therefore, I take the petition to be about passenger safety, which
undoubtedly is a reserved issue.

Mr Ingram: In so far as the franchise agreement is connected with those
matters, they are a legitimate concern for the committee.

The Convener: The franchise might be connected to the issue of capacity on
the rail network and, as I said, I am happy for us to come back to that.
The Parliament can discuss the definition of the franchise, the extent of
public support for the franchise and the effect that the franchise has on
capacity. However, the petition is not about that.

Angus MacKay: I want to be clear on the matter. The franchise negotiation
has no locus in addressing public safety on public transport.

Fiona McLeod: It does.

Angus MacKay: No, it does not. The franchise replacement process can deal
with overcrowding by considering matters such as stopping patterns and
timetable changes, but that is different from public safety on transport. A
regime for public safety operates at Westminster, so, frankly, we are
wasting our time by discussing it here.

Robin Harper: I subscribe to that.

Mr Ingram: Given the response that we had from the Executive on capacity
considerations, the petition is of interest to the committee. As Maureen
Macmillan said, we should write to the petitioner to say that we will
consider the matter in due course.

The Convener: I have no problem with saying that we will consider capacity,
but given that the petition has been in the system for some time, I wish to
bring it to a conclusion. I do not wish to give the petitioner the idea
that we will continue with it. We will deal with the broader issues of the
franchise in due course.

Does the committee agree that we should respond to the petitioner in the
manner that is suggested in the report?

Members indicated agreement.

Raptors (Licensed Culling) (PE187)

11:30

The Convener: Petition PE187, which came from the Scottish Gamekeepers
Association, called on the Scottish Parliament to allow limited licensed
culling of raptors. Maureen Macmillan, who was appointed as the committee's
reporter on the petition, reported to the committee initially in June 2000
and the extract of her report is included in the cover note. The committee
agreed to the report's recommendation to write to Scottish Natural Heritage
to seek clarification on the legal status of the petitioners' request. We
have received a response from SNH and a letter from the Scottish
Gamekeepers Association, copies of both of which have been circulated.

Before I ask for members' views, does Maureen Macmillan, as our original
reporter, wish to comment on the developments since the report?

Maureen Macmillan: I am sure that members will recall the petition from the
SGA, which was concerned at the effect on the grouse population of the
increasing numbers of raptors. The petition requested a derogation from the
wild birds directive, which the petitioners thought might be possible if
grouse were defined as livestock.

The SNH response to our request for clarification of the legal position is
given in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the cover note. Although SNH does not close
the door on derogation, it notes that derogation would be a last resort,
for which substantial evidence would be needed to show that diversion
methods do not work.

At the time, the committee did not take the view that shooting or culling
raptors was an option. We thought that any derogation from the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 would have to be for a measure less serious than
culling, such as the disruption of nesting birds.

Paragraph 10 of the cover note indicates that a moorland working group has
been established, but the SGA is not listed as a member. It is important
that the SGA is not left out on a limb. The SGA should be included in talks
with organisations such as those that are represented on the moorland
working group so that a way forward can be found to address the SGA's
concerns or to reach some compromise. The situation is similar to what
happened with the petition from the Scottish Homing Union, where there
seemed to be a stand-off between the two sides.

It is important that the groups get together to discuss how they can make
progress on aspects such as tactics to divert raptors from the grouse.
Those tactics need to work, but the SGA feels that the tactics that are
being suggested by groups such as SNH or RSPB Scotland are not workable.
More research needs to be done.

The Convener: For the sake of clarity, which of the options that are
outlined in the paper would you prefer?

Maureen Macmillan: Option B would be the appropriate way forward.

Mr Ingram: Option B mentions

"the need to address the problems identified by the SGA".

Are we to respond to that merely through Maureen Macmillan's report?

Maureen Macmillan: The recommendation is that there needs to be some kind
of joint approach and joint working. We need agreement on the way forward.

Mr Ingram: Do we want to ensure that the SGA's views are properly heard and
consulted upon?

The Convener: Perhaps we could also say that the SGA should be incorporated
into the moorland working group.

John Scott: Will we subsequently want to seek a derogation?

Maureen Macmillan: Paragraph 8 of the cover note quotes SNH's contention
that:

"an application to derogate from the Birds Directive would need to follow
on from a substantial amount of work and evidence to show that non-lethal
methods would not work".

That has not been done yet. Other methods to protect the grouse population
from raptors have not been investigated. As far as I can see, the SGA has
not been closely involved with the working groups.

John Scott: It seems to be a source of great resentment to the SGA that it
has not been involved. That resentment seems reasonable.

Maureen Macmillan: I agree.

John Scott: Will the SGA's inclusion in the working group be sufficient to
address the problem?

Maureen Macmillan: The committee was not prepared to agree with the SGA's
call for the culling of raptors; in our view, the petition went too far. We
discussed the possibility of methods that did not go as far as shooting or
killing raptors, such as pricking eggs or disrupting nesting sites. Such
methods would also require a derogation from the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981, and Scottish Natural Heritage says that every other possibility
would have to be examined before that was done.

I want the SGA to be involved. Other organisations should not be conducting
experiments while the SGA is standing on the sidelines saying that the
method does not work. We should recommend that the SGA should be involved
and consulted during the experiments and field trials, just as we
recommended that the Scottish Homing Union should be involved in examining
methods of stopping raptors taking homing pigeons. That situation has been
worked out, and a joint group that involves the Scottish Homing Union and
environmental organisations is working on the matter. I do not see why the
SGA should not be able to work with other organisations on this matter.

Nora Radcliffe: The SGA says that this is a matter of balance between
raptors and the grouse population; it believes that measures such as
diversionary feeding would only add another element to the equation and
that the number of raptors would rise to compensate for the added feeding.
The same argument could be applied to habitat management. If you tackle the
problem by creating better heather cover for the grouse, you are working
with nature instead of against it to keep the balance more in favour of the
grouse.

Who set up the moorland working group? Is it under the aegis of SNH?

Maureen Macmillan: I do not know.

Nora Radcliffe: It would be useful to find out the sponsoring body. As part
of our response to the petition, we should write to the sponsoring body and
ask it to invite the SGA to be part of the group. Would that be a helpful
way forward?

The Convener: My advice from the clerk is that SNH set up the working
group.

Robin Harper: I declare an interest as a member of RSPB Scotland.

Having read through the documents, I would observe that until a common
method for assessing raptor numbers has been agreed between the SGA, RSPB
Scotland and other groups, it will be difficult to make progress.

Mr Ingram: The SGA has a case, in that it intends to kill raptors only in
areas where the balance is out of kilter. The issue lies in determining the
correct balance, which must be based on scientific research. The fact that
the SGA is not involved in the working group is a serious omission. I would
like the committee to put as much weight behind the recommendation as it
can, to ensure that the SGA becomes involved in the group.

Des McNulty: We are in danger of repeating debates that we have already
had—some of us were on the committee for the previous debate—and I am
anxious to avoid that.

I agree with Adam Ingram. We need to state specifically that consideration
should be given to involving the SGA in the moorland working group. If we
can make that amendment to option B, that would be reasonable. Ultimately,
there is disagreement and we will not resolve the matter in this
committee—we do not have the expertise—but if we could promote
dialogue, that would be a step forward.

John Scott: At the risk of upsetting Des McNulty—I was not here at the
first debate—there is a need for balance to be struck, as Nora Radcliffe
and Adam Ingram have said. There is a widely held view in the countryside
that somehow, the situation is out of balance and the grouse population
needs to be reconciled with the huge increase in the number of raptors.

SNH and the RSPB want to produce more raptors; I appreciate the reasons for
that. They are perfectly entitled to pursue their position, with which I
agree, but the situation is out of balance and people are suffering. It was
said earlier that a derogation could be found only if grouse were treated
as a crop. Grouse are definitely harvested in the shooting season, so they
are no different from a crop of lambs on hills in that respect.

Maureen Macmillan: I am afraid that that is not the case under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981.

John Scott: I am just saying what the situation is as I see it.

The Convener: We should write to the Scottish Executive and the SGA to
outline the views that members have expressed today. We should indicate
that our strong recommendation is that the SGA should be incorporated into
the moorland working group. We should double-check whether SNH is the
sponsoring body and write to it about the matter.

Do members agree to take that approach as the way forward?

Members indicated agreement.

Quarrying (PE225)

The Convener: Petition PE225, by Mr William Ackland, calls on the Scottish
Parliament to address the concerns of local residents about the vibration,
noise and environmental threats that are caused by quarrying. A covering
note has been circulated with the petition and members will note that the
petition is outstanding and has had slow progress. It relates to a planning
decision at Sheephill quarry in Milton.

I remind members that the committee has previously decided not to express a
view on individual planning issues. I ask members to concentrate on the
broader issues that the petition raises. On the broader issue of mineral
permissions, the Executive issued a consultation paper on the review of old
mineral permissions in November. Before members comment, I invite Jackie
Baillie, who is the constituency MSP for the area from which the petitioner
comes, to make a contribution to our response to the petition.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): Thank you for the opportunity to address
the committee. I appreciate the fact that the committee is not in a
position to comment on individual cases, but I think that the case
illustrates a flaw within the current planning process. I add that I have
visited both the constituents and the quarry operators, so I have a
well-rounded perspective of the problems.

I will not rehearse again what the committee has already considered. I will
focus on the fact that there has been inordinate delay in the planning
process and in obtaining an environmental impact assessment, and illustrate
the point by describing the situation to the committee.

The situation goes back to March 1998, when the quarry operators submitted
an application for the review of mineral permissions and to extend the
coverage of their operation very close to residential property and a
scheduled ancient monument.

In November 1998, the Scottish Office issued guidance about the need for
applications to be supported by an environmental impact assessment. At the
time, the Scottish Office took the view that it was the responsibility of
the developer to obtain an EIA. The developer agreed to obtain an EIA, but
it is now December 2001 and, so far, there is no evidence of an EIA.

In February 2001, application was made to Historic Scotland concerning the
excavation of the fort at Sheephill, which raises the issue of scheduled
monuments. Historic Scotland is still to determine on the matter.

11:45

The crux of the problem is that we are now in December 2001. The local
authority will not proceed until there is an EIA, because it could be
accused of failing to take all material considerations. It appears that the
operator will not want to proceed to obtain an EIA until it hears from
Historic Scotland. In the correspondence that has been supplied to the
committee, Historic Scotland is saying that there is nothing to stop an EIA
being obtained anyway. You can imagine that there is confusion about the
delay as Parliament approaches another birthday, and the frustration of all
involved.

I would like the committee to address the principles. Aside from ensuring
that, within the regulations, there is specific provision for consideration
of a range of environmental matters including noise and vibration, we need
to be clear that time scales need to be applied for submission of EIAs to
local authorities. Given the committee's knowledge of the area, I would
appreciate advice on whether the proposed regulations will cover that
aspect. If they will not, will the committee recommend that time scales be
specified?

I note from the report that has been presented to the committee that the
presumption is that the new regulations would not apply in this case. I
have to say that, while a review might be technically under way, little
progress has been made. I therefore believe that such situations should be
covered by the new regulations and I would like the committee to explore
that with the Executive. The determining factor should not be the start of
the process, but whether the process has been completed.

The Convener: Thank you. I understand that the regulations that are under
consultation cover time scales. The consultation process continues and
concludes at the end of this year. At the end of the consultation, the
Executive will consider how it intends to progress the regulations.

No other members want to add to the debate. Does the committee therefore
want to progress the matter according to the options set out in the paper?
We can write to the petitioner to advise of the correspondence the
committee has received to date about the matter. We can also indicate,
while referring to the current Scottish Executive consultation, that we
have a policy of not becoming involved in individual planning issues. It
might also be useful to write to the Executive to express some of the
concerns that Jackie Baillie outlined about the general principles of the
delay that has taken place and how they might apply to other, similar,
situations. The Executive might take that into consideration in the
consultation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Des McNulty: I want to raise one issue. The letter from Sarah Boyack refers
to

"draft regulations which will introduce statutory environmental assessment
procedures into the mineral review provisions."

The letter also indicates that the application of environmental impact
assessment is voluntary and operates on a precautionary basis.

I wonder whether it would be worth writing to the Minister for Environment
and Rural Development to ask what stage the introduction of statutory
procedures is at. It seems that "shortly" can mean at least a year and a
half.

The Convener: Are not those the regulations that are currently under
consultation?

Des McNulty: Presumably. I would like to know when they are going to be
introduced.

The Convener: So you are seeking clarity on the timetable for the
introduction of the regulations following the consultation process?

Des McNulty: Yes.

The Convener: Is it agreed that we include that point?

Members indicated agreement.

Opencast Mining (PE346 and PE369)

The Convener: The final petitions that we must deal with relate to opencast
mining: PE346 from Scotland Opposing Opencast and PE369 from the
Confederation of UK Coal Producers. Members have been provided with a note
on the petitions. I seek members' views on how we should deal with them.

Three options are set out in the paper. Option A is to note the petitions
and write to the petitioners, including a copy of the Official Report of
any relevant meetings. We could also write to the Executive setting out the
views in the petitions. Option B would be to take oral evidence from the
petitioners. Option C would be to consider the issues raised in the
petitions and to appoint a reporter or reporters to take evidence from the
petitioners and other relevant bodies, including the local authorities, and
report back to the committee.

I welcome John Home Robertson, the MSP for East Lothian, which is the
source of one of the petitions. I, too, am a member for one of the areas
referred to in petition PE346.

Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab): The layout of the committee
room would be a credit to the Stasi—I would hate to face hostile
cross-examination here.

The committee is considering two petitions, one that would wipe out the
opencast industry altogether and one that would open up all coal-bearing
areas in Scotland to exploitation for opencast mining. My position is
somewhere between the two. However, from a constituency point of view, my
main concern is petition PE369, from the Confederation of UK Coal
Producers, which calls for a guarantee that

"exploitable coal deposits are accorded positive policies in development
plans."

As we know, that is extremely controversial. I will not detain the
committee for much time on that point, because it was fully covered in the
members' business debate that I initiated on 21 November. That debate
included eloquent speeches from Bristow Muldoon and Adam Ingram.

I understand the interests of opencast companies. I am sure that any
reasonable person would acknowledge that there are places where opencast
mining is appropriate, might be beneficial to the local economy and could
help in the reclamation of industrial dereliction. However, it is very
important to have regard to the track record of the industry. Several
members have opencast mines in our constituencies and are aware of
particular problems arising from dust, traffic, noise and so on.

I submit that it is also very important to take account not just of the
economic, environmental and social interests of communities that are close
to proposed opencast sites, but of those that find themselves in areas that
have been designated as areas of search for opencast coal, which could be
blighted for many years to come by the implied threat of an opencast site
in that neighbourhood.

Recently, a substantial part of my constituency has been designated by the
Scottish Executive as an area of search. It is very important that that
area is narrowed down and that the industry is directed into areas that are
genuinely suitable for opencasting. That would lift the blight from other
parts of the countryside, because the designation of an area for opencast
searching impacts not only on the landscape, the value of people's houses
and the environment in such areas, but—crucially—on other industries.
The area in my constituency that has been designated as an area of search
has several new industries that employ a lot of people. Those industries
could grow and be valuable to the local economy and benefit the area in the
long term. It would be tragic if such potential were blighted by the threat
of opencasting for short-term gain and short-term jobs.

I have an obvious constituency concern. In any deliberation on the issue, I
urge the committee to have regard for considerations of the kind that I
have described. It is important to establish a credible distinction between
the fairly narrow range of areas that are suitable for opencasting, which
the industry could consider further legitimately, and the much wider range
of areas that are not suitable for opencasting and should be excluded from
such consideration. I hope that those points will be taken into account in
the much wider examination of the national planning policy guidelines and
other aspects of Scottish Executive policy.

Mr Ingram: I endorse much of what Mr Home Robertson has just said. I
suggest that we should look at options B and C together. Where there is a
large number of opencast sites, particularly in the areas in East Ayrshire
with which I am familiar, there is the problem that councils and other
authorities do not have the resources to monitor properly what is going
on.

I note the Executive's letters that indicate that NPPG 16 has tightened up
a lot, which I agree with. I am less sure about whether the guideline has
tightened up enough, particularly on issues such as airborne dust and
particulates, which affect the health of people in and around opencast
sites. The Executive has acknowledged that it has changed the framework on
that to some extent. It also says that it wants the new framework to settle
down. Although I agree with that, I do not want the Executive to close its
mind to the concerns of local communities, which Mr Home Robertson has
articulated and of which I am aware in East Ayrshire.

There is still controversy about issues such as the buffer zones between
opencast sites and local communities and the definition of a local
community—how large a group of houses constitutes such a community. On
fees for mineral permission, there are a lot of section 75 agreements,
whereby opencast companies pay a levy per tonne to a mineral trust fund.
Such funds, which have been set up in many areas, might represent a
mechanism for raising moneys to pay for a type of fee arrangement that
would enable the local authorities to hire the relevant people to do the
necessary monitoring of sites.

As we need to examine such issues, we should choose option C. That said,
given that there is continuing controversy on this matter, we should ask
the two sets of petitioners to give evidence for our consideration.

Robin Harper: I, too, spoke briefly in the members' business debate on the
motion that John Home Robertson lodged. I have been lobbied about an
opencast mining site and a quarry in Midlothian, and have attended a
meeting in Ayrshire. The depth of feeling in threatened local communities
compels me to suggest that we choose options B and C, if for no other
reason than to show these small, widely dispersed communities that the
Scottish Parliament takes their feelings very seriously. Appointing a
reporter would be a very good way of ensuring that we gather views at first
hand from the communities that feel most threatened.

12:00

Des McNulty: I agree that we should appoint a reporter or reporters to take
the matter forward. Although the area is quite technical, the issue itself
is localised. I wonder whether we should follow the approach that Andy Kerr
took with a relatively recent petition, when he went out and spoke to
people in a specific locality. As far as this petition is concerned, it
might be appropriate for the reporter to identify a couple of localities,
find out the situation on the ground and come back to the committee with a
report which would form the basis for deciding how we proceed with the
matter. That would be a good way for the Parliament to deal with a
particular issue without necessarily interfering with the usual run of
committee business.

Maureen Macmillan: If we appoint a reporter or reporters, we can address
the problem almost immediately. Goodness knows when we would be able to fit
in any evidence taking. We should appoint the reporter or reporters and
find out later whether we need to take evidence.

The Convener: I must try to draw everything together. Without wishing to
abuse my position as convener too much, I should repeat—as John Home
Robertson mentioned—that I made a speech in the recent debate on this
issue, so many of my concerns are well known and on the public record.

Both petitions raise important issues that the committee should investigate
further. I am getting the feeling that members favour option C, which is
that we appoint a reporter or reporters to carry out further detailed
research on the committee's behalf and submit a report to us in due course.
Perhaps the report could concentrate on specific issues such as the NPPG,
the cost of monitoring and the question of enforcing permissions.

I am also attracted by Des McNulty's suggestion that the reporter or
reporters pay site visits to some communities, as the geographical context
of some of the communities is an important part of the issue. Before we
agree on who will undertake the work, are members agreed that we appoint
reporters who will be able to carry out site visits; speak to the
individuals, communities and organisations associated with both petitions
and other organisations, such as local authorities, that are not
signatories but whose contributions are obviously worthy of consideration;
and report back to the committee in due course?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: I open the question of who will act as reporter to
expressions of interest from members.

Mr Ingram: I am very interested.

The Convener: Are any other members interested?

Nora Radcliffe: It would be sensible for two members to share the burden.

The Convener: I agree. Are you expressing an interest, Nora?

Nora Radcliffe: I am prepared to work with Adam Ingram on the issue, if the
committee is agreed.

The Convener: If no other member wishes to express an interest, are members
agreed that Adam Ingram and Nora Radcliffe will act as the two reporters on
this issue?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Home Robertson: I look forward to seeing the reporters in East Lothian.

Item in Private

The Convener: Before I close the meeting, I advise members that we hope to
consider a paper on our work programme at a future meeting. I suggest that,
in line with previous practice, we take the item in private when it comes
up on the agenda and that, once the committee agrees the work programme, we
make it publicly available. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: Finally, I remind members of the announcement in today's
business bulletin that amendments for parts 1 and 2 of the Water Industry
(Scotland) Bill must be lodged by 2 pm on Monday 17 December ahead of next
week's meeting, which will take place on 19 December. I encourage members
to lodge amendments as early as possible in advance of that deadline to
assist the clerks in their preparation of next week's agenda and to assist
me in my consideration of the admissibility of amendments. I thank members
of the press and public for their interest in today's meeting.

Fiona McLeod: Can I confirm that we will be considering parts 1 and 2 and
the attendant schedules to the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill on
Wednesday?

The Convener: That is right.

Meeting closed at 12:06.


This work is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The SCOTS Project and the University of Glasgow do not necessarily endorse,
support or recommend the views expressed in this document.

Document source:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-transport/or-01/tr01-3101.htm

Information about document and author:

Text
Text audience
General public: Audience size: 1000+

Text details
Method of composition: Wordprocessed
Year of composition: 2001
Word count: 15521
General description: Committee Report. See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/index.htm

Text medium
Web (webpages, discussion boards, newsgroups, chat rooms): 
Text publication details
Published: Publisher: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body
Publication year: 2001
Place of publication: www.scottish.parliament.uk

Text setting
Government/politics: 
Text type
Report: Written record of speech (e.g. hansard, legal proceedings, minutes of meetings): 

Author
Author details
Author id: 908
Surname: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body