The final continued petition for consideration today is PE1715, on closed containment for salmon farms in Scotland. The petition was lodged by Mark Carter, on behalf of Marine Concern, and seeks action to ensure that the salmon farming industry in Scotland uses only a closed containment method of farming, with full water filtering.
Since the petition was last considered, in February 2019, the committee has received submissions from Fisheries Management Scotland, Salmon & Trout Conservation Scotland, the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation and the Scottish Government. The submissions are summarised in the clerk’s note, which explains that there is currently no evidence of the commercial viability of wholly closed containment production methods.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I was on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee when it dealt with the previous petition on this subject, which led us to conduct a thorough enquiry and produce quite a big report. I was quite interested to read the part of the clerk’s note that deals with progress since that report was published. I think that there is scope for us to write to the cabinet secretary to ask about the points that have been raised about things that were promised not having been actioned or followed up. I would like to find out where we are now in terms of the recommendations in the report, because there were a lot of them.
The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee addressed the closed containment issue and took a lot of evidence about the relevant environmental issues. It seems that we are not quite there yet with regard to setting up the cages on land, and there might well be scope for us to find out more about the state of research and development in that regard.
As far as what added value the Public Petitions Committee can provide is concerned, I assume that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which produced a report on the issue, will ask the Scottish Government to follow it up—
Therefore, perhaps the best option would be to refer the petition to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, given that we know that it has already done a lot of work in this area and that we are interested in the extent to which its recommendations have been followed up. We can also say that we think that further research might need to be carried out, if that is necessary. That would prevent duplication of effort by two parliamentary committees.
I am unfamiliar with the referral process. If we were to refer the petition to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, would we get back from it a report on where things stood or would the petition simply sit with it?
The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee would take ownership of the petition and of the issues that are highlighted in it. There is a conversation to be had about how effective that part of the process is, but I think that it is essential that the Public Petitions Committee refers petitions on to other committees when that is relevant. Such a referral is seen as pretty authoritative—it places on the relevant committee an obligation to reflect on the petition that is referred to it.
I am reassured by the fact that, as Gail Ross said, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee has already done a great deal of work in this area and has taken the issue seriously, so it will not disappear off its agenda.
Does the committee agree that we will refer the petition to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee under rule 15.6.2 of the standing orders, and that we thank the petitioner for bringing the matter to our attention?
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.