Jamie Greene
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“In reality, our end-of-life choices are not always truly choices—do not resuscitate, nil by mouth, morphine, let nature take its course—but the one thing I cannot get out of my head is this: what if? What if palliative care can do nothing more for me? What if, in excruciating pain, I lose my dignity and control?”
“If we vote against the bill and it falls, I believe that I would wake up tomorrow and regret it, and I think that others in the chamber might, too. I could not look someone in their eyes in their dying days and tell them that I denied them that choice. I will sum up in the words of Diane, who wrote to us all on Saturday afternoon.”
“I think that I sit somewhere in the middle, because there is always risk when making law. Our task is to weigh up that risk and mitigate it where we can. No bill is perfect, so the question we must ask ourselves is not an abstract one. If I or someone I love want that choice at the end, will it be there?”
“I thank Lorna Slater for that speech—that was beautiful. I think that, tonight, we have heard some of the most profound and powerful speeches I have ever heard in this place, and I thank all members for that.”
“I fear a painful death more than death itself, so the dilemma that I have grappled with is simple. God forbid the day ever comes when I need that choice, but would I rather it was there or not? Members must ask themselves the same question—there or not? If I want that choice at the very end, I must offer that choice to others.”
“Can Stephen Kerr elicit which parts of the bill, as amended to date, relate to reserved matters? My understanding is that those have all been removed from the bill. If he could point to some such parts of the bill, I would be grateful. Stephen Kerr: I accept what Jamie Greene is saying. I am speaking to amendment 249.”
The complete record
Every one of 457 lines we hold for Jamie Greene, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
“I will talk about two very different but vital strategies for how we can tackle poverty. My opening speech will focus on economic growth, which others have touched on, whereas my closing speech will focus more on the wider public sector reform that is needed to target poverty. When I read the Government’s motion, I was disappointed to say the least because, although it talks about reducing child poverty, the Government does not say how it is going to do that. The motion talks about improving living standards, but it does not mention Scotland’s growing housing emergency and crisis. It talks about growing the economy, but it does not detail how it is going to do that.”
“I move amendment S5M-23324.5, to insert at end “; notes that over many years, several industrial interventions have been made by the Scottish Government necessitating significant public funding, as seen at Prestwick Airport, Ferguson Marine, the steelworks at Dalzell, the Bifab fabrication yards and the Alvance smelter at Lochaber, which have resulted in hundreds of millions of pounds of written-off loans and cash injections, unclear futures for many of these businesses and a perennial struggle to return the businesses into private commercial ownership; regrets that there appears not to exist any long- term wider industrial strategy in Scotland, and believes that, where and when the Scottish Government intervenes in business in future, it should adopt a proactive, not reactive, approach to industrial interventions that ensures value for public money and robust exit strategies are prime considerations.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate.”
“Prestwick airport was bought by the Scottish Government in 2013, and it is still in public ownership, with no vision in sight of how to return it to the private sector. The same is true of Ferguson Marine, which was bought back in 2019. How is that going? The yard is losing out on much- needed contracts for new ships, and the private sector is going to Liverpool. I have no problem with any Government intervening in private business if the purpose is to save jobs and prevent the collapse of industries. We all want to see good people in good jobs. However, when the Government uses public money to do that, it needs to demonstrate prudence and honesty to the taxpayer. It needs to be honest about the risks involved and the robustness of its exit strategy, if there is one. That is the point of my amendment, which I urge the chamber to support.”
“Scunthorpe and Grangemouth highlight the importance of domestic ownership in our energy sector, rather than the sector being controlled by foreign powers—and we all know where that leads to. However, bail-outs alone are not the answer— they are not the solution. That reactive, firefighting approach to the Scottish economy does not and should not replace a long-term industrial strategy. Businesses are adept at changing in tough circumstances. That is what they do best. The private sector has been doing it for years. However, when a business cannot survive, the Government, if it chooses to intervene with public money, must use exceptional due diligence during and after those interventions, because lessons are not being learned. I have seen that first hand on the west coast.”
“Jamie Greene: I will make some progress, then I will take the intervention. Chucking money into private companies will save jobs in the short term, but it is an entirely reactive approach to intervening in business. Members can call me a cynic, but the photo opportunities for ministers to stand outside the gates of some of those companies have been far more successful than the turnaround activity in the businesses themselves. That is presumably why the Confederation of British Industry Scotland is now calling on the Scottish Government to remove barriers to economic growth, tackle the skills shortages and create a competitive business environment. Those are fair asks. I understand why the UK Government stepped in on British Steel. It was a critical situation.”
“I get that Governments intervene to stop the immediacy of job losses. However, the Scottish Government has spent £0.5 billion on financial interventions in private companies in recent years. Where has that led it to? Let us look at some of investments. The Government has spent £55 million of public money on Prestwick airport. Kate Forbes: It is making a profit. Jamie Greene: Do not worry—I am coming to that. The Government has spent £50 million of public money on Burntisland Fabrications and £300 million to £500 million of public money on Ferguson Marine. The GFG Alliance, albeit on different terms, exposed the taxpayer to potential risk in the amount of another £0.5 billion pounds. That is the point of my amendment. Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention?”
“Rightly, the Scottish Government’s motion asks the question: if the UK Government can intervene in Scunthorpe, why can it not intervene in Grangemouth? It is a fair question, but it entirely misses the point. Grangemouth has been around for more than 100 years—it is the oldest oil refinery in the UK. However, across decades, very little has been done to help the site move on in the transition away from fossil fuels. We have known for years that we need to tackle climate change and that there would be a shift away from oil and gas. Yes, the refinery may have been in private ownership, but that does not mean that there is an absence of responsibility for the Government—or Governments. Instead, the question is whether public ownership will just fill in the existing financial gaps, or will it lead the industry to a glorious new future.”
“In 2023, Audit Scotland repeated the same warning: “There is a continuing need for the Scottish Government to ensure robust planning, value-for-money assessments, and exit strategies when considering financial interventions in private companies.” The Public Audit Committee, on which I am happy still to be sitting, has made it clear that “Taxpayers must be confident that government investments are made with a clear purpose, sound financial judgement, and a credible plan to exit at the right time.” The problem is that none of those warnings has been heeded— Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Greene: I say to the cabinet secretary that they have not been heeded, which is why the coal, shipbuilding and steel industries, which used to employ more than 400,000 Scots, now employ just under 50,000.”
“Last year, the Auditor General for Scotland was firm on the issue, stating: “The Scottish Government’s 10-year economic strategy ... lacks collective political leadership and clear targets.” It was also warned as far back as 2021 by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which said: “Without a coordinated strategy, interventions risk being tactical fixes rather than strategic investments that build long-term economic capacity.” The Government was also warned by the Parliament’s Economy and Fair Work Committee in 2022, when it said: “The absence of a clear industrial strategy has contributed to reactive, piecemeal interventions that lack coherence and long-term vision.” I say to the cabinet secretary that that is pretty damning.”
“I thank Murdo Fraser for his kind comments in welcoming me to my new place. I am very happy to be keeping the seat warm for him for next year, when he moves over to this side of the chamber— [Laughter.] Indeed, it might be sooner—there is a chair right next to me. I am delighted to be making what would presumably be classed as my maiden speech from the Liberal Democrat benches. The economy underpins everything when it comes to Government. From this side of the chamber, the view is different, but some things have not changed, including the challenges that are faced by Scotland’s economy. As my amendment states, they also include the Scottish Government’s lack of industrial strategy. I hope that we will find some agreement on that across the chamber. Of course, that is nothing new.”
“I mentioned in previous answers and in my statement that important parts of the Supreme Court judgment, such as paragraph 100, refer particularly to gender recognition certificates. The 2004 act was passed by Westminster, and it has been there for some time. It is important that we now reflect on what is in the judgment from the Supreme Court about the importance, still, of gender recognition certificates and on the Supreme Court’s statements about the rights of the trans community due to gender reassignment still being protected in the Equality Act 2010.”
“My question is on a specific technical level: is the Scottish Government willing to undertake any legal advice or analysis or to offer guidance to holders of those certificates about their future and their day-to-day lives? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I welcome Jamie Greene to his new position in the chamber. It is important that he talked powerfully about the fact that people are at the heart of the matter. As we go through the discussion, regardless of people’s views on the issue and regardless of their views before the Supreme Court reached its judgment— it has reached its judgment and we must move to implementation—we must always bear in mind, as he rightly says, that people are at the heart of everything that we do.”
“I appreciate that the debate raises many emotive issues and that there are strong views on all sides, which is to be accepted and respected. However, whatever one’s view on the debate, I hope that we all accept that at the heart of it lie people: human beings, who are our fellow Scots—those who vote for us and those who do not. It is also true that gender recognition certificates have been issued in Scotland for nearly two decades. Although those relate to a relatively small group of people, many of the holders of those certificates will now be wondering what legal rights, if any at all, the certificates still offer them.”
“Obviously, the MV Caledonian Isles, when it returns to sailing from Ardrossan, will help in the short term. I will make an important point about regeneration. The member is aware that the works that will be required at Ardrossan harbour will cause disruption. He is quite right to identify that that will need active and on-going discussion with local businesses as to what happens in that period. Sex Offenders (Name Changes) 2.”
“I met campaigners from Ardrossan in my office in Largs just before the recess. They made it clear that, although any move to end the impasse over Ardrossan harbour is welcome, businesses on Ardrossan high street are going bust now. They are losing footfall, traffic and money. Will the cabinet secretary speak with Cabinet colleagues and establish a small business fund that would help those small local businesses in Ardrossan, to tide them over in the meantime? They simply cannot wait for footfall to return while the port is redeveloped. Fiona Hyslop: I understand the member’s request. It can and should be considered at the appropriate time. He might have heard me say that I was committed, because of the intervention by Kenny Gibson and by the Isle of Arran ferry committee, to ensuring that Ardrossan harbour operates as long as possible.”
“I make a promise to those who are grieving her loss today that there are plenty of us left here in the Parliament who will try to keep the flames of her many passions alight. [Applause.] 14:33”
“She once said to me in the Parliament bar after a mutually difficult day, “You’re no bad for a Tory.” [Laughter.] I think that, in our mind’s eye, we can all hear her voice in that phrase. It was perhaps because of the similarity of our roots in life that I took that as a massive compliment. After another mutually difficult day, Christina also said to me, “Jamie, you can only do your best and be proud of your achievements.” Colleagues, what more can you ask for in life? Do your best and be proud of your achievements. I hope that Christina’s family are proud of her today. If I had to sum her up in a single word, that word would be “fun”. Is that not a lesson in life for all of us? Be passionate, be decent, but enjoy your life.”
“She was a fun person who took her passions incredibly seriously, like when she and I marched arm in arm at the 2018 Edinburgh pride event, or when she reached out to me immediately after First Minister’s questions to arrange a meeting after I had raised the issue of drug deaths in my own region. Christina was always proud to work across the chamber on issues where there was a shared passion. It was her fearless support and campaigning for the TIE campaign back in 2016 that I remember. Her lobbying efforts helped that campaign gain cross-party support, including from many Conservatives. Her endless passion for equality was, and still is, something that I hold dear.”
“I have a memory, as many of us do, of being cajoled into a committee room during our lunch break to don a bright pink feather boa. In my case, I am pretty sure that there were some pink pearls, too. There is much photographic evidence of that. It was all for a good cause and in support of the wear it pink campaign. I say to the First Minister that some of us needed less persuading than others to do that. Why is that? Because you cannot take yourself too seriously for a good cause. It was a fun way to highlight a very serious issue. Does that not sum up Christina McKelvie perfectly?”
“I look forward to seeing how the bill progresses. I urge all members, irrespective of their position, to work constructively with ministers on it, and I will play my part if necessary.”
“We will require good-quality data as well as the ability to interrogate that data and to produce meaningful information off the back of it, but we will also require a multi-agency approach. That is a whole other topic that we could spend a lot of time on. To summarise, the general aims and principles of this bill—or these bills—are positive, although I look forward to seeing how the Parliament, through stages 2 and 3, will seek to improve the bill. It is important that we get this right. The justice system needs to be fit for the 21st century, it needs to take the public with it and, of course, it needs to work more efficiently and tackle the backlogs. In doing so, we must ensure that, by speeding up processes, our justice system does not inadvertently cause harm to those who participate in it.”
“The average time from the committing of an offence to a verdict in the High Court still stands at more than 1,000 days, which is an incredibly lengthy period. Of course, that has a negative effect on the victims, but it also has an effect on the accused because, during that period, they cannot clear their name, if that is the end result. We all know what society believes, even if the system says that people are innocent until proven guilty. Michelle Thomson made good comments about part 2 of the bill. She said that the reviews of domestic homicide must, at their heart, drive a prevention agenda. That is a very important point. The way to go about that is twofold, she said.”
“We saw the extension of the statutory period from appearance on petition to trial from 12 to 18 months. For people being held on remand, the period increased from up to 140 days, which was already a long period, to up to 320 days, which is nearly a year. I remember the debate about that at the time. If someone has been on remand and incarcerated for 320 days, that is probably more time than they would have spent in prison had they been found guilty and given a two-year sentence, because the early release provisions have been revised to 40 per cent of the sentence served. Of course, we should remember that people who are on remand have not yet been found guilty of the crime. The issue of court delays in general needs to be addressed, but I am not sure that the bill will go some way towards doing that.”
“However, as Maggie Chapman rightly referred to, some stakeholders have raised concerns about the affordability of fines. Some people would argue that, if a person has been fined for breaking the law, that is their problem, and so be it. However, there are genuine issues. It was not just third sector organisations that raised concerns but the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association. The industry has raised the issue, as it does not want to see, as a result of the change, more people being funnelled into the penal system and put into prison, particularly at a time when we are trying to reduce prison numbers. Those are absolutely fair points. In my time on the Criminal Justice Committee, the issue of pre-pandemic timescales and the statutory time limits was a matter of contention.”
“The justice system as a sector had some marked changes forced on it during Covid. The system had to adapt, because it had to keep going—it could not simply stop prosecuting people or sending people to prison just because of Covid. The justice system and its partners reacted remarkably well, and the cabinet secretary paid them due credit in her opening comments. Innovation and productivity improvements are of course welcome, but concerns have been raised throughout the process. Let us look at some of them. A number of members have mentioned the raising of the maximum fixed penalty from £300 to £500. I understand the context of that. There has not really been any revision of the fine levels since 2008 and, of course, inflation has gone off on a wagon since then.”
“I was moved to hear that some of the families of people who have suffered that horrendous outcome were also quite pleased to see this legislation proposed. That is really important because, ultimately, legislation is about the public and how it affects people in the real world. Several other issues have come up. In her opening statement, the cabinet secretary made a very good point about making some measures permanent that were considered to be temporary when they were first required. Way back in the dark days of March 2020, when we passed some of the Covid legislation—indeed, I voted for much of it—I recall saying that emergency measures were very much for emergency times and that not all the measures were suitable to be a permanent feature of the status quo. Covid also led to some forced changes.”
“I will start with part 2, which has been talked about passionately by a number of members, particularly by Pam Gosal in her moving speech; by Rona Mackay, who has had a long-standing interest in the subject matter; and by Fulton MacGregor, who also mentioned it. Parliament has grappled with the issue of domestic abuse and violence over the years, and certainly since I joined it. There is a lot of consensus around some of the action that we want to see take place to improve the situation in that regard. The bill deals with what is probably the worst element of that abuse, which is when someone has been killed or murdered as a result of it. There is a warm reception for the announcement of the reviews, although some devil in the detail has to be worked out.”
“I must note the interesting point that was made by my colleague Liam Kerr about how we often squash legislation and rush legislation. That is a general feeling and a theme that has come out often. I do not say that as a direct criticism of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, but it has been raised as a concern by members across the board. I have grave concerns that, particularly in this last year of the parliamentary session, we will rush through legislation to fit it into the timetable. That does not do legislation any justice whatsoever. We are often asked to dance to the tune of the Government’s legislative timetable, and I do not know why we must always do that, given that this is a minority Government. Moving on, I will talk about the bill’s two parts.”
“I thank all members for their contributions to what I feel has been a very interesting, bread-and-butter debate on legislation and on a very good stage 1 report. As always, the Criminal Justice Committee does itself great credit. As we have talked a lot about today, this is a bill of two parts, and it is almost a bill of two bills—the criminal justice modernisation element and the abusive domestic behaviour reviews element. I am not entirely sure how the Government came to that position. I understand that the extension of some of the temporary measures in Covid-era legislation was coming to an end, which would need to be dealt with in primary legislation. Nonetheless, a good piece of work has been done on what the bill does and does not do and how it could be improved as it goes through the process.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Audrey Nicoll to speak on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee. 15:05”
“I also confirm that we will provide further details on how reports would be sufficiently anonymised and what level of detail would be in the public domain following a review, while ensuring the flexibility to take an alternative approach if that is requested or required by family members. I will provide more detail to the committee on that ahead of stage 2. I will finish by again thanking the committee for its support for the bill, which will allow us to deliver effective and sustainable public services through modernising the justice system and putting in place a robust review process to prevent domestic abuse and deaths. I look forward to working with the committee and members on the next legislative stage, and I invite members to work with me on this significant bill.”
“However, I accept Jamie Greene’s point about the need for reviews to be well enough resourced to ensure that there are no undue delays, and I have given reassurance to the committee that, as I am taking forward the legislation in my name, I have a responsibility to ensure that it is well resourced. I outlined that and a number of other issues in my written response, and I will keep the committee updated on that range of issues. Ensuring that sufficient resources are available is a key component of the successful delivery of the review model. I have put on record my views and commitment on that.”
“The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the many delays in fatal accident inquiries, for example. What risk is there that, by creating new statutory review processes, we will simply overload the system with more cases for which there is not enough resource to enable them to be dealt with, thus causing people to wait years for the outcomes of the reviews? Angela Constance: There is no risk of that. Fatal accident inquiries are led by sheriffs and the courts. Obviously, there is a role for prosecutors in that. The statutory review would be on a par with, say, a child protection review or a child death review, so it would involve different mechanisms.”
“There used to be 70 local authority-run outdoor learning centres in Scotland. There are now less than a dozen, and that is simply not good enough. In closing, I will say three things about the bill. First, it supports the curriculum for excellence. Secondly, it will ensure that young people have equity of access to outdoor learning, which we should all agree on. Thirdly, it will protect the much-loved outdoor centres, and the entire sector, which I think is staring down the barrel of extinction. It is a no-brainer for me: this is exactly the devolved decision making for which the Parliament was set up. This is what we should be legislating for, even if through a member’s bill. 16:50”
“Today’s teens are simply not afforded that opportunity. Not every school is offering it, and they all should. This bill is asking for equity of access—nothing more and nothing less. If we truly want a model of getting it right for every child, which the Government has put its coins into, it should get it right for every child. The bill is one way to achieve that. In my region, there are many examples of the year-on-year fight for funding. Arran outdoor education centre is a great example. Every year, it hits the same brick wall with the local council running out of cash. Every year, valiant campaigners have to make the same case in the same fight to keep its doors open. However, it is not just that centre. There is Blairvadach in Helensburgh, and there is Kilbowie in Oban, which tried and failed and had to close in 2020.”
“We all have our own experiences of attending outdoor learning centres, and we can share stories about how meaningful and beneficial it was to us. I particularly hated it at the time, but I now look back and see the benefits. I remember the cold, damp dorm rooms; the cold running water; the outside toilets; and, of course, the famous midges of the west of Scotland—our national treasure. However, I also learned about orienteering and about our native wildlife while sitting around the campfire roasting marshmallows—without an iPhone in sight. That all sounds predictably wholesome, but how many young inner-city people have never been outdoors and really enjoyed the outdoors properly in our beautiful country? For people from difficult, broken or impoverished backgrounds, I cannot sell the benefits of the experience enough.”
“Thirdly, I turn to responsible citizenship, which is another key pillar of our education. Eighty-two per cent of secondary school respondents said that their experience “helped them realise they could get on with people from other classes or schools.” My goodness, do we not need tolerance more than ever in Scotland? Fourthly, another key principle is to help learners to become effective contributors. Forty per cent of respondents said that they feel that, after their outdoor learning experience, they could be a better role model to others. Is that not a key point? Positive role models are key, particularly in this modern digital age of influencers and so much negativity. Martin Whitfield: Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Greene: I really have a lot to get through in the two minutes that I have left.”
“I remind the Government that the bill would help it to achieve its core policies on education. Whatever people’s views are on the curriculum for excellence, and there are many, the bill would directly help to meet its objectives, as research by the Learning Away consortium shows. First, the aim to help learners become successful sits at the heart of the curriculum. The research shows that 61 per cent of students who attended residential experiences achieved a higher than predicted grade, compared with 21 per cent who did not attend. Secondly, another key pillar of the curriculum is developing confident individuals. The research shows that 87 per cent of secondary students felt “more confident to try new things” than they would have before their outdoor learning experiences.”
“Turning the issue of cost on its head, I simply ask, what will it cost the Government if we do not implement the right to outdoor learning? I say to the Government: find the money. It is not impossible. There are different models to fund capital or resource investment. Look at the social bridging finance models that other outdoor learning models use. Look at business or commercial sponsorship. Look at philanthropy. I do not really care where we look. If we started up a crowdfunder, I am sure that we could find enough people in Scotland who feel passionately about the issue to fund it and do it properly. I simply ask the minister to work constructively with all parties to find the money to implement the bill. Cost should not be the barrier to introducing something that is much needed.”
“It is right to scrutinise that in the due and proper way, but part of the cost analysis must also be in identifying savings and benefits. That is a key part of the formula that we are not so good at when we look at legislation in this place. I pose a number of questions to the Government. How much money would we save if we implemented the bill? It is not just about how much it would cost. What do I mean by that? How much money would the national health service save if young people go on to lead better, healthier and happier lives? How much money would the justice system save if young people were less likely to interact with it, or with the police, courts or even prisons? How much money would social services or the third sector save if their interventions were enhanced or even replaced by residential learning experiences?”
“Of course, elements of the bill—some of which we have heard about today—need to be ironed out, should it go through to the next stage, but that is normal practice for any bill. No Government bill ever looks the same at the end of the process, and the same is true of a member’s bill, which is entirely appropriate. I am intrigued by the Government’s key principle of—I will not say opposition—-concern about the bill being the issue of affordability and deliverability. In her opening comments, the minister put front and centre those concerns, which were contained in her letter to the committee that was sent last night. It is estimated that implementing the bill would cost around £40 million. Every policy has a cost— everything comes at a cost.”
“Presiding Officer, I make a polite request that, at an appropriate time in the future, all back-bench MSPs are given the opportunity to put on record their thoughts about our colleague Christina McKelvie, should they wish to do so. I do not think that simply doing so in the opening remarks of a speech would do that justice. I thank the Presiding Officer in advance for her consideration of that. I, too, congratulate Liz Smith for getting the bill to this point. Reaching a stage 1 debate might not sound like much, but I know how difficult that is, as does any member who has worked on a member’s bill. The consultation had more than 500 responses, of which 95 per cent were positive. That is an incredible achievement for any member of this Parliament.”
“Fiona Hyslop: I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to address the second part of the question in relation to the modernisation programme. Digitisation has an impact across lots of public services, and how that is approached in the justice system is particularly important. The expense of court transcripts is an issue, but some of delay that we are aware of relates to the redaction of personal information and the process for doing that. There is a process of improvement in relation to that system and how technology can improve the timescales for the provision of not only this vitally important new service but services generally. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will reflect on that.”
“Having to wait a year for a transcript is unacceptable by any standard. It also demonstrates that our justice system is neither modern nor digitised in any way. The cabinet secretary will know that I lodged an amendment at stage 2 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Criminal Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to establish a court transcript fund, which could alleviate some of these problems. Has the Government also considered whether the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, which is also going through Parliament, might be the perfect opportunity to ensure that we have a modern, digitised justice system that is fit for purpose and looks after the needs of victims?”
“Denial and defence by threatening are not going to save the industry. I believe that the industry is in the last-chance saloon. It has had two strikes from two separate committees in the Parliament. I hope that the industry will succeed, but it will have to do a lot more than it is doing at the moment if it is to remain as it is. 15:29”
“Across all these committees and all these reports, what we are trying to achieve is for the industry to be a good neighbour—not just for wild salmon but for the other industries that work around their pens. For the industry to succeed—and I really want it to succeed—it will have to be much more open and transparent than it is at the moment. It will have to show considerable improvements. I caution the industry against sending letters such as the one that it sent to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee after the committee published its report. I believe that such letters are threatening. I do not like being threatened by the industry and I do not think that any parliamentary committee should be threatened. We need to make sure that we build on the report through consensus.”
“If we are to get back to that rate of 17 per cent but the industry is only going to reduce mortality by 2 per cent a year, that means that we will have to wait 19 years to get back to a mortality rate that was judged by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee to be unacceptable. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s recommendations are commendable. I like the idea of a road map—I am disappointed that we never had one before for the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s 65 recommendations. I am pleased that the data on fish mortality is to be much more open and consistent, and that there is more concern about waste discharge.”
“Edward Mountain: I accept that there need to be adaptable controls in particular areas. The Kishorn A, B and C sites continually have a high mortality rate, which calls into question whether the approach is appropriate. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee demanded that mortality should be reduced—it was clear about that in its recommendations. When I attended that committee—I attended nearly every single session—we heard from the industry that it was predicting a reduction in mortality in fish farms of only 2 per cent each year. The figure that has been quoted today was based on the mortality rate in 2018. Let us go back to 2017, when the mortality rate was 17 per cent.”
“Let me give an example: on the farm, sometimes we get blackleg. If that happens, it will kill the animals, so we stop producing the animals in that area, move them to a different area, reduce our stocking and look for ways to prevent the disease. The problem is that the salmon industry has not been doing those things; it just keeps going. Mairi Gougeon: Will the member take another intervention? Edward Mountain: I will take one more if I have time. Mairi Gougeon: In the evidence that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee heard, there was one example of a specific mortality event that happened because of micro jellyfish, which were not seen again for another 20 years. Does the member accept that what he is suggesting would not work in that type of situation?”
“Let us be clear, however: the fish that are put to sea—and 25 per cent of them are dying when they are put to sea—are probably the most mollycoddled animals that you could have. They are given treatment before they go out to sea, to stop them getting sea lice, and they are looked after carefully in the pens. Mairi Gougeon: I appreciate what members have said so far today about the fish mortalities and I do not think that anybody is willing to accept the current level of mortalities. However, does the member accept that some of the reasons that can lead to such mass mortality events, such as algal blooms, micro jellyfish or the other issues that have emerged, can be outwith the salmon farmers’ control? Edward Mountain: Of course I accept that fact—as a farmer, I am well aware of it.”