The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 1 - THE CONSULTATION EXERCISE

1.1 Document Distribution

The Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill - Consultation Paper and Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment sought views on the Executive's proposals for the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, planned for introduction in June 2006. The Consultation Paper was published on 16 December 2005, with responses requested by 27 February 2006, this was subsequently extended to 3 March 2006.

The Scottish Executive issued over 2,000 copies of the consultation paper and questionnaire to over 900 individuals and organisations throughout Scotland. The consultation paper and questionnaire were also available online in two formats. All references contained within the consultation paper were also accessible on the Executive's Fisheries Bill web pages. The consultation paper contained 51 numbered questions and a total of 436 responses had been received by the end of the consultation period. Two additional responses were received after the extended closing date for submissions.

The Scottish Executive also conducted a series of public meetings as part of the consultation exercise to give members of the public an opportunity to meet SEERAD officials and put forward their views on the proposals in person. The Executive had planned eight such meetings, throughout Scotland, but expanded to 10 meetings due to popular public demand. The meetings were held between mid-January and early-February 2006. More than 400 people attended the meetings. The proceedings of each meeting are available online at www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Fisheries/afBill/Responses. Both the additional responses and the outputs from the public meetings have not formed part of this analysis, however where these views relate to the Bill they will be taken into account by the Executive as it considers its response to the consultation.

The figure of 436 responses is significantly higher than most other recent SEERAD consultation exercises. It would appear that direct contact with stakeholders, coupled with the series of public meetings and the availability of documents on the internet and at the public meetings had a beneficial effect on the overall number of returns.

1.2 Stakeholder Groups

Consultees were assigned to one of six broad stakeholder groups, all of which had further subdivisions to allow for a more refined analysis. Table 1.1 shows the six groups and the 17 stakeholder categories used for this purpose. A full list of those respondents who agreed that their responses be made public, grouped according to the detailed stakeholder groups are contained in Annex A.

Table 1.1 Definitions of Stakeholder Categories

1.3 Response Rates

A detailed breakdown of the number of responses by each broad category of respondent is shown in Table 1.2 below.

Table 1.2 Response Rates

The main points to note from Table 1.2 are first, the dominance of the freshwater sector and individuals in the total response. There may be a number of reasons for this, however it is most likely that the dominance of these two sectors are as a result of the efforts made by the Executive to reach out to the wider public, both prior to and during the consultation exercise. Even so, all the key bodies associated with aquaculture and freshwater fisheries responded to the consultation, it can therefore be considered that a reasonably good cross-section of interested opinion has been received. Secondly a number of respondents gave general comments in addition to the questions posed concerning the future of freshwater fisheries management in Scotland. Any comments relating to the future of freshwater fisheries management are not featured in this report, but are being taken forward by the Executive and the Freshwater Fisheries Forum as they continue to consider this complex area of work.

Table 1.3 and 1.4 give a detailed breakdown of responses by stakeholder category for each question.

Table 1.3 Responses to Questions by Stakeholder Category for Aquaculture

Responses to questions about aquaculture varied from 221 (50%) for question 17 about compensation for compulsory slaughter to 342 (78%) for question 4 about advisory and enforcement functions for inspectors. Most questions relating to aquaculture had a response rate of between 65% and 75%.

Table 1.4 Responses to Questions by Stakeholder Category for Freshwater Fisheries

Responses to questions about freshwater fisheries varied from 191 (44%)for question 25 about enabling powers for GS to 307 (70%) for question 26 about powers to apply chemical treatments for GS. Most questions had a response rate of between 55% and 65%.

It is clear that response rates were far higher for aquaculture than for freshwater fisheries. Comparing the overall response rate for each separate stakeholder group with their rate for individual questions does not reveal significant variations. Not unsurprisingly, most aquaculture stakeholders tended to limit their responses to questions relating to fish farming. Respondents from the freshwater sector tended to answer most of the questions posed, but did make up a higher proportion of those who responded to the freshwater questions. There was little variation in the responses from individuals. A majority of individual and freshwater respondents answered either 'yes' or 'no' to the questions posed without explanation. Such responses had a significant bearing on the response rates for each question, however they added very little to the debate about the issues raised. The analysis of responses therefore, understandably, places emphasis on those responses that came with an explanation. Readers should also note that the findings of this consultation exercise do not necessarily reflect the weight or range of views within the population as a whole, as the respondents were not representatively or purposively sampled.

1.4 Comments on the Consultation Exercise

In general, very few respondents commented on the consultation exercise. A minority of respondents stated that they had only become aware of the exercise late in the consultation period. The extension to 3 March helped to obviate any difficulties which this might have caused. There were a few comments about the questions posed. Some respondents had difficulties understanding a small number of questions, primarily because the questions were themselves unclear. Many respondents welcomed the opportunity to take part in the public meetings, with some suggesting that this sort of format be applied in future consultations.

« Previous | Contents | Next »