Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Official Report 487KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Aquatic Animal Health (Miscellaneous Modifications) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 [Draft]

The committee will take evidence from the minister on the draft Aquatic Animal Health (Miscellaneous Modifications) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. The instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before its provisions come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider the motion to approve the instrument, under agenda item 3. I welcome the minister, Stewart Stevenson, and his accompanying civil servant, Daniel Pendrey, who is the head of the aquaculture health and welfare division of the Scottish Government. I invite the minister to make a brief introductory statement.

Thank you, convener. I am here to speak to the committee about the draft Aquatic Animal Health (Miscellaneous Modifications) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. I hope that what I say will inform the subsequent debate.

The aquaculture industry in Scotland is an important one. Aquaculture involves the farming of fin fish and shellfish and produces Scotland’s most valuable food export. Fish farming and shellfish farming activities worth some £450 million a year at the farm gate are regulated by the Aquatic Animal Health (Scotland) Regulations 2009, which transposed European obligations under European Council directive 2006/88/EC on animal health requirements for aquaculture. The draft 2011 regulations represent important elements in the regulation and monitoring of the aquaculture industry and will help to ensure the healthy status of farmed fish and shellfish in Scotland.

If approved, the draft regulations will do a number of things. Under the 2009 regulations, operators of fish farms and shellfish farms require to be authorised. Regulation 3 of the draft 2011 regulations will amend the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 to update the definitions of “fish farming” and “shellfish farming” to reflect the new language of the directive. New fish health certification requirements in the 2009 regulations mean that it is no longer necessary to prohibit imports of fish from third countries except under licence. Accordingly, regulation 4 of the draft 2011 regulations will repeal the Shellfish and Specified Fish (Third Country Imports) Order 1992 to prevent any duplication in regulation.

Regulation 2(2) of the draft 2011 regulations addresses comments that were made by the Subordinate Legislation Committee when it considered the 2009 regulations in March 2009 in relation to the definition of “processing establishment”. Regulations 2(4) and 2(5) of the draft 2011 regulations clarify the extent to which, and the circumstances in which, ministers can revoke Scotland-wide movement restrictions when notifiable disease is no longer present or suspected. The regulations also formalise the requirement to notify the Scottish Government of fish-farm escapes and record-keeping requirements.

Although the industry has, in practice, been reporting and maintaining records, it is recognised that the legislation requires to be amended to make that a legal requirement. Records have been maintained by the industry and have been inspected by fish health inspectors, and the reporting of escape incidents has been undertaken. The aquaculture industry is already providing the information that is sought under the draft 2011 regulations; therefore, I do not expect the industry to react negatively to the draft regulations, nor do I expect there to be any additional monitoring or cost burden for authorised operators.

I am happy to answer the committee’s questions.

Thank you, minister. I invite members to ask questions.

I want to clarify the final point that the minister made. I had concluded—and I think he confirmed it—that the instrument will not require the industry to undertake any activity that it is not already undertaking; it will simply make it a legal requirement.

That is correct. The instrument will not change the activities that are undertaken by the industry. In new provisions after regulation 31 in the 2009 regulations, which are introduced by regulation 2(6) of the regulations that are before us, what is described as the information that requires to be provided is information that is currently being provided.

Thank you.

Paragraph 8 of the Executive note states that the regulations

“insert a new Part 4A, and associated Schedules 1A-1D, into the 2009 Regulations to reinstate reporting and record keeping obligations for fish and shellfish farms which were repealed by the 2009 Regulations.”

Can you remind me why they were repealed?

There was quite a long list of repeals and there was an inadvertent inclusion of those obligations. However, the good news is that the industry continued to report as if the repeal had not taken place. We are now correcting that repeal. I commend you for your meticulous reading of the briefing material. I had hoped that that was a question that I might not be asked.

I am sorry. I always try to ask the wrong questions.

I want to ask about regulations 2(4) and 2(5), which refer to notifiable disease and what that means in practice. Am I correct that if there was an outbreak of a notifiable disease in part of Scotland now, you would not have to impose a whole-Scotland ban on movements?

The minister, on behalf of the Government, has the powers to do that, but clearly one would look at the circumstances of the outbreak. The most recent outbreak in fish farming that I can recall was in Orkney. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon—I am told that it was in Shetland. Geographically, it was disconnected from any other fish farms and therefore a Scotland-wide ban on movements was not required. The circumstances of each case will inform the action that the minister will have to take.

Under the current regulations there is some ambiguity as to whether, in the case of an outbreak in a discrete fish farm, any ban on movements would apply to the whole of Scotland. That has now been clarified.

If, in the future, there were an outbreak that was clearly geographically circumscribed, we would wish to make sure that we did not impose meaningless burdens on other parts of the industry that were geographically remote from it and with which there was no connection through movement of fish—which is an important part of the regulations. The regulations cover reporting of movements as well.

You said that you foresee no cost burdens and that there was a consultation, which I am glad to hear. Was there good involvement of fishing interests in the consultation?

Fishing interests recognise that the legislation provides for good-quality regulation and for a well-regulated industry, which is already conforming to the standards that are required. We have that backdrop as part of the marketing of the good-quality products that we produce in Scotland. The industry is supportive.

I want to follow up on Elaine Murray’s point. I understand and appreciate that the competent authority for a disease to be notified to is the Scottish Government. What agency of the Scottish Government is involved? Is it the Scottish Agricultural College or Marine Scotland? What is the chain of command?

The relevant agency in cases of disease is Marine Scotland science, but the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is associated with the licensing regime, so you are right that different agencies have a role.

Good morning, minister. I have a question about regulation 4, which I note revokes an order of 1992 that prohibited the import from third countries of shellfish and specified fish, except under licence. The Executive note says:

“Part 3 of the 2009 Regulations replaces this licensing regime with general health and certification requirements, and as such the 1992 Order is no longer required.”

I want to take the opportunity of having you with us to ask how the replacement regime—the system of general health and certification—is deemed to be working in practice.

It is worth saying that the import of fish is a relatively uncommon occurrence—the movement of fish is mostly in the other direction—so, in practice, this is not a big issue one way or the other.

However, it is, of course, necessary to protect the integrity of our fish stocks, be they fin fish or shellfish. In essence, we are simply tidying up and restating, in a slightly different form, existing practice and regulation.

You said that we do not import much fish but, as a matter of interest, do we import eggs?

We import some eggs from time to time, but fish farmers have an interest in maintaining the genetic strains that we have.

I would like to ask about reporting by fish farms—we are glad that they continued with that voluntarily, despite the glitch in the legislation. Is the detail satisfactory to meet the needs of the tighter regulation that might come in with the forthcoming aquaculture bill, or will the way in which reporting is done be revisited?

You will see in schedule 1C on page 8 of the regulations the form that is to be used, so the regulations complement other legislation and ensure that there is significant reporting. Reports are made; it may be of interest to the committee to know that in 2009, 15 escape incidents were reported, and that in 2010, 10 were reported. The industry has a commercial interest in minimising the number of escapes so, in general, we have seen a decline in reporting because there has been a decline in the number of such incidents. The form is designed in such a way as to prevent us from having to come back repeatedly for more information.

That is very helpful. I suppose that we may return to the subject in due course.

As there are no further questions, we move on to agenda item 3, which is consideration of motion S4M-01205. The committee is called on to recommend approval of the affirmative draft Scottish statutory instrument on which we have just taken evidence. The motion will be moved and there will be the opportunity to hold a formal debate on the instrument, which, procedurally, can last for up to 90 minutes. However, as most of the issues have, I believe, been covered in the evidence session with the minister, the debate should not last long. It should be noted that Scottish Government officials cannot take part in the formal debate.

I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.

I will simply move the motion.

I move,

That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Aquatic Animal Health (Miscellaneous Modifications) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 [draft] be approved.—[Stewart Stevenson.]

Motion agreed to.

Thank you very much. We will record that. I thank the minister for his presence.

Given that we are awaiting the arrival of our next witness, I suspend the meeting.

10:14 Meeting suspended.

10:27 On resuming—