Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Welcome to the 11th meeting in 2013 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Members and the public should turn off mobile phones and BlackBerrys, as leaving them in flight mode or on silent will affect the broadcasting system.
We have received apologies from Alex Fergusson, who is representing the Parliament in Malawi today. We welcome as his substitute Jamie McGrigor. Jamie, do you have any interests to declare?
I have no interests to declare other than those that are recorded in my entry in the register of members’ interests.
We also welcome Tavish Scott, who is attending the meeting for stage 2 of the bill.
Under agenda item 1, we are starting stage 2 consideration of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse, who is the member in charge of the bill. I also welcome the officials accompanying the minister, whom he can perhaps introduce.
I am accompanied by four officials: Lindsay Anderson, who is here from the Scottish Government legal directorate to advise on legal aspects of the bill; David McLeish, who has been involved in the drafting of the bill; Alastair Mitchell, who is one of the lead officials on the aquaculture side of things; and Norman MacLeod, who can help us with group 10, on planning matters.
I remind everyone that they should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments that was published on Monday and the groupings of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated.
There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate to me by catching my attention in the usual way. If the minister has not already spoken in the group, I will invite him to contribute to the debate before I move to the winding-up speech. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.
Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press the amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If the member wishes to press ahead, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw an amendment after it has been moved, I will check whether any committee member objects to the amendment being withdrawn. If any member objects, the amendment will not be withdrawn and the committee will move immediately to a vote on the amendment.
Any member who does not want to move an amendment when called to do so may say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other MSP who is present can move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.
We have agreed that we will not go beyond the end of part 1 of the bill today. If we do not get that far, we will stop at an appropriate point and pick up from where we left off next week. I thank the minister for introducing his officials. Let us move straight to the first group.
Before section 1
The first group is on a duty to publish information on parasites. Amendment 1, in the name of Alex Fergusson, is grouped with amendment 52. I ask Jamie McGrigor to speak to and move amendment 1, on Alex Fergusson’s behalf, and to speak to the other amendment in the group.
I am delighted to be able to speak to and move amendment 1 on behalf of Alex Fergusson, especially as aquaculture is so important to my region, as indeed is wild salmon and sea trout fishing. Over the years in the Parliament, I have always tried to stress the fact that we need to have both in sustainable co-existence. In order to have that, it is important that we have available as much open scientific data as possible.
Given the written and oral evidence that the committee received, it stated in its stage 1 report that it is keen to ensure that farm-by-farm data on sea lice is available to the scientific and academic communities. The industry is hopefully heading towards a 50 per cent increase in production over the next decade or so, and that increase surely demands careful scientific monitoring given the environmental sensitivities that surround it. Both the industry and the minister have said that such data is already available for research purposes, but the Loch Linnhe report by Marine Scotland science states at least three times that major assumptions had to be made because there was no access to farm-by-farm data.
Amendment 1 would put the industry in Scotland on the same footing as the industry in Norway, where farm-by-farm data is available on request. The data is held by the Norwegian equivalent of the Food Standards Agency and it is published on an area basis, but it is available on a farm-by-farm basis. We have looked at various ways to replicate that, but they would all involve the data being held by a Government agency and therefore being subject to freedom of information legislation. We concluded that the only way in which to ensure that the environmental impacts of the expansion of the industry are properly and effectively monitored is to publish the weekly data—which is collected anyway and would just need to be published—relating to sea lice. That data is already gathered and collated, with a permitted delay of up to one month from the date of collection.
Let us look at what happens in other countries. In Norway, as I said, data is collected on a farm-by-farm basis and published on an area basis, with site data being available on request. In Ireland, farm-by-farm data is collected 14 times a year and published every month. In Chile, Multiexport Foods chairman José Ramón Gutiérrez has said that sea lice levels in Chile are rising steadily in line with the increasing volume of farmed fish. Site data is published by Chile’s national service for fisheries and aquaculture.
At stage 1, the publication of farm-level data was supported by a wide range of stakeholders including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Highland Council, wild fisheries organisations, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the UK Environmental Law Association. In addition, during the consultation on the bill, farm-level publication of sea lice data was supported by all councils that deal with aquaculture.
I say to the minister that the Scottish Government should stand for transparency. In my view and the view of many others, anything that is bound up with secrecy is likely to be detrimental to having an open playing field in which all the evidence is available. Therefore, if the Scottish Government wants transparency, please let the fish farm industry have it.
I move amendment 1.
Good morning to everybody—committee members, the minister, his officials and the public.
I have lodged an alternative amendment on the publication of sea lice data. On the question why such an amendment is needed, there was a great deal of discussion at stage 1 about the appropriate resolution for the publication of sea lice data. The committee stated in its stage 1 report that there might be publication of sea lice data at the farm management area level, which is different from the suggestion that has been made on behalf of Alex Fergusson by my colleague Jamie McGrigor, through amendment 1.
From my understanding of the situation, taking into account as best I can the different interests concerned, I believe that what amendment 52 proposes is a reasonable and balanced way of proceeding on the issue of sea lice data. I acknowledge that it is a step further than that proposed by the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation. However, publication of such data would allow the industry to demonstrate its management response and performance in relation to sea lice at a resolution that would be relevant to the management unit of co-ordinated sea lice treatment, which is the farm management area.
Technically, under the Fish Farming Businesses (Record Keeping) (Scotland) Order 2008, fish farms are already required to maintain a record of the number of parasites in weekly parasite counts. However, there is no current requirement to publish such data. The Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 should therefore be amended to require publication of parasite counts on a weekly basis averaged over the farm management area. That should be consistent with the requirements of paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the record-keeping order. That data should remain for inspection and not be removed at the next reporting period. That point relates to a major failing, in my perception, of the current system that is operated by the SSPO, under which data is available only for three months, after which it cannot be accessed, even on request.
In my view, the arrangements in amendment 52 would, like amendment 1, aid transparency, but they would do so through a compromise that would take into account all the different interests. They would make information available for research purposes in a more accessible way, which is extremely important, and they would contribute to sustainable marine development in the context of the target to increase fish farming production by 50 per cent by 2020.
On the farm management area definition, the Scottish Wildlife Trust made the point to me that it would have to be done on an ecological basis for it to work. I appreciate that that is not part of amendment 52, but I want to highlight that point in this context.
No other member wishes to take part in the debate on the amendment. Do you wish to respond to Claudia Beamish, minister?
I do. I acknowledge the strength of feeling in the committee—and, indeed, across the chamber during the stage 1 debate—about sea lice data reporting, and I recognise the motivation behind amendments 1 and 52. I will try to address the points that Jamie McGrigor and Claudia Beamish raised in that regard.
As I said during the stage 1 debate, it is important to contextualise the debate on the public reporting of sea lice data in a way that reflects its primary purpose, which is to reassure the public that fish farms are environmentally sustainable in the wider marine environment. Such reporting is not, as some might wish, a means by which to judge regulatory compliance by the salmon farming industry or individual farms. We have a thorough regulatory system for that, which is overseen by the fish health inspectorate, SEPA and others, and a robust regime of controls and checks, which the bill will enhance, in my view.
At stage 1, I referred to the SSPO’s proposal for an increase in the reporting of sea lice data from reports for the current six areas to a considerably enhanced 30-area reporting level for public consumption, based on reporting against recognised wild fish catchments, which reflects to some degree Claudia Beamish’s point about understanding the ecological impact of salmon farming. That proposal has been enhanced by a recent commitment by the SSPO to provide Marine Scotland science with access to sea lice information at farm management area level to support defined research projects.
09:45
Jamie McGrigor, on behalf of Alex Fergusson, raised the issue of the availability of farm-by-farm data. The Loch Linnhe report was produced at a particular point in time and the data issue has since been resolved. The information is now available at a farm-by-farm level, certainly to fish health inspectors and others. It is not published, of course, which is perhaps the point that most concerns Mr McGrigor and Mr Fergusson.
As I understand it, the new voluntary arrangement for public sea lice data reporting that the SSPO has proposed will include an annual report. For the first time, that allows the prospect of tie-up between farm sea lice data and wild fish catch and efforts statistics, to allow thinking on any impact from fish farming to be developed. The industry has rightly pointed to the complexity of data and the commercial risk if that data is misinterpreted or taken out of context. It believes that some might do that deliberately to suit their own agendas. The industry also advocates a regime that focuses on the environmental impact of its work in the wider marine environment, arguing that work on the farms is more a matter for the industry and the regulators directly.
On balance, I think that the industry has come a long way. I am therefore persuaded that its voluntary public reporting package is sufficient, offering a balanced and proportionate step forward to allow us to endorse its use in parallel with our on-going regulatory management of the industry.
That is the broader context in which the amendments should be considered. However, I continue to reassure members—in the committee and more widely throughout the Parliament—that we will keep the issue under review through the ministerial group for sustainable aquaculture, which includes wild fish interests in its membership. I will not shy away from using existing powers in the 2007 act to legislate if it appears that that voluntary arrangement is falling short.
I commit today to reviewing the success or otherwise of that arrangement within the current session of Parliament. I believe that the point that we have reached addresses many of the concerns that were expressed during the stage 1 debate. I encourage all sides now to work together in a spirit of collaboration to manage our marine environment. I urge the committee to resist the amendments.
Graeme Dey has a question for the minister, which I am happy to allow. Jamie McGrigor will have his chance to come back in soon.
Minister, are you saying that, while data will be published for six areas, in addition information will be provided to Marine Scotland for 76 farm management areas for scientific assessment purposes?
My understanding is that we are publishing for 30 areas rather than six and that the SSPO will provide information at farm management area level to Marine Scotland science for the purposes of scientific research. That will not be published but it will be available for scientific use.
I listened to what the minister had to say. I am sure that he has thought it through carefully, but my point—and, I think, Claudia Beamish’s, too—is this: why not publish these things? If, as you say, the figures in the Loch Linnhe report were eventually made available on a farm-by-farm basis, what has the industry got against publishing the figures? They are published in Norway, Ireland and Chile, all of which have big aquaculture industries. All that one is asking is for Scotland to be put on the same basis as those other countries. I want to put it on the record that I am not quite au fait with the minister’s reasons for not doing that.
Claudia Beamish’s amendment does not go quite as far as asking for farm-by-farm data but asks for clear publication on an area basis, with which I would also agree. If the data has already been collected and collated, I cannot see any reason why it cannot be published.
I press amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 1—Fish farm management agreements and statements
Amendment 65, in the name of Tavish Scott, is grouped with amendments 66, 49, 12 to 15, 50, 51, 2, 16 and 67.
I thank the clerks and the chamber desk team for their ability to turn my meandering thoughts into appropriate amendments.
As the convener knows well, the fish farming industry exists in parts of Scotland that would otherwise struggle to provide employment. By lodging my series of amendments, I seek to ensure that this competitive industry succeeds in the future, which I know the minister and the Government wish to happen for the very reason that Claudia Beamish mentioned.
I accept the point that Jamie McGrigor and other committee members have made with regard to the wild fish lobby. The lobby does not operate in my part of the world, but I accept that the convener and other members, including Mr McGrigor, face a serious issue in that respect in their areas of Scotland, and the committee and the Government must deal with it. At times, I wonder if Kofi Annan would be an appropriate person to call on in that regard.
On the specifics of this group of amendments, the bill amends the 2007 act to make compulsory fish farm management agreements or statements, which set out management requirements on each fish farm that cover fish health management, the management of parasites, the movement of live fish on and off farms, the harvesting of fish and the fallowing of farms after harvesting. In addition to those responsibilities, Government inspectors can enforce conditions in all those areas. My concern about the bill as it is currently drafted is that the Government will be involved in the day-to-day operations of fish farms, and I genuinely do not believe that that is what the minister—never mind Marine Scotland—wants.
Fish farm management agreements and statements are plans that cover a rolling two-year period. They will roll on in the normal course of business, but things change—as I am sure anyone, and any committee member, who is involved in the industry will know—as husbandry matters change. The course of events in the natural environment means that, for example, a farmer may need additional supplies or medicines or a particular change in treatment, or the weather may intervene. That is as true for the fish farming industry as it is for any food production system that involves the natural environment.
I will give an example from my constituency. If the system was too prescriptive, it would affect a fish farm in Unst that depends on supplies from Aberdeen, which involves not just a 12-hour overnight journey but two further hours of travel involving two ferries across Shetland. That is one significant example, but I am sure that similar distances are involved in the convener’s constituency.
I therefore cannot conceive that the Government wishes to have a system that means that all such business decisions have to be referred to Marine Scotland. I am sure that the minister appreciates the potential that would exist for FOI requests and parliamentary questions—heck, I would lodge a topical question every week on such an issue, although the minister will probably be relieved to know that I have never had one selected yet, so he is probably quite safe on that front.
The potential for members to question and scrutinise the activities on fish farms would be considerable indeed, and it would put an enormous—and quite unfair—pressure on the minister and on future ministers, as well as on Marine Scotland. Amendments 65 to 67 address the unintended consequences of section 1. Amendment 65 simply relates to wording and ensures that farm management areas cover the coast, which I hope was the intention in drafting the bill. Amendments 66 and 67 seek to ensure that the minister and Marine Scotland do not end up being responsible for the day-to-day operations of every fish farm around the coast of Scotland.
I move amendment 65.
Amendment 49 introduces a requirement to be a party to a fish farm management agreement. Stakeholders and the committee are clear that the policy intention is that a farm management agreement should be in place where more than one company is operating and that there should be a farm management statement where there is only one operator.
However, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards has expressed concern that the bill would allow a farm management statement to be used if operators failed to reach an agreement. I understand that that scenario was confirmed by the minister’s response to the committee’s stage 1 report. That could allow an area to be managed in a sub-optimal way and could compromise the principle of synchronisation of stocking, fallowing and treatment, which is beneficial to the industry and to wild fishery managers. Indeed, it is understood that that situation already applies in at least one farm management area in the Western Isles, where two operators use markedly different fallowing periods during production cycles.
The scenario can be remedied by ensuring that, when there is more than one operator in a farm management area, the operators are obliged to become parties to a single farm management agreement. I propose amending the bill so that a fish farmer must be a party to a farm management agreement, unless there is only one fish farm operator in the farm management area. It should not be possible to revert to a farm management statement if two or more operators in a farm management area fail to reach an agreement.
I strongly endorse the desire that Tavish Scott expressed for ministers, the Government and Marine Scotland to avoid micromanaging a commercial industry such as aquaculture. He set out very well some of the challenges that that would present for ministers and Marine Scotland. It is certainly not the Government’s desire to get involved in the day-to-day micromanagement of the sector—far from it.
I welcome the discussion about section 1, as all the provisions relating to fish farm management are fundamental to the bill’s wider purpose and to ensuring that we have a regulatory regime that is appropriate, proportionate and complementary to the principles of sustainable growth. Tavish Scott has suggested that there are weaknesses in our intention to work within the framework of the code of good practice-designated geographical areas, but I disagree with that view. Farm management statements and agreements are best considered in the context of the code.
I understand the points that Claudia Beamish made about the desire to ensure that only farm management agreements are in place, other than in the obvious case of only one company operating in an area. Although that might be desirable, we would all accept that it is not always possible in reality, which is not always the consequence of a lack of determination on any party’s behalf.
In some scenarios, amendment 49 would place a potentially unreasonable burden on an operator to comply with the other companies in its area—for example, in the scenario of different production cycles that Claudia Beamish described. When there are different scales of activity there may be dispute about how best to resolve the issue. I have talked to the committee about the role of mediation in trying to resolve differences within areas, but we must allow for the possibility of it being impossible to reach such a conclusion.
The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation highlighted its concern about the reference to the code of good practice in proposed new section 4A of the 2007 act. It did not consider that compliance with statutory FMAs should be measured by reference to a non-statutory code of good practice. On reflection, I agree. I also agree with the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s point that the bill appears to delegate to the SSPO and the code’s authors the function of setting out good practice standards that fish farmers must apply. As a consequence, it is necessary to make amendments 12 and 13 and consequential amendments 14 and 15.
10:00
Jayne Baxter has suggested that we widen the statutory content of farm management agreements and statements to include measures to minimise impacts on wild fish and their populations. I strongly sympathise with the desire to support wild fisheries and, to pick up Tavish Scott’s point about some committee members’ constituencies, that is an important dimension. The bill’s provisions are balanced and proportionate in minimising the potential impact on wild fish. It is difficult to envisage what additional practical measures could be reasonably undertaken as a result of amendment 50.
Claudia Beamish has suggested that, as part of the development of FMAs and FMSs, we should make it a requirement to communicate with those with an interest in the marine environment in and around the farm management area. The code of good practice encourages close communication with all key stakeholders, and I consider that to be the appropriate framework in which communication should take place. Making communication a statutory requirement would make it increasingly difficult to ensure that all those with an interest have been appropriately consulted or that they would acknowledge that to be the case through the ministerial group on sustainable aquaculture.
The statutory publication of FMAs and FMSs, as suggested by Alex Fergusson through Jamie McGrigor, would be a disproportionate approach and would carry a significant commercial risk were the information to be taken out of context or misinterpreted. It would also impose an unjustified burden. Moreover, it could be a disincentive to operators who include substantial detail in existing agreements, who might become concerned that their positive approach could be presented out of context by A N Other.
I will address a point that Jamie McGrigor made in relation to the previous group of amendments. The bill rightly reflects more generally the fact that FMAs and FMSs are operationally and commercially sensitive and are therefore primarily matters for farmers. I am aware of some FMAs that are shared with local fisheries interests. I commend that approach, when it is possible.
Amendment 16 corrects a factual inaccuracy in the bill, which I have acknowledged previously, in relation to the ownership of the code of good practice.
Tavish Scott appears to support some stakeholder views that there is no correlation between the detailed requirements in an FMA or FMS and the need to make an informed assessment about whether operators are delivering, which may require taking samples, for example. Needless to say, I disagree.
I invite the committee to resist amendments 65, 66, 49, 50, 51, 2 and 67 and to agree to amendments 12 to 16.
Good morning. There is a general acceptance that aquaculture development impacts on wild fish in some areas and circumstances. Recent attention has shifted from asking whether there is an impact to considering the extent and significance of the known impacts. Amendment 50 is designed to ensure that impacts on wild fisheries are minimised and adequately considered by the industry when compiling farm management agreements and statements.
Quite simply, amendment 2 would require all farm management agreements and statements to be published, to increase the openness and transparency that the publication of sea lice data brings about. It would add to the publication of sea lice data by setting the context behind sea lice management strategies.
Alongside publication of sea lice figures, the publication of farm management agreements and statements would show whether a management strategy was working. If a farm were to publish sea lice data and its agreement or statement together, that would show the industry, the public and environmental bodies what is being done to fix any problems that exist in a farm or an area.
I absolutely take the minister’s point and genuinely believe him, not least from a practical point of view, when he says that he and other ministers do not want to micromanage the industry. However, that places an onus on the Government to set out how it will avoid doing that.
I appreciate that we have a short debate today, that we are considering amendments to a bill and that we do not have time to go into the detail—heaven help us were we so to do. However, once legislation is passed, it is on the statute book and, in the absence of any other way of addressing what I think are genuinely unintended consequences, there are concerns that the Government will be hauled into day-to-day management. The industry has expressed those concerns privately to the minister and to most of us who have fish farm interests in our areas and constituencies.
I am deeply concerned that, unless the minister has some other clever mechanism that is not clear yet—perhaps he will come back with it at stage 3—the Government now and in the future, because the bill is about not only today but the future, will end up in the ghastly situation of being held to account for decisions that are taken on fish farms.
That is my main point. Had the minister set out in some way the mechanism by which the Government and Marine Scotland could avoid that—perhaps he will do that in the future—I would be much more comfortable with what is proposed. There is a real danger that what I have suggested might happen and, on that basis, I will press my amendments.
The question is, that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 65 disagreed to.
Amendment 66 moved—[Tavish Scott].
The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 66 disagreed to.
Amendment 49 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 49 disagreed to.
Amendments 12 to 15 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 50 moved—[Jayne Baxter].
The question is, that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Against
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Abstentions
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 50 disagreed to.
Amendment 51 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Against
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Abstentions
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 51 disagreed to.
Amendment 52 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 52 disagreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Jamie McGrigor].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 67 moved—[Tavish Scott].
The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 67 disagreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—Escapes, and obtaining samples, from fish farms
Group 3 is on obtaining samples from fish farms. Amendment 68, in the name of Tavish Scott, is grouped with amendments 69 and 17.
I absolutely accept the need for the Government, through its appropriate agencies, to obtain samples from fish farms. The point of my amendments is to clarify the purpose of sampling and what the samples are to be used for.
I will make two other points on the amendments. First, I understand that there might be a challenge under the European convention on human rights because, as I am sure will have been recognised in the minister’s legal advice, when the state obtains—for want of a better word—an asset that belongs to a private business or private individual, questions will be raised about the legal process and how that has been gone about. I have no doubt that the minister’s lawyers have pored over that issue, but I seek clarification on the matter, given that the Parliament has in the past had to deal retrospectively with how bills or parts of bills comply with ECHR.
10:15
My next—and, I suppose, main—point is that I am concerned about how Marine Scotland’s three distinct and separate roles of enforcement, research and policy can work in the same organisation. I have a huge amount of sympathy for the minister, because I think that he has been given a hospital pass on the issue. I did not agree with the decision to merge those functions into one body and thought, for lots of obvious reasons, that it was not the right move not just for the fish farming industry but for the fishing industry and other users of the sea.
The arrangement creates an important and indeed impossible conflict of interest among the different functions and, no matter how able the Chinese walls that are established in such organisations might be, I do not see how we can separate out the very clear conflicts that might well emerge. The bill brings that issue into sharp focus, particularly in the charging measures in its latter sections, and I want any such conflicts of interest to be avoided in the bill.
My amendments seek to end those conflicts, remove the bill’s potential in that regard and ensure that the bill is compatible with ECHR. In simple terms, when Marine Scotland takes samples, it should do so for the prescribed purpose, and that purpose should be clear, unambiguous and understood by the industry, the fish farm and the Government. That is not too much to ask with regard to an important function that I believe should be carried out.
I move amendment 68.
I acknowledge Tavish Scott’s point and will address it in my response.
The aquaculture measures in the bill will continue to enhance regulation and build on current and developing best practice. We acknowledge the excellent progress that the industry has made in tackling escapes, its continued significant investment in new equipment and its on-going engagement in developing technical standards—which I hope to take forward in the ministerial group on sustainable aquaculture—but escapes still happen and it has sometimes been difficult to trace the origin of fish.
Of course, the proposed powers are not just about tracing escapes. It is eminently sensible that the legislation is future proofed to ensure that we have the necessary powers to obtain samples for other purposes, such as scientific and other research that might be necessary in the future.
I have heard the SSPO’s concerns about the scope of the proposals and the committee’s comments on the matter at stage 1; I take on board Tavish Scott’s point about the requirement to be clear about the intention behind the use of the powers; and I support the principle that sampling must be proportionate and that only what is needed should be taken. There must be controls on the use of fish. I say in response to Tavish Scott’s fair point that our intention that sampling must have a legitimate purpose has been flagged up to the industry.
Given all that, the Government’s amendment 17 is a direct response to the concerns and seeks to tighten the grounds on which we would take samples for our own purposes. I recognise that proposed new section 5A(3)(e) of the 2007 act is wide ranging and I concede that there is little to be gained in retaining it when read alongside proposed new section 5A(3)(b). However, Tavish Scott’s amendments 68 and 69 should be resisted, as they would unhelpfully limit the future use of the provisions.
Amendment 68 seeks to remove proposed new section 5A(3)(b) of the 2007 act. Given the overall policy objective of securing a sustainable and growing aquaculture sector, we still consider that that power, deployed in a reasonable and—I stress—proportionate manner, is entirely appropriate and should be retained. Amendment 69 would clearly limit our ability to field test new or developing methodologies for tracing the origins of farmed fish escapees to ensure that they are robust and applicable to Scottish circumstances.
For those reasons, I ask the committee to resist amendments 68 and 69, which collectively would significantly limit our ability to develop and field test future tracing methodologies. The bill was considered by the Presiding Officer to be within the Parliament’s competence at introduction, and we believe that that deals with the ECHR issue. I urge the committee to accept the Government’s amendment 17.
Mr Wheelhouse is not the first minister who has said, “The Presiding Officer has, of course, said that the bill is ECHR compatible.” Mr Gibson and I have heard that in relation to a number of measures. I do not hold that against Mr Wheelhouse in any way. He has said it on the record, and that is good enough for me, although heaven help us if we come back to the matter with a legal challenge in due course. At least we tested the point today.
I take the minister’s point that the Government considers its amendment 17 to be a direct response to the concerns about prescription, as the amendment will ensure that the manner in which the sampling is done is described and that the samples are taken for the intended purpose. That is fair, it is as it should be and I accept it.
However, I am concerned by other Government statements. If I wrote down Mr Wheelhouse’s words correctly, he said that my amendments would
“unhelpfully limit the future use of the provisions.”
That is my point. Believe me—Governments always want to take more powers. I was part of a Government that took more powers, and it was not always the right thing to do.
I am concerned that Governments should always set out what they want powers for and why they want them. I understand the why, as the minister has been clear about that, but the what is a pretty important question because, given the way in which the bill is drafted, there is pretty well unlimited scope for how the provision could be taken forward—not by the current minister, of course, but by future Governments. That is the test that we should always apply when we are dealing with legislation. Because I want to constantly and consistently apply that test, I intend to press amendment 68 and move amendment 69.
The question is, that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Against
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 68 disagreed to.
Amendment 69 moved—[Tavish Scott].
The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Against
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 69 disagreed to.
Amendment 17 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
After section 2
The next group is on prohibition on the introduction of genetically modified organisms. Amendment 11, in my name, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 11 addresses three elements with regard to genetically modified organisms. If the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America gives final approval to the farming of genetically modified salmon and those salmon are capable of breeding, escapes could happen, as they happen in other cases. Any interbreeding with wild Atlantic salmon would be totally unacceptable.
If anyone introduced GM salmon into our farmed or inland waters, it would undermine the quality of Scots farmed salmon. My amendment underlines my belief that that should be an illegal act with an appropriate fine.
There is a third issue about GMOs, which is the introduction of GM-based feed, soya and oils for farmed salmon, which could be eaten by wild salmon into the bargain. The intent of amendment 11 goes alongside the concerns of supermarkets such as Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op, and their customers, who demand the highest quality of non-GM food. Those supermarket chains are looking for insurance that fish farming will be conducted in as natural a way as possible.
Amendment 11 aims to tackle those fundamental food quality issues and, above all, to meet the wishes of anglers, fish farmers and supermarkets and their customers to have GM-free Scottish salmon, whether farmed or wild.
I move amendment 11.
Can you clarify whether amendment 11 applies to triploid fish?
I do not believe that it does, because triploid fish could not then breed with salmon, whether farmed or wild.
So it does not apply to triploid fish.
That is correct.
I have some other concerns about triploid fish. Some people have said that, for example, the process of making a rainbow trout a triploid fish is genetic modification. That happens in many inland waters, and amendment 11 refers to inland waters. With all respect, convener, you do not seem to be 100 per cent sure on that point and it was not something that we studied in any great detail during stage 1.
I am happy to support amendment 11 because I think that it is well intended, but I put on record that I might have to reconsider come stage 3. We do not want to have the unintended consequence of putting every inland fish farm out of business, which amendment 11 might do if triploid fish were seen to be genetically modified.
Thank you for that point.
Minister, will you comment on amendment 11?
I very much sympathise with the points that you made when moving amendment 11, convener, but my concern is that we should not deal with salmon in isolation from other foods. I recognise that some—indeed, maybe many—consumers have particular concerns regarding GMO produce. As one consumer, I am concerned about that. However, the application of GMO technology and the use of GMOs are already adequately regulated in Scotland and the European Union. The Scottish Government has made it clear on a number of occasions that we are steadfastly against having GMOs in our food chain.
The European Food Safety Authority is finalising draft guidelines for the assessment of GM animals, including GM fish, following a public consultation last year. Before any GMO, including salmon, could be released in Scotland, the Scottish ministers would be required to give consent under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That would include assessment of the potential for detrimental effects.
We have made our position on the issue very clear. I stress that GMO is not an issue that we want to progress, given our view that the integrity and perceived purity of Scottish produce must be protected to maintain our premium market position.
Although we have taken the view that appropriate restrictions are already in place, I would perhaps direct the convener and other committee members, if they were interested, to ask the newly appointed food expert group, which the Minister for Public Health Michael Matheson announced, to address the general point regarding maintaining a GMO-free food chain, packaging standards and other matters. That might be an appropriate channel by which the issue could be addressed. I take on board Jim Hume’s point about the potential to discuss the issue further in the committee and, indeed, to engage the Government on it before stage 3.
I put on record that the committee might wish to be aware that the Scottish salmon farming industry itself is opposed to the introduction of GM fish stocks. I recognise the convener’s point about the potential for food for farmed salmon to be contaminated with GMO material, which I take very seriously.
The SSPO has a publicly-stated policy of opposing the use of genetic modification in salmon production. It states that there is currently no such activity on Scottish farms and it can foresee no circumstances under which there would be in future, for the reasons outlined about maintaining the perceived quality and premium value of Scottish salmon.
Given the fact that the SSPO, the Scottish Government, the EU and—as the convener outlined—many supermarkets are all against GMO, I think that there are a number of pressures that suggest that it is unlikely that GMO will be introduced into the salmon and trout farming industry. In the circumstances, I invite Rob Gibson to withdraw the amendment; if he chooses to press it, I urge the committee to reject it.
10:30
There could be unintended consequences regarding inland fish farms in the way that the amendment is worded. That gives me pause for thought as we would wish to avoid unintended consequences.
The need for access to non-GM soya to be widely available is very important as fish farms move away from the use of fish feed. There is a huge debate to be had about how that can be achieved through wholesalers. In South America, there are huge difficulties in getting non-GM soya because GM soya has been planted in such large amounts. I believe that that is a cause for considerable concern for the future of our industry in Scotland and its GM-free status.
I understand the minister’s comments about the various means by which the Government can address some of those points, and at this stage I would seek to withdraw amendment 11 from discussion, with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn?
I object.
As there has been an objection to the amendment being withdrawn, I must put the question on the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
We will end proceedings on the bill for today as we have reached an appropriate point at which we can pick up next time. I thank all of the members, the minister and his team for their contributions.
10:33
Meeting suspended.
10:43
On resuming—