Environment and Rural Development Committee, 01 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Official Report 277KB pdf

---

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

I welcome members of the public and press to our 30th meeting in 2006 and remind everyone to switch their BlackBerrys and mobile phones to silent. We have apologies from Elaine Smith, who is ill.

Today marks the fourth of our evidence-taking sessions on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I welcome our first panel, which comprises witnesses who have an interest in the management of freshwater fisheries: Andrew Wallace is the director of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards; Hugh Campbell Adamson is a member of the fisheries bill team for the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association; Jon Swift is the chairman of the Association of Scottish Stillwater Fisheries; and Alex Stewart is the recorder for the Tay liaison committee. I thank you all for your helpful submissions, which we have circulated to members.

First, I will address a couple of questions to Andrew Wallace. In your submission, you appear to take exception to some of the evidence that we have heard, particularly on sea lice and escapes. You say that

"Others have described the proposed legislation as: ‘A sledgehammer to crack a nut'"

and you dispute the view that measures have been taken to combat sea lice and reduce the number of escapees.

You go on to say that your association

"would like to leave the Committee in no doubt that we believe this legislation is absolutely essential".

Perhaps you will enlarge on that and say why you think that, if anything, the bill does not go far enough.

It is surprising that the question whether sea lice and escapes cause problems is still in dispute. The debate is being held at international level because the same problems have emerged in Ireland, Canada, Norway and the Baltic region. It is recognised on an international community basis by organisations such as the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—a treaty organisation to which we are signatory—that sea lice and escapes are problems. At domestic level, we have the tripartite working group, to which the industry is a signatory and into which the Scottish Executive has put a great deal of money and resources. It is inconceivable that sea lice and escapes should not be taken seriously.

I took exception because of comments that were made at previous evidence-taking sessions. For example, Andrew Grant referred to treatment at levels acceptable to wild and farmed salmon, which is not the case; plenty of evidence to that effect is coming out of the tripartite working group. In its written evidence, the Fish Veterinary Society suggested that there is no proven link between sea lice in farmed and wild salmon. If that is the case, we must question why so many people are putting so much money, time, resource and effort into solving the problems. There is a great deal of active participation by the industry in that. That is the stage on which the bill is set.

The committee is well aware of the problems that are associated with sea lice and escapes. In my secondary submission, I provide the latest figures from the Scottish Executive on escapes. Last year 900,000 fish escaped; this year 100,000 had escaped in the year to June and there was another major escape in Argyll last week. Escapes are a significant problem.

Our argument that some form of regulatory approach is needed is based on the fact that society recognises the need to regulate impacts. The problem to date is that sea lice and escapes have fallen through the regulatory safety net and no one has been able to take responsibility for them. The bill will cover those areas in a way that I view as being sufficient. It takes a light and deft approach to the problem, which is welcomed by the industry. Sid Patten, the director of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, stated:

"It provides the industry with the underpinning of the code of good practice that the industry sees as important. As long as it operates in that way and does not become yet another encumbrance on the industry, we can look forward with some confidence to it saving us from some of the misinformed criticism that has been directed at us in past years."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 4 October 2006; c 3555.]

I could not put it better. The bill is supported by the industry, the Scottish Executive and us. The measures that are proposed make a lot of sense.

My next question, which relates to compensation, is directed at Hugh Campbell Anderson. In your submission, you say that you believe that the Scottish ministers should have a "duty" to compensate, rather than "discretion" to compensate, as is provided for by the bill. Will you enlarge on that point?

In this country, we have a history of not doing compensation very well. The foot-and-mouth outbreak was an example of how, under a voluntary system, preparation is not very good, even if compensation is eventually paid. If there is an obligation to pay, there is immediately more co-operation. In this case, we are dealing with Gyrodactylus solaris, which needs immediate action. Unfortunately, it is not practical to impose controls at ports. If it were, that would be the way to prevent any possibility of GS entering the country. However, once it comes in—if it does—we must be able to act as soon as possible. I would prefer that payment of compensation be made compulsory because that would make the process much quicker.

The submission from the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards states:

"there are signs of a recovery in terms of wild fish stocks in some areas."

Will you say a little more about the rivers in Scotland where there has been a recovery and the rivers where there has not? How does the failure of stocks to recover in some areas relate to the bill?

Over the past 20 years, there has been a fairly catastrophic decline in salmon and sea trout stocks on the west coast. That has had an impact on the local economy and employment. In the past three years—in alignment with the emergence of the tripartite working group, which is a Scottish Executive convened wild fish industry group that many people are putting effort into—we have seen some signs of recovery. That is most encouraging and we believe that it is a result of the efforts of ourselves, the industry and the Executive.

The recovery is, however, quite patchy at the moment, but a good example of recovery is the River Lochy in Lochaber. In its day, it was one of the major west coast systems and more than 1,500 salmon a year were caught on it. At its nadir, about 35 fish a year were caught on it. However, the river's fortunes have bounced back remarkably—last year, 1,000 fish were caught.

Quite compelling evidence is emerging that recovery is happening on a cyclical basis, which is linked to the inability of the industry to control lice in the second year of production as the fish mature. That illustrates the difficulties that we have with controlling sea lice. We believe that the bill will underpin the voluntary arrangements in a way that might be able to address some of the problems.

Protection orders are quite controversial. One of the key issues relates to the extent to which there has been payback in terms of increased access for angling. In its submission, the Scottish campaign for public angling says that the orders are

"directly responsible for the collapse in angling participation in Scotland".

Do you agree? From your experience of other protection orders, such as the one on the Tay, have you seen an increase in angler participation as being the payback for the application of the order, which was the original intention?

The problem with protection orders has been lack of information rather than lack of access. When Lord Sewel raised the issue about eight to 10 years ago, the SRPBA—or the Scottish Landowners Federation, as it was then—looked into the matter and found that there did not seem to be enough knowledge of where people can fish. More fishing is available than appears to be the case. We need to find a much better way—perhaps through the internet—of ensuring that the information is available.

There are problems that the liaison committee needs to work on—Alex Stewart might be better qualified to speak about that—but there does not seem to be enough hard information. In some areas, the arrangement seems to be working and in others it does not.

From the outset, the Tay liaison committee has involved representatives of all the angling clubs and riparian owners on the system. Since 1998, when there was a threat of revocation, it has produced an annual report. Because of that threat, we provided a new submission to the Scottish Executive, which set out how we would manage the Tay system, produce reports and set up a system for monitoring how each beat was providing access in compliance with the access agreements.

We stated that we would have wardens who were properly trained in accordance with the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. Developing from that, the reports show where permits can be purchased and our website has a full list of where access is possible, what species can be fished and the methodologies that have been agreed with the riparian owners. A vast amount of information can be accessed. Our meetings are also public—any member of the public can come along and listen.

The system is designed to ensure that people who wish to fish for freshwater species have the means to access information on availability and can enjoy their fishing. The reports prove that, based on the statistical returns that we get from riparian owners and angling clubs, for all species far more rod space is available on the Tay system than is taken up in any one year. The biggest increase in rod uptake has been in coarse fishing. The information is available and access is available, but it is not being fully taken up.

I would like to try to get to the bottom of the issue. Would you say that angling access has increased since the protection order was applied?

Yes.

The opportunities have not, however, been taken up.

That is correct.

The opportunity has increased, but the amount of angling has not.

Since 1998, access has increased by about 7 per cent, but uptake has increased by just less than 2 per cent.

I have never fished on the Tay—you might want to invite me one day—but I assume that it is a popular river and that lots of people would like to fish there. If the opportunity to fish has increased, and given that angling is a popular sport in Scotland, why are more people not taking advantage of the opportunity? What are the barriers?

I am afraid that I cannot answer that. We and the riparian owners have made access available. About 168,000 rods are available on the Tay system, but only a small percentage of those are taken up. We publicise what is available through articles in the press, for example. We can only say that the access is available; we cannot force people to come and fish. However, those who come enjoy their fishing.

We are not without problems—there would be no point in saying that we are—but we have a system to address them. We have a complaints procedure and we have the monitors and the riparian owners. We all work together to solve the problems. Access is available and the fish are certainly there. We hope that those who come enjoy their fishing and have as much access as possible.

Okay. I guess that we will ask the anglers for their views later.

Is the Tay liaison committee unique? Are there other such committees for other rivers in Scotland, such as the Spey, the Conon or the Don? How widespread are such liaison committees?

Each system that has a protection order has some form of management committee, but I would not like to comment on the committees for the other systems. The Tay committee set out to provide as much information on access and information for visiting anglers as possible. To do that, we had to have the co-operation of the riparian owners. In 1998, with the threat of revocation, we revised the management structure because it was obvious that it was not working properly. We took the opportunity to take it apart and start from square 1, and the then minister Lord Sewel accepted the submission that was made in 1998. We have implemented the main points in that submission, such as the report and the booklet on where to fish, and we now have the website.

You do not, however, know whether your process is unique.

I may be able to help. There are 14 protection orders in Scotland. They work variably well, but there is a common theme. Alex Stewart's account of the situation on the Tay is one that would be found in many other places in Scotland.

To answer Richard Lochhead's questions about barriers to entry, there appear to be information and cultural problems rather than an access problem. That is worrying, but I suspect that, as can be seen with other recreations, much of the issue is about competing for people's time. Like so many outdoor activities, angling is suffering, and we are trying to address that through schemes such as the Scottish national angling programme.

Based on the evidence that we have just heard from Alex Stewart, I would refute the concerns that have been detailed by groups such as SCAPA. The protection orders are odd constructions. In a sense, they exchange the right of the sanction of criminal law to protect fisheries for increased access, which is a happy compromise. They have fallen down in that some proprietors have abused them and taken the sanction of criminal law without giving access. The bill addresses that clearly by providing flexibility in the protection order system so that if people do not do what they say they will do, they will cease to enjoy the right of the sanction of criminal law. Until the protection order system has been tested under the new arrangements, with the flexibility to increase them and the better structure that is being applied, questions of revocation are premature.

I wanted to ask other bits and pieces about protection orders. The SRPBA said that it is disappointing that the opportunity was missed to implement some of the recommendations of the 1998 task force. What was recommended that you feel might be good to include in the bill? Is the fact that riparian owners are not making statistical returns much of a problem? The Tay liaison committee submission mentions methods for disabled anglers. Has that happened under protection orders? I know that access for disabled anglers has been put in place by the committee that manages fishing on the Don, but does it happen elsewhere?

I am happy to step back somewhat from the SRPBA comments that you mention, having discussed the protection orders with the rest of the task force and the SRPBA, particularly the matter of owners who do not behave themselves having protection orders taken away from them. I am happy with what is suggested in the bill. The important part to me is to ensure that people behave themselves.

I do not know the position on owners not making returns. It is disappointing if they are not, because they should be. We will do our best to ensure that they do.

On returns, we can produce statistics only on the information that we are given. There are nine angling associations on our system and they have access agreements that allow people to fish large sections of the Tay. They represent quite a number of riparian owners, but a large group of owners provide access under the terms and issue their own permits. We have a problem about that, because we have no mandatory powers.

We send out requests for information at this time of year, but some are turned down or not replied to, despite their being chased up. We have no powers to say, "You must give us the information." Our preference would be for that to be addressed in the bill. The system should become mandatory. A penalty should be put in place for not completing returns, as is the case for migratory fish returns. In that way, we could build up a full picture of what is happening.

The crucial issue of funding also comes into play. At the moment, the Tay system is funded from permit sales and donations. Where someone has a small stretch of water, they perhaps have only two or three permits to sell per annum. At least they are honest enough to tell us that. They top that up with an extra donation for administration and so on. If mandatory powers were introduced, we would get not only the right picture but the proper funding that we need.

In the past, we have had to take angling clubs and riparian owners to task because of their non-compliance with the agreements that they have signed. Again, the agreements between riparian owners and angling clubs or riparian owners and liaison committees should be made legal and binding, and transferable on the sale of the property. Many of the large estates are more than co-operative on that aspect, but some of the smaller ones are not. The bill offers the opportunity for a package of measures to be introduced into law. When the new structure on managing our water systems comes into place, the main thing to ensure is that a framework is put in place that allows co-operation between all the interested parties.

That is helpful. Given that the bill does not include those powers or requirements, your view is that it does not go far enough.

Yes. That is my committee's view. As we said in our submission, the bill needs "real teeth" in order to assist the wardens who go out and about checking that access has been given and that anglers are fishing under the terms of their agreed usage of the water. Wardens should have training—we train our wardens—because there is in our view no point in having wardens out on the river checking whether people have permits and are fishing correctly unless the wardens know the terms of the law, how to approach people and the proper means of record keeping so that they can submit returns to the committee secretary, thereby allowing records to be kept. Giving the bill more teeth has to be coupled with putting in place a framework and proper training.

We can put that question to future panels and to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development when he comes before us. It is useful to hear detailed evidence on how legislation can be improved.

We have not heard from the Association of Scottish Stillwater Fisheries. Perhaps Jon Swift would like to comment on some of the issues that have been raised thus far. He might like to kick off by addressing the remarks that have been made on Gyrodactylus salaris and its eradication.

We broadly support the protection order proposals in the bill. I cannot comment on issues that are specific to the River Tay. Our waters are freely accessible, often seven days a week and all year round, as is the case with my fishery. Our fisheries make fishing more accessible.

So, they are popular. Can you quantify the numbers?

They are popular. I can also give the numbers. A couple of years ago, a survey was carried out on angling in Scotland. The figure for trout fishing was around £30 million, of which half was attributed to rainbow trout and stocked water fisheries, although the amount could be greater.

On the matter of GS—

I am interested not so much in the establishment of a payment as in knowing whether we should concentrate on preventing the disease from coming here or on eradicating it if it gets here. The cost of preventing GS from entering the United Kingdom that is suggested by the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards would be dwarfed by the cost of eradicating an outbreak. Would each of you like to comment on that?

You are right. The obvious strategy is to prevent GS from getting here in the first place. That is the cheapest solution.

The Executive recently convened a task force that will report shortly with a number of detailed recommendations for preventing the disease from getting into Scotland and the UK. The task force established that many of the recommendations for preventing GS from getting in do not lend themselves to legislation. We are talking about information; disinfection procedures at points of entry; disinfection on river banks; conditions being attached to permits—people are required to have such permits to fish anywhere in Scotland, so that is a useful vector for getting information over; and information routed through tour operators who take people in this country to fish in GS-infected countries and who send fishermen from GS-infected countries here. Many of those issues have been tackled in the report. The only problem is one of resources.

Indeed. What level of resources do the panellists consider is necessary to prevent GS from getting here? Andrew Wallace said that the issue does not lend itself to legislation, but others may have a view.

I cannot answer your question about resources now, but in parallel with the GS task force an economic appraisal of all the costs is being conducted by the University of Stirling. I expect that when the working group reports we will be happy to provide that information to the committee.

We have heard that there is likely to be an exercise in January and February on how to eradicate GS from a river system. Might that help us to find out what the costs might be?

I suspect that the exercise is really designed to test logistics, administration and lines of communication, but financial information might come out of it.

I take it from what you are saying that you think that the costs should be met solely from general taxation.

It is difficult to see where else the money could come from.

Your interests in salmon fishing and so on are pitched against the interests of other owners or users of water who the committee has heard about, such as canoeists, the whisky industry and so on. Many people have an interest in the matter and at some point a balance must be struck as to how the costs are met. Can you reflect on that?

I understand that, but it is clear that many of the costs of implementing some of the measures that I have described will be borne by the people who stand to benefit from keeping the disease out of the country: proprietors. We are talking about disinfection procedures, information bases and so on. Considerable in-kind costs will be borne by the industry, but payment of compensation and the costs associated with removing the disease are clearly matters for the Government rather than individuals. It would be well outwith the capability of private individuals to deal with such costs.

Does anyone else want to comment?

It is regrettable that there is no way to have proper facilities to prevent GS from coming into the country. I accept that we cannot find a way of doing that—or that it would be impractical. For example, all your equipment has to be sterilised with formaldehyde before you go to countries such as Iceland.

It has not been mentioned that Gyrodactylus salaris might not necessarily be brought into the country by angling, but could come in on wetsuits, on canoes and perhaps even through fish movements in certain circumstances. We must ensure that everyone is very much aware of it. The prevention cost could be divided in two. Our industry will play a large part in ensuring that anglers take the right precautions, that the formaldehyde or whatever is available and that the right information is put out by us. We hope that other industries will do the same, so that the canoeists and everyone else will make absolutely sure that GS does not come into the country. Let us not be fooled: Gyrodactylus salaris is a tiny thing, but it could be absolutely devastating to this country. We must do whatever we can to prevent it from coming in.

It has been suggested that the importing of live fish is far more likely to cause the problem than any of the things that you have been talking about. Is there not a responsibility on the people who import live fish?

I totally agree with that. The principal vector for GS and many other fish diseases and parasites, certainly in Scandinavia where GS originates, is well recognised as being live fish transfers. That is one of the major threats. We are in discussions with the European Commission on the question of live fish imports into the UK from Europe. Under certain conditions, imports are allowed from areas of approved health status in Norway, which we think is an alarming prospect.

We have heard that concern from a couple of witnesses before. You are strongly of the opinion that our minister should try to persuade the European Union not to allow imports of live fish because of the potential risk of importing GS and other parasites and diseases. Is that a universal view?

Unfortunately, that would conflict with EU trade priorities. We gather from our investigations with the Commission that trade will win out on this. It is fair to say, however, that it is not at all easy to bring live fish into this country. Live fish are currently not imported into Scotland from Norway; however, there is the prospect that they could be.

Who would import live fish and for what purpose? Would it be done to stock rivers and fisheries?

No, that would be out of the question. It would be the aquaculture industry. As you will be all too well aware, the aquaculture industry is now heavily dominated by Norwegian companies. Evidence of that sort of drift is already in front of us. Scottish hatcheries have been closed down and, rather than eggs being reared in this country, they are being imported to the tune of about 30 million a year from Norwegian operations in Norway under strict disinfection and fish health procedures. In my view, it would not be an illogical step for the industry to view its fish farming operations on a global scale and produce fish in different parts of the world where it suited it. If it could comply with the fish health legislation, it could, theoretically, bring smolts into this country. That is a very alarming prospect indeed.

Is the risk assessment process sufficiently rigorous? That would seem to be a huge risk to take, given the fact that every witness from whom we have heard thus far has said that, if GS were to arrive in Scotland, it would be economically devastating for a range of industries.

The risk is probably quite small. The problem is that the consequences would be enormous. Also, I would not want to underestimate the problems of other fish diseases, which might be more sinister and not so easy to identify in fish. We have already seen outbreaks of infectious salmon anaemia in this country, which had a catastrophic effect on the industry and came from an unknown source. There was also an outbreak of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia in Yorkshire earlier this year. Such diseases all have their origins in the same process—the movement of fish around Europe. We have a unique fish health status in Scotland and the UK. In my view, we should protect it and the Scottish jobs that are associated with it.

I suppose that the centralised ownership of some of the fish farming interests potentially cuts across a range of other economic interests.

Exactly.

Do you think the aquaculture industry is aware of your concerns?

It is very aware of them.

I presume that no reputable member of that industry would seek to import live smolts.

The industry has responded well to the concern in two ways. There seem to be very few of the big companies left now, but Panfish, which will soon be almighty, has issued a statement with Fjord Salmon and Marine Harvest to say that they will not import live smolts under any circumstances. That has been a helpful response from the industry and is indicative of the seriousness with which those companies treat the problem. Also, the industry code of practice, which is a good document, is clear on the subject although it does not write off such imports completely. The problem is that there is still the possibility of some maverick operator importing live fish, and I think that the door should be closed to that.

We have heard that you want the definition of parasites and novel diseases to be expanded. The Tay liaison committee made a number of practical suggestions for preventing the spread of GS. Have those been put to the Executive? If so, what reception have they had?

The suggestions were more about preventive measures than eradication. Many continental anglers who visit the Tay system regularly have their own fishing gear in the UK, which they use because they are fully aware of the problems with GS. That is fine, although I am not saying that every angler does that. However, if some form of disinfectant is to be used, either at the point of entry or prior to an angler being issued with a permit, there should be a charge for that. The costs of a full system of eradication would be quite frightening. However, if there was a little and often on the income side, that would be at least some form of commitment from the industry as a whole to assist with the costs.

As you correctly pointed out, other water users have free passage into and out of the continent and are just as likely to transmit this curse, if I may call it that. Again, disinfection is important. We are not suggesting that it is the be-all and end-all, but there could be some form of compulsory disinfection. A certificate issued from the EU country, at the point of entry or somewhere on the system, could be used as proof that care had been exercised before whatever water usage was allowed to take place. In our view, that would go a long way on the preventive side.

Have you put that idea to the Executive?

This is the first time that it has been expressed in detail. It has been raised in various shapes and forms at the numerous consultative meetings, but this is the first time that it has been formulated. We felt that we should submit something on the subject, although it is such a wide subject that, whichever way you look at it—cost-wise, compensation-wise or from the preventive side—it is a big area. Nevertheless, something should be done.

We can ask the minister about that.

Can I ask a quick supplementary question?

If it is very brief.

It is brief and is addressed to Mr Stewart. In your submission, you allude to the fact that, in the nightmare scenario of GS coming here, it might be virtually impossible to control it given the fact that wild birds—herons, ospreys and so on—might take fish from an infected area many miles away, thereby spreading the parasite into other water systems. What is your view on such a situation? Surely we are not in the business of talking about culling herons or ospreys.

No, we are certainly not advocating that. We do not know whether fish-eating birds and mammals can transmit the disease. We might have to seek veterinary or other, more specialist advice on that. We were making the point that it is possible that the disease could be spread in that way. We know that diseases can be transmitted by a third party in other sectors of agriculture, so there is no guarantee that a third party could not spread GS.

It would be dangerous to suggest a cull. We are not doing that; we are merely highlighting that there could be such a problem, which it would be extremely difficult to control.

I want to ask about parasites. The ASFB has said that it wants the species of freshwater louse of the genus Argulus to be covered by the bill's definition of "parasite" and that it would be simple to add Argulus to the list of parasites in the bill. It might be simple to include Argulus in the bill, but would it be simple to deal with the louse of that name? How much of a problem does it present?

To be honest, I do not know very much about Argulus, except that it is starting to be a problem in Scotland. Given that it is a clear and present danger, we feel that it should be covered by the bill. I find the prospect of eradicating a freshwater parasite on wild fish in a freshwater system daunting.

You say that Argulus is becoming a problem. Is it the case that we did not have it in Scotland until recently?

I understand that we may have had it, but that it is appearing more frequently in certain places. It has certainly caused a great deal of trouble in the still water sector south of the border. Jon Swift might want to comment on that.

Argulus is fairly widespread in England and Wales and is becoming more of a problem in Scotland. Although Argulus is already present here, new species are appearing. That is why our association strongly supports the proposals for regulating fish movements in Scotland. At the moment, it is easy to move fish from England and Wales up to Scotland. In Scotland, we do not have the equivalent of section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, which regulates the movement of fish within zones and ensures that they are health checked. We strongly support the bill's proposals on the movement of fish and hope that they will be effective in combating the spread of Argulus or of any other parasite or serious disease.

What fish are being moved, and in what quantities, from down south to Scotland?

The main species with which our association deals are rainbow trout and brown trout. Brown trout are a native species, whereas rainbow trout have been around in the United Kingdom as a farmed fish for a century. They have been used as a fish for anglers to fly fish and bait fish for. In our case, they are usually stocked in still waters.

So they are brought up from England to stock lochs.

Some fish are transported for that purpose. There is quite a brisk trade between fish farms south of the border and Scotland. There are movements of other fish—coarse fish—as well.

Are you suggesting that restrictions should be imposed on those movements?

We are saying that we fully support the proposed restrictions. We do not want them to act as a barrier to trade; we simply want the existing arrangements to be tightened up so that we can prevent the spread of parasites and diseases.

Do you think that the bill contains the right measures on that?

Yes, we fully support its proposals.

I have a question on a different subject, which is for Andrew Wallace. You mentioned that you were disappointed that the Executive had not chosen to address the problem of fish farm relocation. Why is that important?

There was a reference to relocation in the original draft of the bill. The matter is being dealt with reasonably effectively elsewhere under the relocation working group, but partly as a result of the restrictions of the planning system and the dynamic nature of the industry, we are living with a number of fish farms on sites that I suspect the industry is not entirely happy with, as fish are now farmed in a different way. The relocation of fish farms—particularly fish farms at the mouths of rivers—can help to relieve problems for wild fish and, perhaps more important, can result in area management benefits by allowing area managements to operate in certain areas more consistently. It seems that one way in which we are making real progress in dealing with the problems that are caused by sea lice is through the use of synchronised fallowing and co-ordinated lice treatments, but occasionally farms do not fit into the cycle and would benefit from relocation. There is experience of the process working quite well; for example, there is an interesting plan in the Western Isles that is referred to as the Loch Roag site optimisation plan.

In a sense, therefore, the relocation process is being dealt with. We would have liked a specific reference to relocation in the bill, but we acknowledge that the issue is challenging for the industry and that it is likely that relocation will be best achieved on a negotiated rather than a legal basis.

Have any fish farms been relocated?

Yes—there have been two successful relocations to date. To be fair to the industry, it has radically reorganised its production in the past few years and the process is under way. The formal relocation process has two scalps, and those relocations have been conducted with the full agreement of the industry partners.

Can you estimate the potential number of scalps that there should ultimately be?

That is a difficult question. Big changes are under way, and it would be hard to give an estimate until the layout of the new-look industry has been considered. However, I do not think that we are talking about many significant relocations; I think that we are talking about the number being in the low tens rather than in the 50s or hundreds.

I thank all four witnesses for coming to the meeting, for giving the committee written evidence in advance of the meeting and for being prepared to answer our detailed questions in particular. You have been helpful, particularly in saying where you think the bill has got things right and where it needs to be strengthened.

There will be a brief suspension while the first panel leaves the table and members of the second panel take their seats.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I welcome our second panel. We were keen to speak to representatives of users of freshwater fisheries, so we are glad to see the witnesses who are in front of us. George Holdsworth is Scottish policy officer for the Salmon and Trout Association, Dr David Mackay is a Scottish Anglers National Association environment officer and Ron Woods is a policy officer for the Scottish Federation of Coarse Angling. I thank the panel members for their written submissions, which members have been able to read in advance of the meeting. For the record, the committee also invited a representative of the Scottish campaign for public angling, but they could not attend the meeting. However, members have copies of the written submission that the campaign has sent.

I see three members instantly want to speak. Nora Radcliffe did not speak in the previous session, so she can kick off.

The bill prohibits some angling practices. It would help if you expanded a little on why it does that and on whether any other practices should be banned. For example, what is the difference between using three rods and four rods? What are you talking about when you say that someone is trolling? I ask for the idiot's guide to what should and should not be done.

Game angling has generally been based on using a single rod. It is illegal to fish for game fish with a set rod. Coarse fishing is entirely different; it is highly skilled, but it uses different methods. Attempts have been made to ensure that both groups can exercise their skills properly. The difficulty arises when people who claim to be coarse fishing are trying to catch brown trout, for example, by setting four rods on a bank and leaving bait on the bottom of them. Inevitably, a brown trout takes the hook and bait into its gut. When it does that, it must be killed when it is brought ashore, no matter what size it is or what condition it is in. That is one of several difficulties; I will leave it to my colleagues to describe others.

The limit on the number of rods will be raised rather than reduced. In practice, many proprietors choose not to enforce the present regulation, but the definition of rod and line in current legislation precludes the use of more than one rod and precludes the use of rods that are set in purpose-made rests, which is the normal practice in coarse angling.

It is fair to say that we recognise David Mackay's concerns about people masquerading as coarse anglers. However, quite a lot of scope exists for the identification of such miscreants and for distinguishing genuine coarse anglers, who not only prefer to but have to use those techniques if they are to succeed with some species, from people who simply exploit coarse fishing techniques to abuse game fishing.

I back up what has been said. It is normal to use one rod in game fishing, but we have the slight anomaly of harling on rivers and lochs, when rods are set up and lines are trolled through the water. In salmon fishing on the Tay, for example, three rods are used, so salmon anglers there are technically breaking the law.

The danger of people pretending to be coarse fishing when they are game fishing was raised. There is no question but that that can be a problem, but that could be relatively easily controlled under the local rules of permits. The law might say that the maximum number of rods is four, but a permit could say that only one rod can be used in an area. To restrict use to one rod in the bill would technically criminalise anglers who have trolled and harled for salmon for generations. That would not be right.

How much overlap exists? Are coarse and game angling likely to take place on the same stretch of water or do different types of fishing tend to sort themselves out into different types of water?

Fifty years ago, coarse fishing was almost unheard of. It is a rapidly growing sport that is being extended into waters that would not have been coarse fished traditionally. We must take that into account. In the future, coarse fishing might become a much more important branch of angling than it has been.

I endorse that. It is fair to say that the situation varies enormously between waters. A few waters are exclusively coarse fisheries, but there are a few parts of Scotland where no coarse fish are present. In between, there is almost every kind of mix. The scope for conflict is comparatively small, but there are waters where there is, or there is potential for, competition between uses.

It sounds as if you would like to have local flexibility to set the rules. That is paramount.

Yes.

That leads us nicely on to the subject of protection orders. You will have heard what the previous panel had to say on the issue. The Tay liaison committee thought that protection orders worked very well and that there was more space for angling and fishing on the Tay than was ever taken up. From your written evidence, I note that you have different views on the matter. Can you give us specific examples of places where protection orders are working well or badly?

The majority of protection orders definitely work, but they do not work in their entirety. As we heard earlier, there are parts of the system where owners do not play by the rules and have withdrawn access. As we say in our submission, we recommend that the bill should make provision for those people to be removed without the whole protection order being removed. In principle, the protection order system is exceptionally good. Of course there are flaws—we do not live in a perfect world, and it would be wrong to say otherwise.

The Tay system works well. The Tweed system also works well and, over the past two years, there has been a significant increase in grayling fishing in the winter months. It is sometimes suggested that protection orders act as exclusion orders and are responsible for the perceived reduction in the number of anglers fishing. The Salmon and Trout Association refutes that view completely. There is no question but that the pattern or style of fishing of anglers has changed. As the Association of Scottish Stillwater Fisheries said, huge numbers of anglers are taking up that sort of fishing instead of wild fishing. An economic survey that was done a couple of years ago showed that rainbow trout commercial fishing was the most popular type of fishing in Scotland by a mile; 700,000-odd permits are sold each year and its contribution to the Scottish economy is two or three times that of wild brown trout fishing. Many anglers are now fishing in a different way. There is a definite decrease in the number of anglers, as is the case in many active sports, but we refute totally the suggestion that that has anything to do with the protection order system.

This morning, members heard that the Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board produced an efficient method of operating the angling scene when faced with revocation of its protection order. There has been a history of protection orders being granted and individual proprietors or groups of proprietors backsliding and removing the access facilities, especially when fisheries have changed hands—as members know, salmon fishing rights can be sold as an entity, rather than going with the land. We now seem to be moving forward more positively, but that history underlines the fact that regulation must be firm and enforceable in order for systems to work. If it is not, loopholes will be found and exploited and the systems will fall apart. That is why the Scottish Anglers National Association is so keen that this excellent bill should be enacted more or less in its initial draft form. Watering it down would provide the relatively small number of people who will not play the game properly with an opportunity to cheat and to bring freshwater fishing into disrepute, as has happened with the fish farming industry.

It is important to emphasise that, although our perspectives and priorities might not be entirely identical, there is a high degree of consensus among stakeholders in the angling community on the fundamental principle of protection orders, which is the granting of responsible access to fish in return for the criminalising of unauthorised fishing. From the coarse angling perspective, we have varying views on the operation of the protection orders. The most positive and inclusive model is under the Loch Awe and Associated Waters Protection Order 1992. Loch Awe is an internationally renowned fishery for pike and generates somewhere between 25 and 35 per cent of its revenue from pike angling. A representative of the Pike Anglers Alliance for Scotland sits on the protection order committee, which has managed the regulation of the fishery actively and in a way that promotes pike angling as well as the conservation of pike.

The Loch Awe example is not unique, although the situation is different in different places. I believe that the Tay protection order committee has a similar representative. However, there are still hangovers from what we might regard as a less desirable state of affairs. For instance, some areas that are covered by protection orders have permit requirements that oblige people to kill all coarse fish that are caught, whereas the normal practice in coarse fishing is to catch and release. In our view, that requirement is contrary to the conservation aim. To go further, the protection order committee for the Tweed and the Eye has no representation from the coarse fishing community, despite the presence of a coarse fish population, albeit one that is smaller and less important than those in other waters, such as Loch Awe. The situation is patchy.

I hope that it comes across clearly that our submission is not that the measures in the bill are undesirable, but rather that they are not strong enough. The bill misses the opportunity to make the protection order provision much more robust. To confirm what George Holdsworth and David Mackay said, we have no evidence to suggest that the protection orders have reduced participation in angling. Our concern is that they have not achieved all that they might achieve and that a great deal could be done to make them more effective.

Dr Mackay talked about the bill being watered down. What has been missed out from earlier drafts that should be in the final draft?

We believe that Argulus should be included in the list of parasites, as it is a dangerous parasite that is spreading in Scotland. Action should be taken to control it now, before we have a major epidemic. Once established, the parasite can spread. We had an outbreak two years ago in Lindores loch, which was brought under control, but the parasite has come back again. It has been found for the first time in a river in Ayrshire. When Argulus becomes rampant, it causes enormous problems and reduces the quality and number of fish. It is a pretty dangerous parasite, so we can see no good reason why it should not be included in the list. There is no counterargument against that—it is just an omission.

We would like it to be an absolute offence to release fish into a system. For many years, under pollution control legislation, it has been an absolute offence to release polluting material into a stream. If somebody does so, they have to prove that there were good reasons why that happened before they are let off. With escapes from fish farms, it should be up to the fish farm operator to show that the escape was an act of God or the result of an unnatural situation that they could not control. Generally, the history of fish farm escapes is that they have resulted from carelessness, bad management or sheer stupidity, such as the case in which people poured fish from a helicopter into a cage system but had forgotten to put a net on it. There is a catalogue of similar incidents that have occurred over the years.

As the industry is so widely dispersed in quiet locations, it is extremely difficult to produce the evidence to prosecute anybody for such offences. We should start off by making fish farm escape an absolute offence—as I said, that has been common in pollution control legislation for many years—and then let the industry argue its case to the procurator fiscal or court that there should be no charge or penalty because it did all that it reasonably could to maintain the situation. That was how the bill was originally going to be phrased and we regret that that seems to have changed in the drafting.

That is something that we can take up with the minister when he appears before us.

My first question was answered in a response to Maureen Macmillan. My second question relates to how easy it is to put in place codes of practice and regulations to influence the behaviour of anglers. I refer specifically to the arguments that we have heard about preventing disease from entering our river systems. Anglers have a role to play in that.

We can put regulations and codes of practice in place, but what happens in practice? Hundreds of thousands of angling trips must take place in Scotland every year. Anglers presumably get their gear out of the cupboards and put it in the car, get their permit, and then do their fishing. We have talked about disease prevention rather than treatment and about encouraging people to disinfect equipment, but what happens in practice? How can we get the message across to anglers? What role can they play in preventing diseases from coming into our river systems, and how do we ensure that anglers are aware of their responsibilities?

Do you mean with GS or parasites in general?

We have been talking a lot about GS, but I mean in general.

In general, it is like everything else. There are people who will do what they should if they get the information and education. However, because any scheme is voluntary, there will always be people who do not do it. That is a fact—some people will not disinfect their equipment or pay any attention to the rules and will just break any codes that exist.

A number of voluntary codes are already in practice. In the Tweed system, for example, all anglers are required to sign a declaration to say that they have disinfected their equipment if they have been fishing out of the country in the past three months. My understanding is that if anyone refuses, the ghillies say, "You're not fishing. Goodbye." Compliance with that requirement is probably nearly 100 per cent. The problem is that someone living in Stirling, for example, might go up to Loch Awe for the day and not think of doing that.

GS is not a problem because it is not in the country yet. However, the spread of a parasite already in the country is a problem—we have to be honest about that. Organisations such as the Salmon and Trout Association and the others represented here can help to educate anglers. We are already doing that and are getting the information out to anglers about what they have to do.

Similarly, proprietors on commercial fisheries can provide disinfection and so on for their clients, so that if they do not disinfect, they do not fish. The problem is that, for example, the whole Tay system is a big river and guys just turn up. There will always be elements who just turn up, which is why we want to keep diseases out of the country. Once they are in, controlling them is a nightmare—to be blunt, it is probably impossible.

One problem is that the vast number of anglers in Scotland are not organised. The Salmon and Trout Association has about 10,000 members and the Scottish Anglers National Association, which represents game anglers, has perhaps 40,000 to 50,000 members. There are probably a million anglers in Scotland—there are certainly several hundred thousand, plus all the visitors. A huge number of people do not belong to a club or association. They have a rod and some gear in the cupboard, and when they feel like it they go out to fish. If somebody chases them off, they go off. Otherwise, they enjoy their day's fishing. Many people see it as an ancient tradition in Scotland that they can go and fish for brown trout without heed, fear or hindrance. Therefore, I think that we have all come to the conclusion that the opportunity for Gyrodactylus salaris to enter the country will never be controlled through preventive measures. The issue is what we do if and when it arrives.

Our submission seeks very strong powers to be given to the Executive to deal with the problem by entering land to take firm immediate action. If a long consultation period is required as was suggested in the discussion earlier, the disease could spread through several river systems before we get down to doing anything about the problem. It is vital that we have a game plan on what we do if Gyrodactylus salaris turns up in a river. At the moment, the Government does not have powers to enter land to do things to the river. We hope that the bill will introduce such powers.

I have little to add to what my colleagues have said. Our organisation and our member clubs would be happy—to some degree, we already do this—to publicise the risks from unauthorised fish movements and from any failure to disinfect gear after foreign trips or trips around the country. However, as with any legislation, there will be a deviant minority and, given the acreage of river and still water in Scotland, it would be simply impossible to police the situation.

The difficult issue is where we balance the effort between prevention and contingency plans for treatment. Although the fishing interests might be keen for action to be taken swiftly by the Government, other sectors that depend on our rivers are not particularly keen on the Government pouring chemicals into the river. For example, the whisky industry could be adversely impacted.

I totally agree. We recognise that other industries use the rivers and that the rivers are not just for fishing. That is why everyone would agree that we should try to stop the likes of GS entering the country in the first place. Once it comes, the game is a bogey and we are all in trouble. I know that people say that the free trade rules mean that we cannot prevent GS coming in, but it is essential that we continually try every method available to prevent it. Once it gets in, we will be in difficulty and everything will go: the fishing industry will collapse overnight as a tourism trade; the whisky industry will not be too pleased when we pour chemicals into the water; and Scottish Water will not be able to pump water from one catchment to another, such as from Loch Katrine to Glasgow. Given those problems, we need to prevent GS from coming in. That is the fundamental thing.

If you were the minister and you could take one specific measure to stop GS coming into the country, what would that measure be?

If it were at all possible, I would stop the importation of live fish into the country—full stop. Importation is the way in which GS is most likely to enter the country. Although canoes and fishing tackle are certainly means by which it could come in, all the evidence that I have seen suggests that the most likely way will be the transportation of live fish.

We have heard from various organisations that it would be disastrous if GS came into the country. Your submission states:

"its introduction would probably cause the near total collapse of angling in Scotland".

Given that GS is already a problem in Norway, do you have experience of how Norway has handled the angling side of the issue? Presumably, Norway has to cope with that difficulty.

I have limited knowledge of Norway, but I have been there and have seen the situation. I understand that Norway has a number of rivers—I could not say how many—in which basically there is no fishing, but other areas are GS free. When the angler turns up at a GS-free river—I was there in July—the disinfectant and so on are all in place. If anglers do not clean all their gear, they just do not get to fish. That is much the same as what we are talking about for Scotland. The problem in Norway is that GS has already come into that country and could spread. In the areas where GS has been identified, there are big problems. In whole river systems that used to be famous for salmon fishing, the industry and income that used to exist are just gone. The problem is that the industry is not just gone for a few years; it is not envisaged that it will ever return.

Norway's problem is that its angling industry is very salmon centred and it is losing that industry. The difference in Scotland is that we have a commercial rainbow trout industry, which is my industry. If an order were passed to stop the movement of fish, all the rainbow trout fisheries would have to stop business, as they would not be able to get their stock. That side of the industry would suddenly stop. The coarse anglers would not be able to go fishing, either. That is what my submission means in talking about a total collapse. It is the knock-on effects that would cause that.

Dr Mackay, you seemed to be saying that it would be virtually impossible to prevent GS from coming here, as there are so many different ways in which it might enter the country. Is there any way in which GS can be eradicated without a mass slaughter of fish? Can it be isolated or kept in one sector?

No. The Norwegians have considerable experience of GS, and they have had to poison the whole river system to try to eradicate it. Even then, it has come back in one or two rivers after a couple of years.

We are not talking just about angling and the economy. The salmon in Scotland is recognised as a beast of international importance for conservation purposes. It would be a huge disaster to lose our salmon—much worse than just losing the commercial value of the fisheries. It is one of our national emblems and typifies this country. Several of our rivers have status under European conservation legislation and are extremely important for the conservation of salmon. It is a much bigger issue than just angling.

Iceland used to be a great place to go salmon fishing. Is there GS in the rivers in Iceland?

No.

No, Iceland does not have GS. When anglers arrive at the airport, they have to disinfect their equipment or present a letter from their vet saying that their equipment has been disinfected. The authorities either tell them to go home or charge them and disinfect the equipment there and then. The rules are very strict in order to keep GS out. The fact that Iceland is an island makes the situation easier to control than in Scotland, as we are attached to England and there is land access.

I have a brief question on the practicalities of that. How does an angler set about disinfecting their kit? How easy is it? How big an installation is needed?

I am not an expert. If memory serves me correctly, fishing equipment can be frozen for 24 or 48 hours. David Mackay will probably know more about that than I do. There are several different chemicals in which it must be immersed for 10 minutes or thereabouts. Heating also kills GS, as does salt water. Equipment can be immersed in salt water for a minimum length of time—do not quote me on this, but I believe that it is about 10 minutes. GS can be killed—it is not as though we cannot wipe it out.

It sounds as though it might be possible to have a saline bath at the point at which anglers bought their permits, in which everything could be dunked for the required amount of time. It might be simple and straightforward to have that sort of control.

The problem would be that anglers would have to wait for their waders to dry out before they could wear them. If they had been soaked in water, they might be a bit damp for the rest of the day.

In commercial fisheries or places where people go to buy a permit, that could be done. However, as David Mackay said, there is so much of Scotland where people can just get out of their car and go fishing. They could just turn up and fish illegally. They could be poaching, they could have a season ticket or anything. That is where the logistics become difficult.

Two other colleagues want to ask questions. We are about 20 minutes over our timescale, so I ask those members to be brief.

I have a brief question for Ron Woods. George Holdsworth said that Norway is a bit salmon centred. In even contemplating wiping out all wildlife in our river system—which is what would occur if we were to use any of the currently available treatments for GS, should it get into our salmon—are we being salmon centred? Ron Woods's target species would be wiped out as collateral damage. Would that be reasonable?

We recognise the collateral damage, and we would be grateful if the committee would see that position as distinct from that of those who represent bodies that have a direct interest in the salmon and salmonids. However, we are pragmatic enough to recognise the reality of the situation. For all that coarse angling is vital to us as well as increasingly important to the Scottish economy, it is not—and will not be in the foreseeable future—as important to the economy or the culture of Scotland as salmon angling. If there were a similar parasite that affected only pike or perch, we would not expect the salmon interests to be happy to see all the salmon in Scotland wiped out. I imagine that I would be strung up if I even suggested that. However, we would put considerable emphasis on compensation. We recognise that we would have to play our part in the containment and possibly tolerate eradication, but we are strongly of the view that that would have to be balanced by mandatory compensation for coarse fisheries that were affected in the long term.

David Mackay talked about the iconic status of salmon in Scotland. Of course, the Scottish dram has iconic status as well, and anglers like their dram. We have been presented with evidence that suggests that the whisky industry—which is a major economic player as well—could be affected significantly by any kind of GS eradication measures because of the image problem that would be created by the use of the water. Can we possibly set the interests of salmon above those of whisky?

I hope that that would not be necessary. The treatment that is involved in eradication is fairly swift. As I understand it, in Norway the treatment did not last for months. The rivers are flushed out and that is it. The fish will return fairly swiftly. I think that the problem is perhaps being overstated. I also think that it would not help the whisky industry's image if it was drawing its water from rivers that were known to be dead as far as salmon and trout were concerned because of the activities of Gyrodactylus. Either way, if GS comes, the whisky industry will suffer. However, the treatment could and should be short-lived and make only a fleeting impact on the natural scene. Rivers recover. We know from endless experiences of pollution—sometimes by distilleries that have killed all the fish downstream from them—that fish stocks recover fairly rapidly if they are left.

That is a good place to stop the discussion. If I allow any brief more questions, we will be here for some time. That is partly a testament to the evidence that you have given us this morning. Thank you very much. It has been good to get the views of the managers of the system and to test their issues with the users of the rivers from the angling perspective. There has been quite a strong degree of enthusiasm for the bill among a range of key parties today. We will take up some of people's specific questions and concerns with the minister when we have him in front of us shortly. I thank the three of you very much.

We will take evidence from the minister on 8 November, when we will have the opportunity to follow up some of the issues that have been raised today. I ask the committee to agree to reflect on the evidence that we have received on the bill to date in private at the start of our next meeting, so that we can begin to draft our report on the bill, and to consider in private our draft report at subsequent meetings. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

That is excellent. Our witnesses may stand down and we will have a short suspension.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—