Official Report 181KB pdf
I welcome to the 31st meeting in 2006 of the Environment and Rural Development Committee members of the committee and members of the public and the press. I remind everybody that their mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be turned to silent. We have received apologies from the committee's convener, Sarah Boyack, who is, unavoidably, elsewhere, which is why I am chairing the meeting.
I am delighted to be at the meeting and I hope that I can assist the committee in its consideration of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, which is an important development.
I thank the minister for her statement and invite members to ask questions.
I thank the minister for her constructive comments, which the committee will welcome. I will start with how to deal with a potential outbreak of GS, which has been one of the more controversial issues to have been discussed at stage 1 so far. Many witnesses have said that the best way of dealing with GS is to put prevention measures in place to ensure that there is no outbreak in the first place. What discussions have you had with the authorities that protect our points of entry to ensure that adequate measures are being taken to prevent GS from arriving in the first place? Could you also talk about live salmon imports from Norway, which is one route by which the parasite could arrive in Scotland, and say whether it is your intention to clamp down on that? To what extent are live imports happening at the moment?
As far as live salmon imports are concerned, the industry's code of good practice recognises some of the issues around the potential spread of GS from a country such as Norway, where the parasite exists in certain areas. There are at present no imports of live fish from Norway. Current European Union law allows us to ban live fish imports from those areas of Norway where GS exists, although we are not in a position to ban live fish imports from those areas of Norway where GS does not exist. There is a commitment on the part of fish farmers, through the industry's code of good practice, to introduce quarantine methods. Although there are currently no imports, if there were, veterinary inspections would have to be made before any batches came through.
No; that sums it up.
The important matter of information has been raised. One of our key tasks is to ensure that people are informed about the potential problem—the potential disaster—that GS could pose in Scotland. The committee has been provided with examples of the leaflets and information that are available to people. Angling clubs have an important role in the dissemination of information. Fishing tackle shops also provide information, so they play a role, too. Measures that angling clubs implement to reduce the possibility of the spread of GS will be checked by local enforcement officers. As for liaison with other Government bodies, we liaise with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the points of entry into United Kingdom ports.
That issue occupied much of the time of the GS task force. Its conclusion was that the number of points of entry was so large that it would be impractical to legislate for screening people who were coming into the country with fishing gear, canoes and that sort of thing. The thinking was that the threat should be tackled through public awareness campaigns and education rather than through legislation, which would be unwieldy and impossible to enforce.
With the potential for GS on the agenda, the Government has produced a response, to an extent, in the form of the bill. Another response would be preventive measures at ports; however, you are saying that there are no plans for further measures to be taken at ports.
That is right. It is not only ports that could be sources of access for the parasite. People can enter the country at any number of points, and not just directly—they can also enter the country through England. It would be impossible to police against GS under the circumstances.
I am sure that the committee will come back to that point. There are lots of things that we police against at the moment that might enter the country through our ports. I am trying to work out why GS should be excluded from that process.
The GS contingency plan, which will be published shortly, will be reviewed annually in the light of further information that becomes available. It is not set in stone, and I am sure that we will return to the issue.
I have two more quick questions.
Are they about GS?
One of them is. I will ask it first. In your opening statement, minister, you referred to concerns over the impact on other users of the rivers if there were—heaven forbid—an outbreak of GS in Scotland's rivers. Many of us have expressed concerns about the impact on the distilling sector in Scotland, especially the malt whisky producers, who gave evidence to us. Their concern is that the image of the industry could be destroyed if poisons to kill a parasite were poured into the rivers, because the distillers use the same water. You said that, if the cost of taking action was greater than the cost of not taking action, you would not take action but would try to contain the outbreak. How would you measure those costs, and what plans are in place to measure them, given that the timescale for action would be short? I presume that there would have to be an emergency situation for you to use chemicals in our rivers.
The whisky industry and the hydropower industry have been involved in drawing up the contingency plan, as we are cognisant of the needs of the other people who use water and rely on having a clean supply. Although action would be needed, because of the complexity of the considerations in some cases, treatment would not necessarily take place quickly. In considering an eradication plan, we would have to make a judgment about the implications of that plan for the whisky industry—if the watercourses were used by distilleries—or for the hydro schemes and reservoirs into which the rivers fed. Eradication could also affect other species of fish. We would have to assess all the implications and make a judgment on the basis of economic, social and environmental considerations before deciding whether to go forward with eradication or containment. As I say, how long it would take to arrive at that decision would depend on the complexity of those considerations. The key issue is that industries such as the whisky industry must be closely involved in this.
Many members want to ask questions. I ask that we stay on the GS theme.
I want to backtrack and look at the role of the salmon farming industry in keeping GS out of Scotland. You said that industry members that have signed up to the code of good practice have plans in place to ensure that if smolts are imported they do not come from those parts of Norway that are infected with GS and that, if they come from other parts of Norway, they will be monitored. What about those industry members that have not signed up to the code of good practice? Do you have any concerns that they may be exercising bad practice? What dialogue has the Executive had with salmon farmers who are outside the code of good practice circle?
There are currently no live fish imports from Norway. Phil Gilmour may be able to answer your question.
All the major fish-farming businesses are Norwegian-based, and they are all signed up to the code of good practice. The businesses that are not signed up to the code are the very small Scottish-owned businesses that get their smolts from Scottish sources. It is unlikely that they would go outside Scotland for smolts. The industry is aware of the issue and there is currently no importing of smolts into Scotland. The farms tend to import eggs from Norway, but those are sterilised and subject to veterinary inspection.
I have a more general question about the exercise that is to be undertaken in January and February, but first, why has it been timed for then and not earlier?
The GS task force's report is not yet published but was completed fairly recently. The next stage that is required by the task force is the setting up of a dry run. It takes time to write a realistic outbreak scenario, and it is a question of timing. It is envisaged that, when the dry run takes place in February, it will be based on a fictitious outbreak in a whisky-producing area. There would be no point in a dry run if it did not test in the most challenging areas.
I understand that that is the timing, but it would help our scrutiny of the bill to know whether the dry run worked. There may be a need for further amendments to tighten up the bill, or whatever. We have longer rivers than those in Norway, and although the anglers say that the effects of any treatment with rotenone would be short-lived and would make only a fleeting impact on the natural scene, we do not yet know the effects of any treatment. Is it not important that we have an idea of whether what you propose is effective before we come to the next stage of the bill?
I emphasise again the fact that the contingency plan will be reviewed annually. Any lessons that are learned about the effectiveness of the existing contingency plan could be incorporated into that. I do not know whether we might not be taking powers now that we might need in future or whether we would have the powers to vary orders. One of my officials might like to comment on that.
Were GS to arrive, the approach to eradication would be based closely on the Norwegian model. Norway has quite a history of the disease and some success in tackling it, so the powers that are proposed in the bill are based largely on practice there.
If that is so, I presume that the practice will have to be adapted to our rivers. I ask that, in the dry run, you include freshwater mussels in the fictitious river that you are going to adopt. John Thomson from Scottish Natural Heritage said:
We are covered by EU law, such as the habitats directive and the water framework directive with the controlled activities regulations under it. To arrive at a decision, we would have to balance those legal requirements. Under EU law, we have to balance economic, social and environmental requirements. It is difficult for me to say what balance would cause us to decide against using the treatment because it would depend on the circumstances, but the presence of protected species such as freshwater mussels would clearly be an important consideration.
We do not have GS in Scotland and the bill is precautionary legislation to deal with an outbreak. The risk of GS getting here is low but, if it ever gets here, the consequences will be extremely great. We are putting in place precautionary legislation based on working through a technical process with all the stakeholders to ensure that every area can be covered as far as possible. We are learning from the experiences in Norway, which has the disease, and ensuring that we have in place everything that we possibly can, based on proper technical assessment.
I wanted to ask the questions that Richard Lochhead asked, but the answers you gave him lead me to some further questioning on the same themes.
Under EU law, we are able to ban the import of live fish from areas of Norway that have the disease. However, some parts of Norway are GS free. Under EU law, we are unable to ban the import of live fish from those areas. Of course, veterinary safeguards are also involved. Perhaps David Wyman will say something on that.
Yes. If trade in live salmon was to start up with Norway, the Norwegian authorities would have to certify that the area from which the fish were coming had been monitored over a period for the presence of the disease and that sampling and testing had failed to find the parasite. We would accept fish only in those circumstances.
Okay, that is a bit clearer. I turn to the other ways in which the disease could enter the country. Given the overall implications that GS could have for Scotland, should we not be a bit more robust in what we are doing? Richard Lochhead pursued that line of questioning. After all, the leaflet was produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations—it was a joint effort.
It is a question of risk and what is appropriate. Our minds are not closed to any suggestion the committee may make. At the moment, our view is that information and education are key and that our proposals should be adequate. If the committee believes that we should be taking other steps, we will examine its proposals with an open mind.
If you do not mind, I will come in again before you hand over to your official. I began my questioning by making the point that GS would be absolutely devastating for Scotland. We are talking not only about salmon—that would be bad enough—but about everything that is involved in this aspect of our economic activity. Even if the risk is minimal, a maximisation of factors should be used to prevent GS from entering the country.
As I said in my opening statement, I agree absolutely that if GS came into Scotland the potential effects would be wide ranging.
I do not think so, but I should point out that although the freshwater fishery organisations, from which the committee recently took evidence, acknowledge that there is a risk and that the consequences of something going wrong are horrendous to contemplate, they accept that any risk is low and that, given the situation, legislation is inappropriate. It is not as if the Scottish Executive has imposed this view on the freshwater fisheries community; they reached it themselves.
I was worried by all the doom and gloom about GS, because it suggested that an outbreak was inevitable, but you are categorically saying that there is a very, very low risk of an outbreak.
European fish health scientists have assessed the likelihood of an outbreak of GS stemming from an importation of recreational equipment as low.
Is the risk higher from live fish?
Very much so.
How does what we are doing at ports of entry to combat the risk of a GS outbreak compare with the measures that have been taken with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, avian flu or whatever?
I do not have that information.
We do not have those figures to hand, but I am more than happy to provide the committee with that information. I can say, however, that the GS task force's contingency plan is based solely on the perceived risk of GS entering the country. I do not know whether it would be easy to draw any comparisons, but I can provide the committee with information that might help.
I was simply wondering what happens at ports of entry to prevent foot-and-mouth disease, which is more likely to come into the country than GS. After all, we want to have a proportionate response.
Absolutely. We also need to weigh up the degrees of risk posed by the different ways in which GS can enter the country. We will try to give the committee some helpful information on that.
It has been suggested that the contingency plan might include provision for a designated group of stakeholders to be called together quickly in the event of an outbreak. Will that form part of the plan?
The key point about the contingency plan is that we must be able to work with stakeholders. As some situations might prove to be very complex, their engagement will be very important.
The contingency plan sets out the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies and organisations that would respond to an outbreak and details the range of considerations that the strategy group should take into account in deciding whether the response should be containment or eradication. With the plan, we would, if you like, hit the ground running.
We will move on to discuss compensation.
Why are your powers to make compensation payments for fish diseases discretionary, while compensation for other farmed animal diseases is compulsory?
There is currently no system of compensation for fish loss, so by introducing the possibility of compensation we are bringing our approach into line with other compensation schemes.
You are not bringing your approach into line with the system for other farmed animals, for which compensation is compulsory rather than discretionary.
The bill gives ministers the power to intervene to pay for fish that are destroyed, if the circumstances are right and there is a need for such a payment. The bill provides for a discretionary power and ministers will weigh up the risks.
Will anyone else comment on the proposed approach, which is different from practice in relation to other farmed animals?
There is no proper answer to the question, except to say that post foot-and-mouth there is unease about the extent to which the Treasury is exposed to such payments. The establishment of a compensation scheme would be a matter for ministers' judgment and the proposed scheme would have to be endorsed by the Scottish Parliament.
My officials have provided further information, which might be helpful. When ministers decide who will qualify for a payment, they might consider criteria such as the extent of compliance with the code of good practice, the prompt reporting of disease outbreak or illegal movements of stock into a farm. Ministers would exercise their discretion on such matters. The proposed approach is tailored to deal with loss of fish.
How would the compensation scheme work in a large-scale outbreak? The cost of compensation might be significant, but the disease might not be eradicable.
Ministers would take such matters into consideration. A Scottish statutory instrument that provided for payment would be laid before the Scottish Parliament, so the Parliament would have a role in that context. In proposing a scheme that was designed to compensate for loss of fish, we might set out the criteria that would trigger a payment, but the moneys that ministers paid out would be determined by the Parliament, which would have to approve the SSI. My officials might elaborate on that.
We have been through a situation in which the fish farming industry was hit by a bad disease outbreak. Although we were able to put in place a restart scheme, we wanted to be able to be more proactive and to intervene earlier. We have not opted for a compulsory compensation scheme; we decided on an approach whereby we could take account of the significance of the disease and the scale of the outbreak and intervene in an appropriate way, on the basis of the appropriate information, as the minister said.
How would compensation be funded?
It would come from the Scottish block.
Have any contingency plans been made? How much money might have to be put aside?
The industry estimated that the infectious salmon anaemia outbreak in 1998 resulted in losses of around £30 million. The extent of those losses was partly a result of the practice of moving live fish from area to area, which is now relatively rare.
Richard Lochhead will move us on to another topic.
In your submission to the committee, you outline the amendments that you intend to lodge at stage 2. You say that one of those amendments will seek to impose administrative penalties on the sea fisheries sector. When the idea was first mooted back in 2004—and, no doubt, during the consultation process—the industry expressed the concern that its members would be denied access to justice because they would not have the chance to defend themselves in court. You say that a right of appeal for offenders is a key factor in the development of the policy proposals. How will the appeals process work? In other words, how will you ensure that people on whom administrative penalties will be imposed have access to justice and are able to put their case?
The issue is being consulted on.
I can answer the question from a legal point of view. I understand that the consultation is continuing. The intention is to create a system whereby a person who is suspected of contravening a particular fisheries provision is offered a fixed penalty, which is calculated on a sliding scale. The person to whom such an offer is made is not required to make payment—they can simply do nothing, in which case they can have their day in court. The proposal is entirely voluntary. The person to whom an offer is made can accept that they have done something wrong and take a fixed penalty or decide to have their day in court. Anyone who chooses to protest their innocence will not be diverted away from the court system.
Are you saying that the acceptance of such a penalty is voluntary?
The procedure is similar to the one that is used for speeding offences. A person might receive through the post notification of an allegation that they have been caught on a speed camera doing 40mph in a 30mph zone. They can either accept the notice, pay the sum of money and that is the end of the matter—although I think people also get points on their licence for speeding—or choose to contest the allegation and have their day in court.
In their evidence, some witnesses have said that the granting of protection orders has not been accompanied by increased access to angling. Evidence that that principle has not been adhered to in some parts of the country has been a recurring theme. Other witnesses have said that there is not an issue with protection orders and that they are working perfectly well. What is your view on what has been said at stage 1? Do you feel that protection orders are working and that access to angling has increased when they have been imposed?
It is difficult to give a blanket response because it is not easy to work out whether reductions in angling in particular areas are a result of the imposition of protection orders or of a decrease in the number of anglers. The freshwater fisheries forum continues to examine the issue. Its view is that protection orders play an important role because they allow conservation measures to be introduced in places where they have not existed before. In some areas, they greatly increase people's opportunities to fish, even if those opportunities are not taken up. Many others have expressed that view to the committee as well.
It is difficult to measure increases and decreases in the number of anglers. In some areas where there are no protection orders, some people still perceive that they can fish wherever and whenever they like without permission and for free, but that is not the case. Anybody who wants to fish for freshwater fish needs permission, and if they do so without permission in an area that is not a protection order area—with a few notable exceptions—they are committing a civil offence.
Is that due to a lack of information? Perhaps people do not know where to get information and are worried about fishing in case they end up as criminals.
The problem with giving liaison committees legal powers is that that would create another 14 non-departmental public bodies. That is one of the reasons why the freshwater fisheries forum needs to consider the matter further. We need to come up with a system of fisheries management that ensures that proper conservation measures are carried out and followed, and that people have access to angling.
Is angling affordable for youngsters? David Dunkley talked about kids using game machines, but is it affordable for them to go fishing?
The cost varies hugely. David Dunkley can give some examples of the cost of permits. It obviously depends on where people are fishing and for what sort of fish.
To a large extent, the cost is market driven, but fishing can be available from as little as £5 for a day's fishing, up to however much people want to pay.
That is quite a lot for a child or young person.
It is significantly less than they would pay to watch a football match or play a game of golf. It is all relative. There are some places that issue free permits to kids and there are a number of schemes to encourage them. It is a question of enthusing them to get out there and do it. That is what people are working on now.
Maybe more schemes like that would enthuse children more.
There are certainly some good schemes that are trying to bring youngsters into fishing. I could probably get you more information about that and I am sure that the organisations involved could do the same.
Quite a lot of good work is going on to make people more aware of angling. Websites are being developed and tourist information offices throughout the country are now displaying signs to show that they sell permits. Once a certain inertia has built up in a system, it can take a bit of time to kick it over, but we are quite excited about a lot of the initiatives that are under way at the moment.
We were talking about integrated fisheries management and about the fact that work is being done on possible changes to help to manage fisheries and the species that are involved. Is further legislation envisaged in due course? There are no powers in the bill to pick that sort of thing up at a later stage, are there?
No. It is envisaged that a bill will be introduced in the next session of Parliament to deal with that.
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
I want to talk about the location and relocation of fish farm sites. Minister, you will recollect that one of the problems that was flagged up in the past was that some of the fish farm sites were inappropriately located. Some witnesses had hoped that there would be powers in the bill to close down inappropriately sited fish farms, but there are no such powers in the bill. How many inappropriately sited farms are there? How are they being dealt with? Are fish farmers being given incentives to relocate?
I will ask Phil Gilmour to answer that question in detail. In broad policy terms, you are right to say that relocation has become an important issue, given that many fish farms were given permission in the early days to establish themselves in areas that we now believe—in the light of further knowledge about the potential impact on the sea bed—could be in inappropriate places. As you know, we have been addressing relocation through the location/relocation working group and work has been going on at Loch Roag.
The location/relocation working group has been through two and a half years of discussion and we have almost finalised a strategic environmental assessment on relocation. Relocation remains a voluntary initiative because we have not yet found conclusive scientific proof that a fish farm should not be where it is. It would be very difficult to prove that, so the initiative has to remain voluntary. The problem is that someone who objects to a fish farm being in a certain place might say, "That fish farm has caused a sea lice problem and a decline in my stocks," but, when we start to consider the science, we find that the fish farm in that location is influenced by fresh water and so will not have a sea lice problem. This is not an easy problem to bottom out.
That is very interesting and I assume that you hope to roll that out.
It is quite difficult to say whether a fish farm is poorly located. People can make accusations or claims, but it is difficult to follow those up with any proof. However, fish farms can be moved for general environmental benefit. The fish farming industry is often located in sites to which stakeholders object and from where the fish farmer would ideally like to move. At the moment, we see relocation as a voluntary process; we could not provide for relocation in the bill because there is no scientific proof to say why it should happen.
It is important to note that we believe that relocation projects would be eligible for grant assistance under state aid rules.
The current process is that the strategic environmental assessment will set down the principles on which relocation could be funded. We now have in place a budget of £500,000 per annum until the next spending review. Relocation projects such as the one at Loch Roag will be eligible once independent economic bodies have considered the state aid issues. We are applying for state aid approval from Europe. We hope to have everything in place, including a national group of stakeholders who will make decisions on whether a project is suitable for funding assessment work or for funding capital work.
I want to ask about those fish farms that are no longer being used. There is perceived to be a problem where a large aquaculture business, for example, has given up the use of fish farms and they are lying empty, but the business does not want to allow other fish farmers to use the abandoned sites. Many of the people who would like to use those abandoned sites are crofters who want to start fish farming in a small, specialised way. Have you any plans to deal with the problem? Is there anything that could be put in the bill to address it? Are there any other strategies that you are going to use to deal with it?
We are not putting anything in the bill to deal with that, although we are aware of the issue. I understand that the Crown Estate commissioners are currently considering the issue. Where a fish farm company has sites that are not being used, the Crown Estate can up its rents as a disincentive to the company not using those sites. Such action is being considered.
I understand that. My final question on this theme is about the progress of the transfer of the planning powers from the Crown Estate to local authorities.
The decision has been taken to introduce amendments at stage 3 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill to transfer planning powers to the local authorities. Those amendments either have been lodged today or are in the process of being lodged.
We will look at those amendments with interest.
Minister, I was interested in your answer about the number of fish farm sites for which there are leases but which are not being used. I understand from a freedom of information request that the Crown Estate has 252 leases in all but that 140 of those leases have produced nothing this year. Indeed, 67 leases have produced nothing for the past three years. That is a major problem, yet you have said that you have no intention of dealing with it in the bill.
I did not say that we have no intention of dealing with the issue; I said that the bill does not seem to be the vehicle for dealing with it. However, if suggestions were made as to how the bill could do something about it, we would listen with interest. We are aware of the issue. Fish farm companies need to have flexibility in their use of sites for fallowing and must be able to take conservation measures, but we are aware that several fish farms are lying empty. As I have said, we are currently looking at the issue and we will keep the committee updated on our considerations.
The Crown Estate's policy on charging for aquaculture sites has changed recently. I believe that it is going to increase the minimum lease charge for a site that is not stocked from £200 to £500. It also proposes to increase that charge after two production cycles and, after another production cycle, to double the charge again. That is what the Crown Estate believes to be a balanced, commensurate approach to maximising the lease rent that it can take. The Crown Estate has balanced that by decreasing the maximum amount of money that it will take from a salmon farm by, I think, about 8 per cent.
It would be a great help to us, in our considerations, to know the number of rented sites that are fallow at the moment. I imagine that it must be in the teens, if not higher.
Yes. However, we must remember that the industry has changed considerably over the years. Although it may be company policy not to give up any site, there are probably sites that are small and inappropriate for production—hence, viewed as inefficient—that are lying fallow but are not given up because of the de minimis charge that is made against them. We may find that, as the lease costs go up, many of those sites are given up. Nonetheless, there may be sites regarding which there is a residual issue that needs to be addressed, and the competition legislation already covers that.
I would have thought that the matter would be more urgent in the light of the fact that the Competition Commission has given a provisional agreement for Panfish and Marine Harvest to merge. The question of a restraint being placed on the marine development of our economy is an urgent one. I therefore ask the minister to reconsider addressing the issues in the bill before we reach the next stage.
As I said, we are actively considering the issues at this stage and we do not think that anything can be usefully introduced into the bill. However, if a suggestion comes up in our discussions or in the committee, we will consider it. You mentioned the merger of Panfish and Marine Harvest. We do not know what the final decision on that is going to be.
The fact that more than half the sites in Scotland are not being used surely makes it a huge problem that needs to be addressed urgently.
It is an issue that we are addressing and will continue to address. As I have said, at the moment we do not think that there is anything that we can usefully put into the bill. If, in the course of our discussions, we think that there is something that can be done, we will do it.
I understand that sites can be fallowed for environmental reasons, but we are talking about sites that are no longer being used at all. I was told by one fish farming business that it was not allowing others to use a site because of SEPA regulations and the fact that the consent that it had from SEPA was for its business specifically. I was told that if another operator took over the site, the business would have no control over what that operator did on the site, and that if the new operator breached SEPA regulations, the business that owned the site would be responsible. Do you know whether that was just a story or whether there is some merit in that?
Phil Gilmour will be able to discuss that in detail, but those are clearly the sorts of issues that we will have to consider. Are there, for example, barriers to sites being released because of the way in which the discharge consent process works?
Wherever there is a discharge, SEPA places a controlled activities regulations consent on that discharge to ensure appropriate protection of the environment. That CAR consent is either person specific or company specific, but SEPA also has a simple process for transferring that.
That answers my question.
It has been raised with us that strict liability was dropped from the original proposals for the bill. It would be useful if you could explain the reasons for that.
The main reason is to do with the patterns of what has happened in the past, in particular in extreme storms in which, through no fault of the company concerned, incidents have taken place that have led to escapes. That was our thinking.
I believe that the bill's procedures can be used to exert control with respect to risks and incidents. We do not need to be so draconian as to opt for strict liability. The response is appropriate for the problem. We believe that we have a fundamentally workable procedure through which we can ensure that those organisations that are lagging behind with respect to environmental risks can be brought up to the industry standard.
One of the disbenefits of taking a strict liability approach is that it might inhibit people from reporting escapes.
The approach that is being taken is the one that has been developed through the creation of the industry's code of good practice, which underpins everything that we are doing. We believe that that code can make a big difference. The additional regulatory framework is there as a backstop. All that will be kept under review.
Another issue was whether the level of penalties that can be imposed for breaches is sufficient. I understand that there might be ways other than direct fines of exerting leverage on operators and that, if an enforcement order is served, it could affect their insurance. There are levers that are proportionate and which do not relate to fines.
Absolutely. As you say, if an enforcement order has been served but is not being dealt with, that will affect the ability of the company to insure its business. That is a strong lever.
The level of fine might seem low, but it should be borne in mind that enforcement notices could be served with respect to individual circumstances. In other words, a cage-based or incident-based approach could be taken. As such, the final fines could be rather large if there were a lack of co-operation or other problems.
It is useful to have that on the record.
I have two fairly minor points to raise. One is on the definition of "fish" and whether it does or should include crustaceans. Scottish Natural Heritage was concerned about the signal crayfish in relation to the definition.
You are right to be concerned about signal crayfish, which are an important issue in Scotland. Signal crayfish are an invasive non-native species and are recognised as such by SNH. The issue is being dealt with in different ways. We are working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to draw up some work on non-native invasive species. I have asked SNH and other stakeholders to draw up a plan of action that we will require to take. I am happy to inform the committee of the progress of that work.
On the more general point about crustaceans, is there any way in which the bill requires them to be included in the definition of "fish"? The issue has been raised by several people.
Shades of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.
That was lobsters.
Indeed.
The issue is to do with how we deal with the issue on the ground. From a practical point of view, including crayfish as fish in the bill would not give us any more levers than we already have for dealing with the situation. Crayfish are already included in the definition of fish in the Import of Live Fish (Scotland) Act 1978. Indeed, the keeping of all crayfish, bar the one type that is native to our waters, is prohibited under a statutory instrument that was made under the 1978 act. We already have mechanisms in place that allow us to catch and remove crayfish.
My final point was raised in relation to an amendment that might be made. The Crown Estate suggested that the bill might be an appropriate mechanism for banning the sale or purchase of monofilament nets, if that were feasible. The representatives who attended the committee sent us a supplementary note to say that it would be a good idea if that provision could be included in the bill. Have you considered that?
Under an order that was made under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, it is already an offence to carry monofilament gill nets on a British-registered fishing vessel or use them, unless they have a mesh size of more than 250mm and are used further than 6 miles from the baseline. It is not an offence to possess the nets and it would be difficult if we were to introduce such an offence. For example, a net supplier or a ship chandler could, quite conceivably, sell the nets to a fishing vessel from another European country that allows the use of the nets. A Danish boat might call into Wick or Scrabster and want to buy such a net. Further, although this is often regarded as a trivial issue, the nets could be used to cover strawberries. That is why it is not an offence to possess them. However, the important point is that it is an offence to fish with them.
That makes the situation clear, for the moment. However, I thought that I had better raise the question as the Crown Estate was good enough to get back to us.
I have two questions. Is there any intention to ban the use of live bait? Also, the bill has provisions that will lengthen the list of parasites. It has been suggested that Argulus might be a candidate for inclusion in the bill in the first place. Is that correct?
My understanding is that, if Argulus became an issue, we would be able to introduce the appropriate measures by order. The bill allows us to do that.
The bill provides for the possibility of a ban on the use of live bait being introduced by subordinate legislation. The relevant provision is in the section on fish conservation regulations, which will allow baits to be specified. It would be possible to include explicit provisions in the bill—and we could do so if the committee was desperate for us to do so—but the necessary powers to introduce such a ban are in the legislation.
I thank the minister and her colleagues for coming to speak to us.