Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Agenda item 2 is the first day of stage 2 proceedings on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Sarah Boyack, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. She will steer us through stage 2, from the Executive's perspective. I extend that welcome to the minister's officials.
Members should have before them a copy of the bill as introduced; the marshalled list of amendments that was published yesterday; and the groupings of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. The running order is set by the rules of precedence governing the marshalled list. Members should remember to move between the two papers. All amendments will be called in strict order from the marshalled list—we cannot move backwards.
The target for today is to reach the end of section 19. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who has the first amendment in each group to move that first amendment and speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who are not proposers of amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention in the usual way.
Debate on each group will be concluded when I invite the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. If the minister has not already spoken in the debate on any group, I will invite her to comment just before we hear the winding-up speech. Only committee members are entitled to vote. After we have debated the amendments, the committee must decide whether to agree to each section. A short debate on that point will be allowed, if it will be useful to allow discussion of points that have not been raised by the amendments.
There are no amendments until section 6, so the first question is, that sections 1 to 5 be agreed to.
Sections 1 to 5 agreed to.
Section 6—Enforcement notices
Amendment 1, in the name of Alasdair Morrison, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 1 makes provision for appeal against enforcement notices. Members will recall that the issue exercised many witnesses during our evidence-taking sessions. The committee is well aware of the nature of the amendment. I am sure that all members will be sympathetic to it; I hope that our former convener remains sympathetic to the purposes of the appeals mechanism that I propose.
Without further ado, I move amendment 1.
I would like to explore further the timescales that would be involved. Involving a sheriff could lead to an extended period between the putting in place of an enforcement notice and resolution of the matter. There seems to be no time limit for the process. When dealing with enforcement, it is important that there should be a guarantee of timescales. I would like to hear what the minister has to say about the application of the amendment, should it be agreed to.
I very much welcome Alasdair Morrison's amendment on appeals. As committee members know, the Executive agreed to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to introduce some form of appeals mechanism for persons on whom an enforcement notice has been served. Having examined Alasdair Morrison's amendment, I believe that it achieves everything that we would look for in such a mechanism. I support the amendment.
I will address the specific point that Rob Gibson raised. I know that there are concerns about timescales, but it is important to put on the record that anyone who wished to lodge an appeal would have the relatively short period of seven days in which to do so. Amendment 1 provides for summary appeals. That means that the procedure following an appeal would be relatively swift, as the matter would be referred to the sheriff; I hope that that deals with members' concerns. The amendment is a good one, which addresses some of the concerns that people expressed to the committee at stage 1. For that reason, I encourage members to support it.
The minister has addressed all the points adequately, so there is no need for me to wind up.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7—Code of practice
Amendment 24, in the name of Rob Gibson, is in a group on its own.
At stage 1 the committee was exercised by the potential for review of the code of practice. We were concerned that the code should promote best practice, rather than provide a lowest common denominator. However, some of the elements of the code depend on the use of existing sites for fish farms in a satisfactory fashion. As we know, the industry's policy is to fallow some sites. However, from information secured under the freedom of information regime we gather that up to half of the sites that have been licensed are not being used in the current year. Through amendment 24, I intend to probe the way in which the system works by flagging up the fact that the committee and the Parliament are concerned to ensure that the time that may elapse without a site being used for operations will be included in the code of practice and within the purview of the bill.
I move amendment 24.
I accept Rob Gibson's desire to probe on the issue, so I will take slightly longer over amendment 24 than I did over amendment 1. Amendment 24 is basically a use-it-or-lose-it provision and would undermine investor confidence in the industry. The Executive is concerned that it could represent overregulation and would be seen as the Government trying to micromanage business decisions. The bill strikes a balance that we are keen to retain. I acknowledge that, at stage 1, the committee considered the underuse of sites to be an issue, but it also recognised the need for some flexibility.
The aquaculture industry in Scotland must remain competitive in a highly competitive international market. Large multinational and smaller indigenous companies need to be able to access suitable sites that can be used routinely or at short notice in an emergency to respond to changes in the disease status of other sites—for example, to retain production levels if other sites need prolonged fallowing for disease control—or market conditions. Therefore, there could be sound commercial reasons for deciding not to commence production on a site. If anyone—particularly another fish farm operator—were to think that a particular operator was abusing its market position, they should take that up with the competition authorities.
Given the committee's previous interest in the issue, I will make a brief comment on planning issues and the Crown Estate, which was mentioned in the committee's stage 1 report. To be clear, site availability is not governed by planning legislation or the Crown Estate lease conditions because neither can be used to force an operator to give up a site for underusing it. Under planning legislation, the deployment of minimal plant at a site would constitute use. The Crown Estate considers that its lease conditions do not permit it to force a leaseholder to use a site but it has changed its rental provisions to increase payments for sites that are in long-term fallow.
Rob Gibson has raised an important issue and I recognise the committee's general concerns about it. I know that many people hold strong views on the issue. We are taking an interest in work that the Crown Estate, the Fisheries Research Services, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation are undertaking on site use and availability and efficient site sharing among key players. We will keep an eye on that research.
I urge committee members to reject amendment 24 and I hope that, after listening to my comments, Rob Gibson might be persuaded to withdraw it.
I thank the minister for that detailed explanation. As I am sure she will fondly recall, underuse of sites was raised time after time at stage 1. I would appreciate it if the minister could give us guidance on the procedures that are involved in notifying the competition authorities and how quickly a dispute could be resolved. It could be that two or three people own a small indigenous farm and, a few hundred yards down the sea loch, a multinational owns a perfectly good site that has not been used and has, in effect, been sterilised, thereby denying the community the use of a perfectly good piece of sea loch. If the minister is not in a position to explain today how and in what timescale the competition authorities would help to resolve that, I would be pleased to accept her assurance that she will give me a detailed response in writing later this week.
It might be helpful for me to reassure the committee that, as my predecessor Rhona Brankin said, the Executive is working with the competition authorities on the issue. We will certainly keep the committee informed of any progress that we make through our liaison with them and the Department of Trade and Industry.
I would be more than happy to write to Alasdair Morrison later in the week about the exact procedure that should be followed. I do not have that information at my fingertips for obvious reasons—the competition authorities are separate from the Executive—but I am happy to ensure that he gets it if it would be helpful to him.
Is the minister aware of whether companies apply for new licences when they already have sites that are unused? To me, that is the crux of the issue. If companies were doing that, it would not make sense and we should perhaps address the issue.
I do not have that information at present. Our main position is that the perception in the industry is that aquaculture sites are not easy to come by. If a marine site is to be used for fin-fish production, the operator must obtain planning permission, a SEPA licence and a lease from the Crown Estate. The procedure is not simple or instantaneous, for good reason. Obtaining planning permission or a SEPA licence could require environmental assessment, which could take several years.
A balance has to be struck and the committee acknowledged in its report the need for some balance. We are keen to retain that. I hope that that answers Richard Lochhead's question.
The committee said in its stage 1 report that it considered
"that the long-term retention of sites which are left inactive is unacceptable."
My amendment 24 addresses that point directly. I have evidence of fish farmers such as Marine Harvest applying for new sites. There is a case in point near Brodick on the Isle of Arran; Marine Harvest already has unused sites in other parts of the Highlands. If the minister does not recall that, I remind her of it.
I hear the minister's arguments about the relationship between the Executive and the Competition Commission and I understand that we could do with greater clarity about that, if that were a possibility. On reflection, although I may wish to return to the issue, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, in the hope that we hear much more in detail from the minister that will reassure me before stage 3.
Amendment 24, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 to 14 agreed to.
Section 15—Construction of barriers to movement of fish, treatment of waters with chemical agents etc
Amendment 2, in the name of the deputy minister, is grouped with amendments 3 to 5.
Amendments 2 to 5 are technical amendments to the provision on barriers. Amendments 2 and 3 will replace the term "construction" with "creation". That wider term will allow barriers to be created by closing fish passes as well as by construction from scratch. As a consequence, the separate provision on the closure of fish passes at section 16 will no longer be needed, so amendment 5 will remove it.
Amendment 4 will allow the Scottish ministers to exercise their powers responsibly, by ensuring that they have the power to remove any barriers that they have created when they are no longer needed—to tidy up after themselves, if you like.
I move amendment 2.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendments 3 and 4 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16—Further powers by regulations under section 31(1) of the 2003 Act
Amendment 5 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
The procedure is a wee bit complicated, because amendment 5 removed section 16.
Section 17 agreed to.
After section 17
Amendment 6, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendment 6A.
I lodged amendment 6 because, after considering the evidence that we heard at stage 1, I remain of the view that the bill does little to prevent Gyrodactylus salaris from entering Scotland. The parasite—and the aggressive measures that would be taken to deal with it—could devastate our rivers. We cannot afford to rely on education as a means of prevention or on containment, should the parasite arrive.
I accept that a cost would be attached to the measures that are outlined in amendment 6, but that cost pales into insignificance when it is compared with the cost to all of us should GS arrive in Scotland. For example, I shudder to think what the cost to the Executive might be of compensating the whisky industry, which could face annihilation if a chemical such as rotenone were flushed into the Spey or other rivers. However, even that cost would be overshadowed by the loss of revenue that is generated by recreational angling. Worst of all would be the cost to our environment, which simply cannot be calculated.
I have sympathy with amendment 6A, in Richard Lochhead's name, but I am not sure that the timescale that it envisages would allow the flexibility that might be required in the introduction of the measures that I propose. I reserve judgment on amendment 6A.
I move amendment 6.
Amendment 6A would amend amendment 6, which I support, to ensure that the Parliament would hear from ministers about the measures that they had adopted to ensure that every effort was being made to prevent GS from getting into Scotland. At previous meetings, ministers assured us that steps would be taken in that regard, but it is essential that the Parliament is kept informed about what is being done.
It would be ideal if a protocol were agreed between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments and the relevant agencies and authorities at ports of entry. If there were such a protocol, everyone who has an interest in the issue could refer to it and everyone would know the score about what measures had been taken.
The timescale for the Scottish ministers to report back to the Parliament, which would be 12 months from the coming into force of the relevant section of the bill, is reasonable. Of course, ministers could report again to the Parliament if more measures were put in place.
I move amendment 6A.
I have with me a copy of the Norwegian outdoor access code, which was adopted in 1957, because it is important that we consider how the Norwegians view the issue. The code advises anglers to remember
"not to move live fish to another river or lake … to dry your tackle, boots and waders before going to another lake, so as to avoid spreading live organisms and diseases … that tackle used in rivers and lakes carrying infectious diseases must be disinfected"
and
"to clean and wash fish in the water they were caught in".
That approach was adopted in Norway 50 years ago. We are trying to find an approach that will prevent us from having to deal with a problem that is endemic in certain Norwegian rivers. We should go as far as we can do to ensure that people cannot bring infection into the country, so we should firm up existing legislation. Amendment 6A would help us to understand what ministers do about an extremely serious matter.
Is the Norwegian access code advisory or is it statutorily underpinned?
The access code is included in the printed documents that are provided to everyone who uses Norway's sea, land and sky. The advice in the code is underpinned by law—namely, the outdoor recreations act of 1957—so certain aspects of the advice presumably have a legal or statutory basis.
Norway seems to deal with the issue just by giving advice to anglers.
Although I acknowledge the sentiment behind amendments 6 and 6A, the Executive's view—which is shared by the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and HM Revenue and Customs—is that mandatory controls at the point of entry would not be workable for two reasons. First, many points of entry from infected areas are not staffed by customs officials. Secondly, where such points are staffed, it would not be practical to check every passenger and, more important, the veracity of any declaration that was given could not be established. The proposal is unworkable.
Also, elements of amendments 6 and 6A are defectively drafted. However, my view is that no amount of redrafting to perfect the amendments would address the policy issue. I would not be prepared to accept the amendments.
In response to the points that Richard Lochhead and Ted Brocklebank made, let me again put on record that we take this issue very seriously. Ted Brocklebank's points about the impact that GS would have if it ever came to Scotland are well made. We should do absolutely everything that we can to keep this parasite out.
Our preferred approach is a properly focused awareness campaign. The Executive has put publicity in place for that and has published posters and leaflets, which the committee has seen. The challenge will be to ensure that the information is distributed as widely as possible. We have already produced posters—which I do not recall seeing before—so we are not talking about a theoretical campaign. The challenge will be to ensure that the literature that has been prepared is distributed to the wide range of stakeholders who should be involved. Some £20,000 has been allocated so far and we are now considering a wider campaign.
Setting up a protocol, as Richard Lochhead suggested, is very much the route that we want to go down. We want an approach that involves VisitScotland, airport authorities, port authorities, ferry operators and all the other organisations and agencies with which we will need to work together. The concept of establishing a protocol is very much where we want to go.
I repeat the message that we believe that it is better to educate people to take good care to clean and disinfect their equipment beforehand so that they do not import contaminated gear into the country.
On the point that Rob Gibson raised about the access code, I am told that no evidence has been reported to the Executive of transmission from gear in Norway, but we will keep an eye on that. I agree that it would do no harm to have a look at our own access code to ensure that it provides good advice to anglers and others who use our rivers. We will take that suggestion on board after today's committee meeting.
Essentially, I think that amendments 6 and 6A are neither workable nor appropriate. We have an alternative approach. I urge Richard Lochhead and Ted Brocklebank to withdraw the amendments for the reasons that I have outlined.
Could the committee have copies of the poster? We have copies of the leaflet but not of the poster.
We are happy to provide those.
The minister agreed that the Executive must do "absolutely everything" to tackle the issue, but it will spend the sum of some £20,000 to help with the education job. I must say that I am not totally convinced by that.
I accept that there would still be a danger of GS entering Scotland via England even if amendment 6 were agreed to. Therefore, I would hope to see a similar approach being taken south of the border. However, that possibility should not be used as an excuse for inaction—or apparent inaction—on the part of the Executive. Indeed, if we took such a robust stance, I believe that we would send a powerful signal to Westminster about just how serious the problem is that we might face. The threat that GS poses is so huge, and its potential impact so devastating, that we must not hold back from taking the most comprehensive action available to us.
Amendment 6 takes forward the recommendation in our stage 1 report that more robust measures should be deployed, so I urge colleagues to support it. I will press amendment 6.
Obviously, I do not doubt the minister's sincerity when she said that ministers take the issue seriously and I welcome the indication that ministers will go down the route of adopting a protocol—that is good news. My point is that it would be good for ministers to report back to the Parliament on the protocol to ensure that the Parliament is kept abreast of what it contains and the timescale therein. That is a simple step, but it would ensure that the Parliament was kept informed and that pressure was maintained on ministers to progress the adoption of a protocol. I will press amendment 6A.
The question is, that amendment 6A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Against
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6A disagreed to.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Against
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
Section 19—Gyrodactylus salaris: Scottish Ministers' power to make payments
Amendment 7, in the name of the deputy minister, is grouped with amendment 8.
Amendment 7 is a purely technical amendment that is designed to make the wording of section 19 match its purpose. Amendment 8 seeks to bring the scope of section 19 into line with current Scottish Executive policy, which is that payments should not be made that relate to losses arising from the implementation of movement controls. That was recognised by the Finance Committee in its report on the bill to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. The Finance Committee sought confirmation from the Executive that GS-related payments would be made only for direct losses. The example was given of a riparian owner whose business involved fish such as trout, which would not be killed by GS but which would be killed by the treatment for it. It is clear that losses arising from movement controls would be consequential rather than direct losses.
I move amendment 7.
Do any other members wish to speak to the amendments in this group?
No.
Minister, do you have anything to add by way of winding-up remarks?
No, thanks.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
As the rest of the marshalled list is beyond the point at which the committee agreed to stop, that completes stage 2 consideration of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill for today. The target that I have set for next week is to reach the end of the bill, which means that amendments to sections 20 to 38, and the schedule, should be lodged by 12 noon on Friday 26 January. I thank the deputy minister and her officials for their attendance.
We will have a short suspension for a comfort break and to allow the deputy minister to leave.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—