Environment and Rural Development Committee, 24 Oct 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Official Report 279KB pdf

---

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Good afternoon. I welcome members, the press, the public and, in particular, our witnesses to the Environment and Rural Development Committee's 29th meeting in 2006. I remind people to switch their mobile phones and BlackBerrys to silent, please. We have apologies from Maureen Macmillan, who is attending a Justice 2 Committee meeting, from Richard Lochhead, who is on a train that has broken down or stopped somewhere near Inverkeithing, and from me, as I will leave for about 10 minutes at half past 2, although I will return. Those are all the apologies of which I am aware; I also apologise for starting slightly late.

Agenda item 1 is the third of our evidence sessions on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. Today, we will consider how the bill affects other water users and the conservation and welfare issues that are associated with the aquaculture industry and freshwater fisheries.

I welcome our first panel, which comprises organisations that represent users of water resources for recreational and business purposes. I thank the witnesses for providing submissions in advance, which helps us. I will not take opening statements—I noticed that one submission was entitled "Opening General Statement" and it is guaranteed that we have read it in full.

The panel comprises Graham Hutcheon, who is the chairperson of the environment committee of the Malt Distillers Association of Scotland; Dr Alastair Stephen, who is the ecological adviser to the Association of Electricity Producers; Mike Dales, who is the access and environment officer of the Scottish Canoe Association; and William Shearer, who is a consultant to the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland.

With a previous panel, we started to consider the impacts of dealing with Gyrodactylus salaris by flushing river systems. I am keen to follow that up with the panel as users of Scotland's water environment. How much are panel members involved in the GS task force and in the exercise that will take place next February?

We are involved quite heavily and will be involved in the contingency assessment in February. That is as much as we can say at the moment. The work is under way.

Is everyone in the same position of waiting to see what happens?

We are waiting to see what happens.

I became aware of the contingency exercise only out in the lobby 10 or 15 minutes ago. An issue arises with retaining the close involvement of a group of people in the matter.

I have not been involved at all. The association that I represent is not mentioned as a stakeholder in the plans that have been drawn up to deal with Gyrodactylus.

Perhaps the Scottish Executive's tests ought to involve all your organisations. I hope that the evidence today will establish that.

I am interested in the uses of water for human consumption, such as making whisky, because they could conflict with the aim of protecting wild salmon stocks. How much would the flushing of a river system affect the physical business of making whisky?

That question obviously lands on my desk. There are a few unknowns, but I have three or four points that are relevant to your question.

If a malt distillery—if not a number of malt distilleries—sat on a watercourse that was treated chemically, it is unlikely that the distillery would be able to operate for the period of time in which the chemical was residual in the water. Whether the chemical was rotenone or aluminium sulphate, it might not be successful because of the geography of our watercourses, so several treatments might be required, which may mean that a watercourse was unavailable for use for some time. That gives us a short-term issue.

If a distillery that produced a branded malt whisky was shut down for six months, for example, that could ratchet up a profit hit of between £20 million and £40 million 10 years hence—the whisky would not be used right away, but would be laid down. Distillers do not have the ability to shut up shop and move somewhere else—we are stuck where we are—and localised treatment could affect one or two operators and nobody else. However, the thing that scares me more than anything else is the damage to the international reputation of the brand. The Scotch whisky industry generates £2.3 billion in exports, and the figure is growing. What is the value of quality ingredients in any product that is exported globally? The quality of water is paramount to our brands.

Whether the problem is perceived or actual, we would be very concerned about the chemical treatment of watercourses.

In that case, we would assume that the contingency plan exercise ought to give us some answers to that.

Absolutely.

However, at this stage in the development of the bill, we do not have those answers. Does anyone else want to comment?

In the hydro industry there is concern that, if there was a requirement to stop the diversion of water from one catchment or sub-catchment to another for an extended period, that would reduce the ability of the energy producers to produce renewable energy. That would obviously affect targets and revenue.

Many of the longer east coast rivers such as the Spey and the Tay, as well as the ones in the north-east such as the Dee and so on, are major whisky rivers as well as major fishing rivers, but they are probably less important to the hydro power industry, which is based further west.

I am sorry, but the Tay is probably the most important hydro river in Scotland and has major diversions to take water from one catchment or sub-catchment to another.

So it will be essential that we understand the implications of GS treatment for the hydro industry.

Yes.

Some of those questions raise issues that we might want to follow up later with the minister. Does Ted Brocklebank want to ask about the same issue?

I want to follow on from what Rob Gibson has said and move on to the next stage. The witnesses have all registered concern about the arrangements for compensation when water becomes contaminated with chemicals. I ask them to explain why they feel that the financial arrangements that are outlined in the bill do not address their fears for their specific businesses.

We are unaware of exactly what will need to be done. We have looked at what has happened in Norway and the way in which GS is treated there. Some evidence suggests that the eradication treatments in Norway are not 100 per cent successful, and we are not confident that the rivers in Scotland are of a similar nature, especially the east coast rivers. We are not sure of the extent to which the eradication treatments will be necessary, or of the timings, the length of time they will take or whether eradication will be acceptable to a large number of organisations, and we are still at sea as far as understanding the implications for compensation because we do not fully understand what will happen on the ground.

I suppose that the malt distillers' problems will go further. Graham Hutcheon talked about branding and the effect that eradication treatments might have on a brand 10 years down the road. Do you have fears about compensation because the industry might lose very considerable sums of money?

Absolutely, and I have not see the full economic impact assessment for which the bill allows, so I am not sure whether it has been completed. I am certainly aware that we have not provided any information for such an investigation. You are talking about serious sums of money over a very long period of time. People still remember when benzene was found in Perrier water.

We cannot underestimate the knowledge that the export markets have of our brands and what goes into them. The markets are very knowledgeable. We had a discussion with Chinese journalists about the age of whisky, involving one of the industry's main brands, and they were very knowledgeable about our product and how it is manufactured. They are well up to speed, so eradication treatments could be very damaging not just to one brand but to several, given that we have blended Scotch as well as single malts.

I am thinking about the Spey, for example, which is surrounded by distilleries. If a major contaminant got into such a river, what compensation would you require? Could you pluck a figure out of the air?

As I said, such an incident could cost the profit of one plant that produces a seriously important international brand of single malt. I have calculated a figure for my company of between £20 million and £40 million, but the figures can be ratcheted up. Not every distillery has an international brand of single malt, but they all contribute to the blended product that is sold around the world.

Could you not take steps to insure against such a risk? Would that not be part of your normal insurance against a river not being as pure as it might be?

I agree that that would be possible but can we insure against future brand value? I would not like to pay the premium for that.

Malt whisky sales are growing at 10 per cent per year, but if the figure were to drop to 5 per cent in the next five to six years, that would be a very significant drop and I am not sure that we could take up that risk.

Does the Scottish Canoe Association have any particular fears about compensation to its members for their inability to use parts of rivers?

In some ways, our worries are shorter term than those of the whisky industry. From the commercial point of view, such an incident would probably damage Scotland's reputation as a tourism destination for two or three years. Home-grown educational or commercial providers of canoeing, rafting or whatever would be affected.

However, depending on where a company is based, there is a little bit of movement. For example, a company that is based in Stirling might well travel to the River Tay to run canoeing trips, but it can also use other rivers and lochs.

Another of our concerns is that although a lot of lessons have been drawn from Norway because it has gyrodactylosis, its rivers are very different to ours; many of them are single rivers from source to sea, often with big waterfalls that the disease cannot get above. Scotland has problems because the disease would be able to get into the high part of a river, and because some rivers are very big at the estuary end, for example—such as where the Earn comes into the Tay. There would be a lot of different tributaries to cover if the disease got into such a network.

As others have said, the east coast rivers are the ones about which there are most fears, and that is also the case from our point of view.

I have two questions. Mr Shearer, you seem to be saying in your submission that if GS ever got established in Scotland, eradication would not be possible. Will you elaborate on that?

I would have thought that that would be the case, particularly in our bigger rivers. There is a lot of evidence from Norway, but the Norwegian rivers, which are relatively short and fast flowing and have no tributaries, are very different to those in Scotland. How could one treat a body of water of the size of the Tay, with its many tributaries and lochs, if Gyrodactylus got into that river system?

We feel that the erection of barriers, particularly on big rivers, will cost many millions of pounds. A relatively simple barrier across the North Esk, just above the head of tide, which was designed and costed in the 1960s, was going to cost £500,000. We should consider what that would be in present-day figures and the fact that the North Esk is not by any manner of means the biggest river in Scotland.

Is it your understanding that in order to contain the parasite to sections of rivers we would have to use barriers?

I would have thought so. Going back to a previous question, obviously members of our association very much depend on the salmon that is produced by the rivers. If we kill off the salmon, those businesses will stop work, and since most of them are centred in the more rural areas, there is little or no possibility of people getting alternative work. Furthermore, if there are no salmon to catch, their gear will become valueless.

My other question was for the Scottish Canoe Association. Mike Dales mentioned in his submission the need to learn the lessons from foot-and-mouth disease in relation to GS. What are those lessons?

There are probably quite a few lessons there—too many to go into now. One lesson is about having a group that can be brought together quickly. A real problem with the foot-and-mouth outbreak was that it began on the same day that the draft Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was published, when NFU Scotland left the national access forum. A ready-made group that could have been brought together to discuss the problem had just fallen apart that week. The Scottish Executive working group on GS has given us the beginnings of a group that can bring the multiple interests together. The four of us here come from different directions, but if a group with organisations such as ours, the Executive and other bodies could be brought in the day after an outbreak, that would be useful.

Another lesson is not to give ministers the chance to stop one activity and make it look as if that solved the problem or did something dynamic. That was a problem with foot and mouth; certain things were stopped and we did not quite know why, and other things continued and we were not quite sure why they continued. We need to solve the problem and cure the disease, rather than just have politicians being seen to do something.

How aware are water users, both here and abroad, of the issue of GS and the need to prevent it from taking a hold here?

Not very aware. Our submission includes a link to our website and the information that we are putting out. We launched that in May this year, and I hope that quite a few people have seen it. Sailors and other water recreation organisations were certainly going to adopt our advice.

Information could be given out in other ways as well as through recreational bodies such as ours. When I went over to Norway on the Newcastle to Bergen ferry last August, no information on GS was given to us on either our outward or return journeys, despite the fact that the two kayaks on our roof-rack made it obvious that we were participating in water sports. I wonder how many other people pass through those ports with fishing rods, diving tanks or dinghies. No leaflet is ever handed out to them, even though it is obvious that their holiday will involve such recreation.

That is a very good point.

What precautionary measures need to be taken at the moment? The submission from the whisky industry points out that, first, we should not assume that GS will come to Scotland and, secondly, we should do all that we can to prevent it from coming here. [Interruption.]

We have a fire alert. Let me explain our emergency planning arrangements. I would have just continued with the meeting but, apparently, we need to suspend the meeting while the fire alert announcements continue. I will suspend the meeting until we have clarity on what is happening.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I call the meeting to order. We have had the nod to continue the meeting while final check-ups are being carried out.

I hope that I am not being rude, but I intend simply to table my questions and read the Official Report later to find out how they are answered. I will repeat my earlier question as I think that it may have been cut off by the increasing noise.

My first question is about the focus on prevention rather than cure, which is an issue that everyone today has mentioned in relation to GS. Does more need to be done to promote the prevention angle? Mike Dales suggested that canoeists were not aware of the potential danger of bringing GS into the country in the bottom of a canoe. Is there concern about that issue? What evidence exists about it?

The different written submissions also mention the need to disinfect fishing equipment that has been used elsewhere and suggest a ban on the import of live fish. Why is that particularly important? Should other issues relating to prevention be higher up our agenda than the extreme measures, on which fears have been expressed, such as the use of the fairly severe chemicals that we discussed in previous evidence sessions?

I need to leave for a few minutes while you answer those questions, but I leave you in the capable hands of Eleanor Scott

I will start with the question on the ban on imports of live fish. Having been involved with the GS task force from the very start of the process, I recall that a risk assessment that was carried out for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by various experts in the south highlighted that the most likely route for GS getting into this country was through the import of live fish. That risk was deemed to be far greater than the risk of importing GS on angling equipment or canoes or by any other method. I know that huge problems would arise with a ban—I and most other members of the task force were unaware of this at the time—because of the European free trade agreement, but the issue still needs to be considered.

If the main risk of getting GS into this country is through the import of live fish, there must be ways of ensuring that we reduce that risk. I agree with Willie Shearer that, if GS gets into one of our major rivers such as the River Tay, it is here to stay. There is no way that we could treat the River Tay or any other large body of water that contained fish harbouring the GS parasite. If such an incident were to happen, we would have an on-going containment problem for evermore. Instead of thinking of ways of treating or containing it, we should be putting our minds to preventing it from entering our water system in the first place.

I support that point of view. The situation is exactly as Dr Stephen described: if it is here, it is here. I doubt that we would ever eradicate it.

The measures that need to be put in place to ensure that the movement of fish is managed properly need to be mandatory, not voluntary. Although I accept that the risk is very low, we should take measures to disinfect fishing tackle, canoes and diving tanks. The issue should be raised at the highest level to ensure that those items are disinfected when they are brought back into the country. At the time of foot-and-mouth disease, if someone took golf clubs to the United States of America, the equipment was taken away and disinfected on arrival. That probably did nothing to stop the spread of the disease, but it raised awareness of the risk.

On people re-entering the country with angling tackle or canoeing equipment, things would be okay if there was a border between England and Scotland. We could search everyone's cars and ensure that everything that had been abroad was disinfected. It is easy to—[Interruption.]

We are being told that we can return to normal working, although we have already done so.

If a limited number of airports were involved, the challenge would be doable. In New Zealand and Iceland, where major recreational fisheries are part of the tourism trade, the situation can be controlled quite easily by way of disinfecting angling equipment. However, I cannot imagine how we could do that effectively in Scotland if it was not done on a United Kingdom-wide basis.

Right. I assume that you are saying that it would have to be done on a UK-wide basis.

If we are going to do it at all, it has to be done comprehensively.

All of us are appearing as panel members, and some of us are serving on the GS working group, because of our determination to keep GS out in the first place. Prevention is the priority, not eradication. Obviously, we need to put in place an eradication system that can quickly snap into action if GS were to get here, but we are determined to keep it out.

There are a few useful principles that can be used to keep out GS. As Sarah Boyack suggested, GS can be brought into the country on the underside of a canoe. The chances are that anyone who is a little bit aware of the problem will wash out their canoe, but forget to rinse out their sponge or throw line. People are more likely to bring GS into the country on peripheral bits of equipment. The advice that we give out on our website is that people should think of those other pieces of equipment, many of which are small enough to put into a freezer. We only need to put a throw line or whatever into the freezer for 24 hours for the parasite to be killed.

We want to raise awareness. People need to know the risks. If they go abroad, they need to take their knowledge a step further and learn more about GS. In that way, they are more likely to do the right thing when they return to Scotland after a fishing or canoeing trip.

Mr Shearer, you are the only witness who has not yet commented on this matter.

I can only reiterate what has already been said. My associates and I are very strongly of the opinion that trying to prevent GS from coming into the country and closing as many routes through which it might enter as possible is the best way forward.

I want to clarify something with Alastair Stephen. Your organisation is promoting a ban on the import of live fish. Are you saying that there are problems with that in Europe? Do you think that there should be a ban on the import of live fish for the whole of the UK?

I am not an expert in the transfer of disease. However, the risk assessment that was carried out suggested that imported live fish was the most likely route in for the parasite. Those who are experts in the transfer of disease and in the movements of fish should take the matter very seriously.

If no other members wish to continue on that point, I invite Richard Lochhead to return to the whisky issue.

Given that half the nation's malt whisky facilities are based in my constituency, I am taking a close interest in the impact of the bill on that sector. I apologise for arriving late—my train was delayed. I missed the first few questions and answers, although I know that they were about the impact on the whisky industry. You might not have explored one point, which I now wish to raise, about the potential prohibition of transferring water from one area to another, whether it is the water of a burn or stream or the water of a whole catchment area. Could Graham Hutcheon address the impact that that could have on the whisky sector? I know that some distilleries in Scotland transfer water; they might take water from one area and put it back in another area. The proposed prohibition of such transfers would clearly have an impact.

The overall impact of that would depend on the definition of a catchment area. A number of distilleries transfer from one river catchment area to another, which is comparable to how the hydroelectricity industry transfers water. If there was a ban on such movement of water, the distilleries concerned would be likely to close. Their operation would be unsustainable without the water resource. The proposal is a real threat.

A number—albeit not many—of distilleries move water from one catchment area to another, but almost every distillery moves water from one river to another, or from one stream into the main catchment. As I said, it depends how that is defined. That is another risk on our list.

I presume that you have made your views known to the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. What feedback have you been getting about where the debate is going?

This meeting forms part of the process of ensuring that our views are aired. As we have said, the process goes into next year when it comes to remediation actions and assessments. We are in the loop, and we will ensure that our voices are heard and our input listened to.

I will add something on the issue of transferring water. From the hydro perspective, if long-term cessation of transfer is ordered, that would impact significantly on renewable energy production in certain places, as well as on revenue. Scottish and Southern Energy, for which I work on a day-to-day basis, has calculated that, if transfer from one intake on the Spey over towards the Tay is stopped—that is one of our crucial catchment transfers—that would mean losing energy equivalent to a 25-turbine wind farm or revenue of about £4 million a year. That is significant.

The AEP suggests in its submission that

"the financial consequences of the Bill are not sufficiently clear."

Is that related to the fact that the financial memorandum does not refer directly to the potential costs of using the bill's power to compensate? Is there another issue? Why do you think that the financial consequences are not clear? How much clearer should they be?

We are unclear about what would be required if GS got into a catchment. We do not know whether that would require a simple treatment of a couple of days in an attempt to eradicate the parasite. Such a treatment might have virtually no impact on the hydro industry. However, if the parasite got into a catchment where there was significant water transfer, that might mean that water transfer would have to be switched off for a year. It is horses for courses. We do not know what the implications will be and whether financial compensation will be made available.

Reference is made to the power to compensate.

Referring to a power to compensate is different from stating what people will actually get.

We need to take two issues forward with ministers. The first is how the compensation provisions are expected to operate. Financial issues underpin that, both for the industries that use rivers and from the Executive's perspective. The other issue is who is involved in prevention and what specific prevention measures can be taken. We have raised some important issues, which we want to ensure are passed on to the minister.

As members have no more questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence, which has been very helpful.

We will have a short suspension while the members of the second panel take their places.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I welcome our second panel, who it is intended will help us get to grips with the nature conservation and animal welfare issues associated with the aquaculture industry and freshwater fisheries. I welcome Dawn Purchase, who is the mariculture officer at the Marine Conservation Society; Libby Anderson, who is policy director at Advocates for Animals; and John Thomson, who is the director of strategy and operations (west) at Scottish Natural Heritage. I thank you all for being with us this afternoon and for giving us your written evidence in advance, which we have all read.

My first question, if I get more than one, is for Libby Anderson. Advocates for Animals' submission mentions concerns about the welfare consequences of a slaughter policy if disease is found in the salmon population. Can you comment on your concerns about fish welfare generally as matters stand now? What could the bill do to make things better and what concerns do you have that that aspect of the bill could make the situation worse?

I will answer your second question first and therefore address the specific point.

My submission and other witnesses have drawn parallels between an outbreak of GS and an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, because they are quite analogous. It is necessary to have a contingency plan and protocols in place to protect animals that might be subject to emergency mass slaughter. We saw during the foot-and-mouth outbreak a few years ago that animal welfare was compromised. I looked in the code of good practice, which we will probably discuss later, to see what it said about emergency culling. It referred to veterinary health plans, but there were no specifics. Yesterday, I discussed the issue with the Executive because I was concerned that in the event of having to clear a fish farm rapidly, the normal quite humane modern stunning and killing procedures might not be applicable.

The industry has introduced fairly humane slaughter techniques in the normal course of harvesting, but in an emergency they might go out the window. One could envisage live fish being disposed of by being hoovered up and macerated, which we would consider completely unacceptable. I am trying to explore what techniques would be used. As far as I know, there is no specific recommendation, so it would be helpful if one could be set down in a protocol soon.

If there were a mass slaughter, we would probably say that the use of a high dose of anaesthetic would be appropriate to stun the animals first. We would not agree with the use of CO2 as an anaesthetic, because we think that it is aversive—it can induce immobility, but not necessarily unconsciousness. In other words, animals could be exsanguinated and eviscerated while they were not unconscious, which would be completely unacceptable. The use of CO2 would not be supported by the code of practice, either. We need some detail on what the welfare protocols on mass slaughter would be in the event of an outbreak of GS.

On the general welfare of fish, I said that I feel that fish are unduly vulnerable. When I was little, I was told that fish do not feel pain, but nowadays we know that that is not the case. We have a great deal of scientific evidence that fish feel pain. They do not feel pain in the same way as a mammal feels pain—I would not compare hooking a fish with hooking a dog, for example, as some other animal welfare campaigners have done—but there is evidence that they feel pain and I would be happy to provide more detail on that if the committee would like it.

Would you expect the methods for humane emergency slaughter, in the event that a cull was necessary, to be set out in regulations? Although you think that the bill should state that the methods that are used must be humane, you would not expect details of that to be included in the bill.

I would not expect such details to be included in the bill. We have asked that the bill include provision to deal with health and welfare, which are covered in the industry code. We would like there to be the facility to deal with those extremely important matters statutorily, in the same way that parasite control and escape control are dealt with.

I have two questions about Dawn Purchase's submission. You claim that a key issue that is not incorporated in the existing code of good practice, but which should be, is food sustainability. You do not really develop the point. What were you getting at when you said that food sustainability is one of the most crucial aspects to consider?

If one wants to promote a sustainable aquaculture industry in Scotland, a key contributor to that sustainability must be the sourcing of the wild fish that provide feed for farmed salmon, which are a carnivorous fish. The manufacture of the aquafeeds—the fishmeal and the fish-oil—that produce those carnivorous fish relies heavily on wild capture fisheries, so if we are to achieve true sustainability in the Scottish aquaculture industry, we must ensure that the components that are used to manufacture that feed come from a sustainable supply.

I do not think that the code of good practice gives enough coverage to addressing feed sustainability fully. For example, the recommendations of the fishmeal information network and the International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation are used as the only indicator on wild capture feed sustainability, but organisations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea might well recommend tighter management measures for key wild capture species such as blue whiting and the sand eel. ICES's most recent advice might well recommend a reduced capture or a zero capture for those fisheries. Although management measures might be in place, they might not comply with the scientific recommendations on the fisheries on which the production of farmed salmon relies, so it is arguable whether those fisheries are sustainable. If the Scottish aquaculture industry continues to expand, that will put even more pressure and reliance on wild capture fisheries, so it is essential that we ensure the long-term sustainability of those species.

We have received a submission from Marks and Spencer claiming that the way ahead is perhaps through its branded product, Lochmuir salmon. It says that the farm fish

"are given a unique feed formulation which reflects the diet of wild salmon. All the fish oil and meal used in the feed is sourced using…leading wild fish sustainable sourcing policies."

Is that the kind of idea that you are talking about? Should that system be worked throughout the fish farming industry?

Yes, provided that those wild fish sustainable sourcing policies take due consideration of the most appropriate scientific advice, such as that given by ICES, on effective long-term fisheries management to ensure stock sustainability. The Marks and Spencer system is one way forward and one of a suite of measures that can be employed to ensure long-term feed sustainability. It should be supplemented by examining the viability of alternative fish feeds, such as full or partial substitution with vegetable proteins, by ensuring feed wastage minimisation happens in every fish farm, and by considering alternative farmed sources of food. We should also put an emphasis on farming non-carnivorous species. That is a suite of measures that should be adopted.

My other question relates to your view that the impact of escaping farmed salmon on wild salmon stocks is well documented. Is that actually true? From the evidence that we have had so far, it seems that although we know about the escapes, it is not quite so clear what happens to the escapees. You indicate that there is dilution of genetic diversity from interbreeding, but the evidence is not so clear.

There is probably not so much clear evidence from Scotland, but globally there certainly is. Although it may not be substantiated with accurate facts and figures, enough documented research is available to indicate that there is a significant problem of genetic diversity from escapes. I have papers, which I am happy to submit to the committee, to demonstrate that although there may be hybrid vigour in the F1 generation after farm fish escape and interbreed with wild stocks, there is significant genetic dilution in wild populations in subsequent breeding and F2 generations.

I want to follow up Libby Anderson's point about using anaesthetic in a mass cull. How would anaesthetic be administered?

I assume that it would be done in an anaesthetic bath. Fish are routinely anaesthetised on fish farms, for example to strip the eggs from females or milt from the males. It is a question of devising the protocol so that we have a mechanism for when an emergency arises.

Given that it would be an emergency, how quickly could anaesthetic be administered?

There would have to be a contingency plan. It is an area on which I would want more information, but mechanisms could be in place. We have a mechanism for fairly humane slaughter on salmon farms in the normal course of things. Percussive stunning and exsanguination is pretty humane. If we do not have that, there needs to be an alternative. We cannot just say that, because there is an emergency, it does not matter how we kill the fish.

How much would it cost the industry to put in place this all-singing, all-dancing, wonderful, cosy way of culling fish?

I do not think that any cull will ever be cosy or all-singing or all-dancing. This is a question of our values and approach to treating such intensively reared animals humanely. They are sentient and can suffer, so it is appropriate that we provide for their welfare. I could not put a cost on the plan, but it would be excellent if the Executive could provide that information.

Scottish Natural Heritage mentions in its submission the empirical evidence on accidental releases from hatcheries and the like. Following the point Dawn Purchase made, will John Thomson take us through the effect on wild stocks of escapes from hatcheries?

I do not think that I can add much to what Dawn Purchase said. Some evidence exists on the issue. I am not a geneticist, but I am aware that studies have been undertaken on the genetic dilution of wild stocks. The issue is attracting considerable interest and concern. If the committee is looking for further evidence and research references, we can write back with that.

We would like to have that, given that a couple of questions have been asked about the matter. You and Dawn Purchase have mentioned that more evidence is available. If it is readily available, it would be useful to see it.

I am happy to submit the papers that I have used for reference.

That is excellent.

The bill will be a central part of developing the code of good environmental practice. SNH talks about a time

"Once an agreed Code of Practice has been developed",

but evidence in previous weeks has suggested that the bill will underpin the code of practice that the industry has developed. Does SNH suggest that the industry code needs to be redrawn?

We have made it clear that we strongly welcome the industry's development of the code of practice. We recognise the huge effort that went into bringing on board as much of the industry as has already signed up to the code of practice.

We do not knock the existing code of practice, but we have made it clear that we do not feel that it goes far enough in every respect. That relates to its scope—for example, it does not cover some interactions with aquaculture in relation to biodiversity and the landscape, which are SNH's interests. To an extent, the code represents a lowest common denominator. The industry recognises that, over time, it is hoped that some of the standards that are laid down in the code of practice will be raised. That is why we implied that the code is a step along a road but is not the destination.

Have you been involved in drawing up the code? Who is involved in that?

During preparation of the code, consultation was pretty wide. I am not familiar with all the detail of everybody who was spoken to, but we played our full part in the consultation process. It was made clear when the code was launched that it would be subject to review over time—it is not cast in stone and will be reviewed and amended in the light of experience. We have made it clear that we are keen to be part of and to contribute to that process.

Some years ago, in a previous job, I was a member of the welfare sub-group that considered the code. I think it is excellent, but I tend to agree with my colleagues that environmental aspects could be strengthened, although they are beyond my remit.

The animal health and welfare sections in the code are good, but they are general. When I considered the code some years ago, we discussed specifics about water quality, periods of starvation for animals before slaughter and stocking density, and I see none of that in the code. I would like the code to progress, to become much more detailed and to give much more guidance, so that it becomes more like statutory welfare codes for livestock.

We were not involved in the development of the code, although we were involved in the consultation process. The strategic framework for Scottish aquaculture states that a code of best environmental practice will be developed and incorporated in the code of good practice, but that has not been progressed thus far. Such a code would offer an excellent opportunity to build on the code of good practice and to raise the bar for environmental performance on several key issues.

The bill will provide statutory underpinning only for the aspects of the code that deal with parasite control and the prevention of escapes. Should any other aspects of the code be underpinned by statute? If so, which ones? I presume that Dawn Purchase wants the code of environmental practice to be incorporated, but should it be underpinned in the bill?

One key provision that should be included in the bill is a minimum legal standard for cage design. Such a provision could be incorporated in the containment part of the code of good practice. The aim would be to ensure that all containment in the aquaculture industry reached a certain level. The minimum legal standard should allow cages to deal with the experienced and anticipated climatic conditions.

I have a separate point for John Thomson. I think he told us that, under existing legislation, the definition of "fish" includes crustaceans, but that there is a question about whether crustaceans are included in the definition in the bill.

The point that we were anxious to make is that we want crayfish to be defined as fish, because of some of the problems that we have with American signal crayfish in Scottish rivers. That was the key point—I do not have sufficient legal expertise to say whether crustaceans are currently defined as fish.

We may ask the minister about that.

I have one final little point about dealing with GS by flushing rivers with chemicals. What would your attitude be if freshwater mussels, a rare and protected species in Scotland, were affected by that? This is the classic case of chemicals affecting a whole river system. Would freshwater mussels be destroyed?

Potentially, yes. That reinforces the point that members of the previous panel made: prevention is obviously far better than any attempt at cure. We want to keep GS out rather than have to deal with it when it is here. If GS arrived and affected a river that hosts freshwater pearl mussels, a difficult decision would have to be made. Some provisions on the processes that have to be gone through in such a situation are written into the relevant European legislation—the habitats directive.

In general, we acknowledge that in spite of the damaging effects of the chemicals that would have to be used to purge rivers, they might be the least bad option in some circumstances, so we would have to accept some of the damaging impacts on other natural heritage interests. However, the issue can be dealt with only on a case-by-case basis and in the light of the established procedures that I mentioned.

What prevention measures are appropriate for GS? Obviously, if we have to deal with a GS outbreak, nobody will be happy, because it will have health implications for the fish that are involved, implications for the water quality and potential long-term economic impacts on a range of industries. Do any precautionary measures need to be given more emphasis? The question is for all the witnesses, but I ask John Thomson to kick off for SNH.

We have been closely involved in the work that has been done on GS until now. We are fairly happy with what has come out of that work to date. We do not have any specific recommendations to make for additional measures. I can check to see whether there is anything that we want to add to our existing evidence on the matter, but I am not aware of anything. It is important that all the issues that have been identified are addressed with rigour. That is evident from the experience of foot-and-mouth, which has been mentioned already. Often, the necessary controls exist in theory but are not implemented vigorously in practice.

In this case, what are the controls that exist in theory? In the previous evidence-taking session, canoeing interests commented on the lack of information about whether it is acceptable to take a canoe to Norway and to bring it back to Scotland. What about fishing equipment? Does it need to be sterilised? What kind of checks should be carried out on live fish that are introduced to watercourses? Are there other steps that need to be taken, or do you see the measures to which I have just referred as precautionary?

Key among the issues you have highlighted are live fish, which are the most obvious potential source of GS. That is the issue about which we need to be most worried.

A previous witness suggested that people should simply not be allowed to import live fish into the Scottish river system. Is that too extreme a position? Where does the balance lie on the issue?

In general, we are very wary of introducing species from other environments. We have concerns about transfers of native species of fish even between catchments in Scotland, as our instincts in the area are naturally precautionary. Obviously, that extends to the importation of live fish from other countries. Our default position is probably "Don't do it" unless there is a very obvious reason for needing to do it.

Does the bill provide a strong enough framework for that policy position?

It probably does. I am not aware of deficiencies in that respect.

We may ask the minister whether the intention of the bill is to prevent live fish from being imported. It is not 100 per cent clear that that is its purpose. Would either of the other witnesses like to comment on precautionary principle issues?

I was unable to submit written evidence on GS because it is outside my remit. Having listened to the previous evidence-taking session and having heard with alarm that people are able to take a kayak to Bergen and to bring it back without anyone mentioning the problem, I make the simple point that it is essential that all key water users are made aware of the issue, however that is done. Prevention is the key. It seems to me, as someone who has no expertise in the area, that if GS can be transported very easily to this country from abroad it is essential that all key water users are made aware not only of the risk of transmitting it to this country but of the implications of their not taking simple preventive measures to stop that happening.

I cannot help you a great deal. Biosecurity and animal welfare tend to go hand in hand, as breaches of one often lead to breaches of the other, but this issue is a bit beyond my remit.

I have another question about what should happen in the event of an outbreak of GS. John Thomson suggested that we need to take the least worst option. If fairly strong doses of chemicals need to be put into our rivers to try to eradicate GS, what impact might that have on human health, given that rivers are used by canoeists and on a good day—I would not discount this as a possibility—by swimmers? In that context, where would the bill kick in?

I preface my response by saying that we are certainly not experts in human health—

I was thinking more from a recreation perspective.

From a recreation perspective, the temporary closure of a river for certain recreational activities might be a necessary and acceptable consequence of an effort to control the disease if it came into the country. The existing access code allows for certain temporary restrictions on access for other reasons. In principle, restrictions should not be a great problem, but they reinforce the argument that we should try not to get into the situation in the first place. In practice, such issues would not be a major consideration.

The worry might be that the authorities could overreact in terms of the number of rivers they considered had to be treated. I would not expect an overreaction in this case, but we can see that something of that was evident in the reaction to foot-and-mouth. A second worry might be that the public would get the impression that recreational activities were barred much more widely than they actually were. That brings us back to the need for communication, which we have already discussed in the context of taking equipment in and out of Britain. It would be important to be open and straightforward with the public and to tell them what was being done, where, why and for how long.

Both SNH and the Marine Conservation Society expressed disappointment that powers to direct fish farms to relocate have been omitted from the bill. Will you elaborate a little on that?

We expressed disappointment that the bill does not provide powers to close fish farms when owners are unwilling to relocate them. A poor-performing established fish farm that, due to a previous planning consent, is inappropriately sited—perhaps in shallow water or in a poor tidal flushing area—might be known to have an adverse impact and to have other associated problems. If the fish farm's owners are given the option of financial assistance to relocate the farm to a more appropriate area but are unwilling to do so, we are left in a difficult situation. If we establish that the fish farm is a poor performer and is inappropriately sited and the owners refuse the option of financial assistance to relocate, what do we do? My concern is about what happens in that situation.

A concern that arose with the draft bill was that it would be difficult to prove that closing a fish farm was in the public interest. However, a closure could be in the public interest if it would enhance wild salmonid stocks and have an impact on protected marine habitats and species—that would obviously be in everybody's interest—and on the interaction with predators. All those impacts would be in the public interest and they can all be affected by poor-performing fish farms. We were quite disappointed that the bill does not include powers to close fish farms.

From an SNH perspective, I echo those comments. It is not that we think that legislation and regulation should be the first port of call in dealing with this issue, or that we expect these powers to be used frequently—or, indeed, at all. It is better to address such issues in a more consensual way, particularly given the amount of restructuring that is going on in the fish farming industry. I hope that there will be scope to remove some of the more problematic sites and to concentrate production on better ones. Nevertheless, last-resort powers can be helpful in concentrating minds on addressing situations that you hope will not arise.

This is also a key point for the fish farming industry: allowing very poor performers that are adversely impacting on the environment and overall performance to carry on cannot be good for its reputation.

Thank you for giving such helpful evidence on some very detailed questions.

Quite a number of issues have emerged that will have to be dealt with in subsequent evidence-taking sessions. One thing that has certainly come over loud and clear is that who is eligible for and who pays compensation—and whether, as a couple of submissions have highlighted, there is a liability issue—is a difficult public policy matter.

Witnesses have made strong points about prevention and, indeed, communication. For example, who will communicate with whom and what needs to be communicated to the public or to different interest groups? In next week's evidence-taking session, which is the penultimate one on the bill, we will hear from another range of organisations with an interest in the bill.

I suspend the meeting briefly to let this panel of witnesses escape.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—