Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Good morning. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones and ensure that their Blackberrys do not interfere with the sound system. I welcome members of the committee, the public and the press. I have received apologies from Elaine Smith, who is unwell. Richard Lochhead is still travelling—his train is delayed and he is not expected to get here for another 10 or 20 minutes, which is unfortunate.
We continue stage 2 consideration of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Sarah Boyack, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, who will steer us through stage 2 and give us the Scottish Executive's perspective, and her officials. Members should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments. Our target is to reach the end of the bill today.
Section 20 agreed to.
Section 21—Rod and line
Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 9A.
As colleagues will recall, section 25 contains an enabling provision that allows ministers to make subordinate legislation to
"prohibit the use of specified baits and lures",
such as live vertebrates, in fishing for freshwater fish. However, after many stakeholders voiced concern about the risk of adverse effects on biodiversity in our inland waters as a result of unused live bait, we decided to include the provision in the bill, to make the policy clear. The committee endorsed such an approach during its discussions and in its report at stage 1.
Amendment 9A would amend amendment 9 to provide for the making of regulations to permit the use of live vertebrates as bait in certain circumstances. I am surprised that Richard Lochhead lodged amendment 9A, given the tenor of the committee's debates at stage 1. However, I acknowledge that pike anglers in particular, who represent a minority of anglers, have passionately expressed the view that the use of live vertebrates as bait should continue.
I want to scotch a few myths that have arisen. The first is that this is a late Executive amendment, which we are trying to sneak through. It is not. The genesis of the proposal that is contained in the amendment was in the Executive's green paper, "Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries: Securing their future", which was published in August 2001. The proposal was subsequently debated thoroughly at the freshwater fisheries forum. As a result of the forum's enthusiasm for the proposal, a question on the subject was included in the Executive's consultation document, which was issued in December 2005—it was question 44, for those who are really interested. The response to the question was four to one in favour of a ban—79 per cent to 19 per cent.
The second myth is that the ban is a welfare issue and that perhaps the next step would be to ban maggots or worms, if not fishing itself. I want to make our position clear and put it on the record. The Executive has been consistent on the issue from day one. The issue here is one of biodiversity. Introduced fish can compete with, predate on, give parasites to and spread disease among native fish. The Executive is totally supportive of angling as a sport and a recreation. That needs to be said, given some of the rumours that have been flying around.
The third myth is that using live vertebrates as bait is not a problem. We do not agree with that view. The use of live vertebrates as bait has resulted in the translocation of live fish. That can happen when live fish used as bait are brought in from other sources and at the end of the day are discarded into the water being fished if they are not used. We need only consider the example of Loch Lomond to illustrate that point. Loch Lomond now supports a number of fish species that are new to the loch. One of those species, the ruff, is now the most common in the loch and is thought to pose a major threat to the loch's indigenous powan, which is an internationally renowned species of freshwater fish found in Loch Lomond and Loch Eck. The powan is listed in annex V of the habitats directive, so it is a fish that we want to protect.
It is the Executive's strong view that the use of lures and dead fish, often marine species such as sprat or mackerel, gives anglers a range of different methods that provide a perfectly acceptable alternative to the use of live fish. There is no need to put biodiversity at risk. I remind the committee that support for the use of live vertebrates is a minority view. It is a powerful view and it is held with passion, but support for a ban was and continues to be widespread. I believe that the case for prohibition is compelling. Support for prohibition is clearly the view of the substantial majority of anglers and it was certainly the view of the committee at stage 1.
As I have given a full explanation, I hope that members will feel informed about why we are doing this, the background to the proposal and the support for it that we have received from the angling community. I hope that, on that basis, amendment 9A will not be moved. I am happy to answer questions in the debate if members would like to raise other issues with me this morning.
I move amendment 9.
In the absence of Richard Lochhead, I ask Rob Gibson to move amendment 9A and speak to the other amendment in the group.
The consultations at an earlier stage dealt with angling as a whole, so it is not surprising that 79 per cent of respondents were in favour of and 19 per cent were against the proposals put forward by the minister. The 19 per cent probably encapsulates many of the coarse fishers who in some cases fish for predatory species such as pike, whereas the vast majority of people do not fish for predatory species. That is the issue. The fact that the majority is in favour of the position that the minister states is obvious because it reflects what the majority of fisherpeople do, but we are talking here about a different category of fishers, who have a legitimate case. The issue was sprung on the committee when that group realised that they were not being catered for by the amendments proposed and by the discussion that had taken place previously. That is why amendment 9A has been lodged. The issue is not that there is a majority and a minority; there are two different kinds of fishing.
However, I point out that all that amendment 9A would do is to allow exemptions to be made to the ban on the use of live vertebrates as bait. That addition to amendment 9 would mean that the ban would still be included in the bill but the provision would take into account the differences between the sports concerned.
The committee listened to the contributions from the coarse fishing group and so on without the knowledge of some of the papers that have since been circulated in e-mails. We would do well to take that information on board because, to my way of thinking, some of what the minister has said is a smokescreen. I can understand why the minister thinks that amendment 9 will be sufficient, but I do not think that any of her comments have addressed the interests of the pike fishermen. It would be a good idea if we addressed their interests and recognised the separate nature of that fishing.
I am not a fisher myself, but I recognise the clear logic of the pike fishermen's case. I think that amendment 9A would help us to tackle the issue.
I move amendment 9A.
Like Rob Gibson, I am not a fisherman. When the matter came up in our evidence-gathering session, I did not know too much about the subject and I went along with the argument that there appeared to be cruelty in using live bait, so I raised no particular objection. However, although I understand where the minister is coming from, I am not convinced—whatever our individual views on using live fish as bait—that the majority of those whom we are paid to represent want us to take action on the issue. I hold to the view that the Parliament should see fit to ban an activity only where there is overwhelming public pressure to do so. I am not convinced that that is the case on this occasion.
Another reason why I am inclined to oppose the ban is that I fear that by introducing a ban we would be conceding ground to those who would like to see all recreational angling banned on the ground of cruelty. It is argued that using a live fish as bait causes it a degree of suffering, but does angling not result in a degree of suffering by its very nature? A hook in the mouth must tend to be painful, yet angling is our most popular sport. I believe that a ban would send all the wrong signals to the pike fishermen who come from far and wide to fish in our lochs and make a valuable economic contribution to our rural areas. I remind members that pike fishermen need lessons from no one on the welfare of the fish that they catch and take great pride in returning most of the fish to the water to fight another day. I understand that the fish they use for bait come almost entirely from the waters in which they are fishing, so it is not as if they are introducing other fish into those waters.
In addition, it has been drawn to my attention that any ban of this kind would be almost impossible to police. I fear that this may be a ban too far, which could lead us down a dangerous road. I urge the minister not to press amendment 9 today and to consider meeting with interested MSPs to discuss the matter before stage 3.
I support amendment 9, first for the reasons to do with biodiversity that the minister mentioned and, secondly, for reasons to do with animal welfare—the welfare of the vertebrate that is being used as bait.
As Ted Brocklebank suggested, the biodiversity issue could perhaps be addressed by the practice, which the pike anglers have mentioned, of using as live bait only fish that were caught from the same waters on the same day. I have had a lot of correspondence from pike anglers. I went on to their website and the first thing that I came across was a demonstration of fishing with dead bait, but an angler has assured me that at particular times of year the sport is much better with live bait.
However, I think that using vertebrates as bait raises a fish welfare issue. I want it to be put on the record that I support angling and I would never intend in a month of Sundays to introduce an amendment to ban the use of invertebrates as bait—they are a completely different category. Previous animal welfare legislation that has been considered and passed by the Parliament recognises that different category, but I think that the use of vertebrates as bait raises a welfare issue. Therefore, I support amendment 9 and intend to vote against amendment 9A. I recognise the strongly held views of others, but in all conscience I must support amendment 9.
The minister's opening statement was helpful in setting out what is proposed and why, and the genesis of the proposal. I have thought long and hard about the representations that pike fishermen have made to us and I accept completely that responsible pike anglers would use as live bait only fish that were caught in the same waters on the same day. However, we must consider how on earth we would police any exemption from the ban and cope with irresponsible people. Ted Brocklebank said it all when he said that pike anglers come from far and wide and use fish that are caught "almost entirely" in the same waters on the same day. We know what can happen when an alien species is introduced into an ecosystem, which is what amendment 9 will guard against. If I could think of a method of policing that would allow responsible anglers to use live fish as bait, I would be delighted, but I really cannot think of any way in which to prevent irresponsible anglers from doing something that could be extremely dangerous to indigenous species.
I back the proposed ban, although I do not agree with the arguments about animal welfare, because fishing is fishing and I have no problems with it. As Ted Brocklebank said, a great many people enjoy the sport and I hope that they continue to enjoy it for years to come. However, the dangers of transposition of a species from one ecosystem into another are enough to justify a ban.
I was going to make two of the points that Nora Radcliffe made, so I will not speak about them, other than to emphasise the point about Ted Brocklebank's comment that people would "almost entirely" use species from the same river or loch system. That implies that they would not always use such species, which is the danger.
I want to ask the minister about animal welfare, which Ted Brocklebank mentioned. It seems to me that the principal motivation for the proposed ban on live bait is not to do with cruelty to the bait but to do with the way in which the practice might affect river systems by introducing alien species. I would be grateful if the minister would clarify the principal motivation for the proposal.
My second point is about the concern in the cogent and well-argued submissions from the pike and coarse fishermen that a ban on the use of live bait could put Scotland at a competitive disadvantage in tourism, because people might choose to fish in other parts of the United Kingdom or the world. Has the minister had an indication from our colleagues in the south of whether they are considering legislating on the matter and whether a ban might be proposed? I will understand if she cannot answer that.
Thirdly, I believe that policing the Executive's proposal will be difficult but that policing any exemption arising from Richard Lochhead's proposal would be significantly more difficult. I would be grateful for the minister's comments on that when she sums up.
Several issues have been raised, which I will try to deal with one at a time. In opposing amendment 9, neither Rob Gibson nor Ted Brocklebank engaged on the issue of biodiversity, which is the key reason why we introduced the proposal. I welcome Eleanor Scott's support for the ban, but our proposal is not about animal welfare; instead, it is driven by biodiversity issues. Members will recall that, through other measures in the bill, we are taking action to promote biodiversity. For example, section 28 contains provisions that will enable us to tackle indiscriminate stocking of inappropriate fish. We are trying to tighten up the legislation so that inappropriate fish are not introduced. Therefore, amendment 9 is consistent with other measures in the bill.
The issue of how pike anglers currently fish is a separate one. Like Ted Brocklebank, I am not a member of the fishing fraternity, but I know that pike anglers can use other fishing methods. One or two members have mentioned that pike fishermen already use alternative methods—a briefing that the committee received mentions that pike anglers do on occasion use fish that are not alive. We encourage that practice and other alternatives.
All sorts of difficulties arise to do with monitoring and dealing with non-native species, none of which is easy to resolve. Once an alien species has been introduced into the natural environment, it is difficult to rope it back in. The classic example of that is the introduction of the ruff into Loch Lomond. It is simply not possible to deal with the effects once a new species has been introduced. We therefore need to take a much more precautionary approach, which is the reason for amendment 9.
The proposed ban would be implemented by bailiffs, who have local knowledge, and partly by anglers. We must get out the message that the ban is being introduced for a good reason. Any exemption that was introduced under amendment 9A would be much harder to implement, because it would be hard to know whether somebody was doing what they said they were doing—we could not get proof of that.
Although no consultation on a ban has been proposed down south, byelaws are in place in certain areas to try to tackle the issue. The best example of that is the lake district, where there is a ban on the introduction of live fish through angling. Therefore, the measure is not unheard of down south. Our view is that the ban will not lead to a significant loss of tourism, nor to a reduction in the number of anglers coming up from down south. A particular issue arises for the pike angling community, but it is disappointing that the issue of a code, which is mentioned in a briefing that was issued to the committee, has not been raised at all with my officials, given that the issues have been discussed for a long time, since 2001, and that the specific proposal was produced in 2005.
My officials and I are happy to talk about the issue with the pike angling community, but we do not think that the ban is a big issue. We absolutely do not intend to stop pike angling and we do not think that the ban will do that. The overriding issue is to do with biodiversity, which we cannot ignore and which we have not ignored in other parts of the bill. For those reasons, I hope that members will support amendment 9 and that, now that Rob Gibson has listened to the arguments, he will not press amendment 9A, although I understand the passion that is behind it. I can think of other similar issues that relate to non-native species in water and on land. Such issues excite great passions and they are difficult, but there are times when we have to take a tough decision, and this is one of them.
I am well aware of the biodiversity issues. My party has supported the protection of the powan in Loch Lomond and we are concerned that, in the Highlands and other upland areas, it is difficult to police the removal of one species, such as Arctic char, from one loch to another. That is an issue because different lochs often have separate genetic types of the fish that have been there since the ice age. We all agree that measures to protect biodiversity, which are at the heart of the minister's argument, are difficult to police. The question is whether amendment 9 will improve the current situation. To my mind, that is questionable, given the arguments that we have heard about responsibility and irresponsibility and the sort of people in the angling community who tell us that they take care.
I am sorry if the pike anglers did not engage with the Executive on the issue earlier. I suspect that the issue of live bait was raised late on in the debate, which is why we have had such a flow of paper on the issue recently. That is why it is well worth testing the waters, so to speak, and allowing the Government room to make exemptions. As a result, I wish to press amendment 9A.
The question is, that amendment 9A 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)
Against
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 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9A disagreed to.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 22 to 25 agreed to.
After section 25
Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 11 to 16.
I will explain why we want to introduce a system of administrative penalties for certain sea fisheries offences. We wish to improve the effectiveness of sanctions and to provide a suitable deterrence; to preserve vulnerable fish stocks and to promote compliance; to divert fisheries offences from the court system, where appropriate, and so to reduce uncertainty for fishermen and legal costs to the fishing industry; to provide an alternative approach to prosecution in the court for minor offences; to increase consistency and transparency; and to protect those who observe the rules and, hence, the communities for which fishing is an important part of the economic fabric.
Amendment 10 provides warranted British sea-fishery officers with the powers to issue fixed-penalty notices to a person whom an officer reasonably suspects of having committed a relevant offence. A relevant offence is an offence that will be specified by ministers from a ring-fenced category of offences related to sea fish and sea fishing.
Amendment 11 provides for the detail that is to be contained in a fixed-penalty notice. That includes the penalty, the time available to pay it, the means by which it is to be paid and a statement to the effect that no criminal proceedings shall be commenced against a person who has timeously paid the amount. It also allows for a reduction in the 28-day period in relation to certain specified cases. Those are most likely to be cases relating to persons who are domiciled outwith the UK.
Amendment 12 allows for a scale of penalties to be prescribed that will be applied by the British sea-fishery officer in relation to certain categories of cases, having regard to the circumstances of the case. The intended proposed maximum on the scale is £2,000.
Amendment 13 provides that, on payment of a fixed penalty, no criminal proceedings may be brought against the person concerned for that offence, and that such payment is not a conviction and is not to be recorded as such.
Amendment 14 provides the method by which a person can intimate before the expiry date of the fixed penalty that they do not intend to pay.
Amendment 15 provides the basis on which proceedings in respect of an offence may be commenced by a procurator fiscal, after a fixed penalty has been offered.
Amendment 16 makes provision to allow in certain circumstances for the withdrawal of a fixed-penalty notice, for the removal of liability to pay and for the repayment of any moneys paid.
I move amendment 10.
No member has indicated that they wish to speak. It is unnecessary for the minister to wind up, as she has given a full explanation of the amendments.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendments 11 to 16 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Before section 26
Amendment 17, in the name of the deputy minister, is grouped with amendment 23.
Amendment 17 will increase the maximum fine for an offence under a regulating order from £5,000 to £50,000 by amending section 3(3) of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. The amendment will also provide for the discretionary revocation of a licence by the grantee when a licence holder is convicted of one fisheries offence—as opposed to the two offences that are required at present—by amending section 4(7) of the 1967 act.
Members may recall that, in November last year, the Scottish Executive undertook to lodge amendments on the issue, subject to the outcome of public consultation. That consultation ended a few weeks ago, and members should have received a copy of the consultation analysis last week, along with the Executive's further response to the stage 1 report.
Amendment 17 will provide a greater deterrent to illegal fishing in a regulating order area. Fishing in some regulating order areas can be lucrative. For example, vessel fishing on the Solway can generate more than £10,000 in just one day. That is double the current maximum fine, which has been insufficient to discourage individuals from taking a risk. A maximum fine of £50,000 will be a deterrent to illegal fishing. It will also acknowledge both the huge impact that illegal fishing can have on a fragile fishery and the levels of illegal income that can be generated.
I stress that the penalty that we propose will be the maximum; it will not apply automatically. Having that figure in place does not imply that the courts will treat minor offences as if they are more serious. The courts will have the discretion to apply fines at the level that is proportionate to the offence's seriousness.
Currently, licence holders need to be convicted of two offences before their licences can be revoked, which means that some licence holders could be more likely to risk fishing illegally as, even if they were caught and prosecuted, they could keep their regulating order licence. I stress that licence revocation is not automatic on conviction of a relevant offence but is at the discretion of the grantee. The grantee's exercise of that discretion must be reasonable and must be based on the facts in each case. Any decision to revoke a regulating order licence is subject to ministerial consent and to potential judicial review.
The current lack of deterrent makes it more difficult to prevent and deal with illegal fishing in a regulating order area. The effectiveness of a useful fisheries management tool has been reduced and achieving the aim of sustainable and viable fisheries has been much more difficult. That is why we believe that improving the penalties that apply under regulating orders is important. Amendment 17 will help to discourage illegal fishing in regulating order areas and to secure better-managed local shellfish fisheries for the benefit of local communities.
Amendment 23 is a technical amendment that is consequential on amendment 17. It will repeal the provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that required the original fine level to be read as the current level of £5,000.
I move amendment 17.
I am concerned about the proportionality to the offence of the proposed new sanctions in amendment 17. The proposed changes of increasing the maximum fine level from £5,000 to £50,000 and of reducing the potential trigger for a revocation of a licence from two offences to one—if the person is convicted—are disproportionate.
I will ask the minister a series of questions. What are the serious offences to which the £50,000 fine will apply? What right of appeal will exist against a grantee's decision to revoke a licence? Revocation of a licence denies a fisherman the ability to earn his livelihood. Under what other fisheries legislation is that power exercised and for what offences? I understand the minister's goal, but the means that will be employed to achieve it seem more drastic than is necessary. I ask her to respond to those points.
Following on from Ted Brocklebank's questions, I seek some clarification from the minister about, first, what might trigger the maximum penalty and, secondly, whether she intends to review the regulating order in Shetland—regulating orders as such were the subject of the consultation—with a view to making it more transparent to the fishing community.
Ted Brocklebank asked whether similar fine levels apply in other circumstances. Maximum fines of up to £50,000 apply to existing fishery offences, such as fishing without a licence, fishing in a prohibited area and breaches of log book, landing declarations and sales notes regulations.
The key thing to stress is the issue of proportionality. Our reason for seeking an increase in the maximum fine is that, in our view, the current low level of the maximum fine—£5,000—is not proportionate. I do not want to give the impression that absolutely every offence will automatically incur a £50,000 fine. If that is the assurance that Ted Brocklebank and Rob Gibson seek, I am happy to give it. The actual fine will be very much for the judgment of the court when it is dealing with an offence that is being prosecuted. The nature of the offence would determine the level of fine available to the court. The court will make the decision.
At the moment, we feel that the maximum fine level is not proportionate. Fines are not working because they do not deter certain fishermen who are creating a big problem, especially in the Solway. In such lucrative fishing areas, people can earn a lot of money in one day's fishing. However, if lots of people break the regulating order, we will not have a fishing industry down there. That is what prompted the amendment.
On revocation of licences—
Will the minister confirm whether there will be a right of appeal?
The revocation of a licence will be subject to ministerial consent—the revocation will come across a minister's desk; it will also be possible to take such a revocation to judicial review. Therefore, it will not be easy to revoke a licence, as the revocation will be tested through that process. If people feel that a revocation is unfair and that they were unable to raise a point that should have been dealt with, they will have the opportunity both to appeal to the minister and to take the matter to judicial review. For example, if someone felt that their offence was certainly not deliberate, they could make the case that the offence was inadvertent. They would have the right to kick the issue upstairs to ministers or to seek judicial review. It is important to stress that safeguards will be built in.
Also, at the outset, the grantee will need to act proportionately in deciding to revoke a licence. As members can imagine, if a string of revocations that are kicked upstairs to the minister are not then approved, that would indicate that revocations were being sought inappropriately. We do not expect that to happen, but we need that fall-back position so that people have that comfort.
Rob Gibson asked what would trigger the maximum fine. As Ted Brocklebank pointed out, the issue is whether the fine is proportionate. Evidence would need to be put to the court that, given the amount of fish that had been taken out of the fishery, the offence was so serious that imposition of the maximum fine would be appropriate. We are not talking about using the £50,000 fine for minor offences. The court will have discretion to go for a much lower fine for such offences.
Finally, Rob Gibson asked specifically about the Shetland regulating order. A review of the licensing arrangements is currently under way. If members are interested in that, we can ensure that the committee is informed of the results of the review. I am happy to make that commitment today.
I hope that I have dealt with all the questions that members raised and that members have found it helpful to be able to put their points on the record.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
Section 27—Unauthorised introduction of fish into certain marine waters
Amendment 18, in the name of Alasdair Morrison, is in a group on its own. In Alasdair Morrison's absence, I invite Peter Peacock to speak to and move the amendment.
Alasdair Morrison had to leave the meeting to attend a meeting of the Public Petitions Committee, to which his constituents have submitted a major petition against euthanasia. He wanted to attend that meeting and sends his apologies.
Amendment 18 seeks to amend section 27, which introduces powers to control the movement of live fish between different seawater farming areas, with a view to, for example, reducing the chances of infectious disease being spread between those areas. Salmon farmers already operate a system that they call farm management areas. The intention behind amendment 18 is that the Executive should define its specified areas on the basis of existing FMAs. There is concern that the Executive could draw up specified areas in a way that cut across existing industry structures. Amendment 18, which would simply put into law existing good practice, is aimed at offering the industry an assurance that that would not happen and that existing FMAs would be taken into account. I hope that the minister is sympathetic to the amendment.
I move amendment 18.
We very much welcome Alasdair Morrison's amendment to section 27. Peter Peacock is right that the fish farming industry operates in discrete marine areas and that it has a code of practice that requires an assessment of the risk of spreading disease through movements of live fish from one area to another. The amendment will be welcomed by the fish farming industry, as the powers in section 27, as amended, will bring the practice that is outlined in the code of good practice into the regulatory regime. It is entirely reasonable that the industry is consulted on how the boundaries of specified areas are set—that is just good practice from the Executive's perspective. For those reasons, I very much support Alasdair Morrison's amendment 18, and I hope that the committee will also support it.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
Section 29—Payments in respect of fish destroyed
Amendment 19, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendments 20 and 21.
I raised this issue with the former deputy minister during a previous evidence-gathering session, and I am not sure that I agreed with her explanation at the time. Section 29 states that ministers may provide compensation for any fish destroyed as a result of a ministerial decision. Amendment 19 would make such compensation compulsory, which is only right, fair and equitable. It would bring farmed fish into the same category as livestock. If the Government were to cause the destruction of fish stocks—I am sure that it would decide to do so only for excellent, sound reasons—it should be obliged to compensate the producer for that decision if the fish farmer did not contribute to the problem, which was simply an act of nature or of God, or whatever else. To be fair to fish farmers, they should have a guarantee of full compensation to put them on a level playing field with livestock producers. In the interests of fairness, I urge the committee to support amendment 19 and the other amendments to section 29.
I move amendment 19.
The Executive listened to those who argued that the legislation should include scope for a payments scheme to cover fish that are destroyed, and it set out in section 29 a discretionary power to establish such a scheme. We should record that the Executive made the active policy decision to include that provision in the bill; indeed, this is the first time that such payments will be even an option for the aquaculture industry. That is a step forward. That decision, which should be welcomed, arose from the strong arguments that were made to the Executive and from the fact that the issue has been part of the debate in the run-up to the bill's introduction.
Amendment 19, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, would convert our proposed discretionary power to make payments into a mandatory power. Only 7 per cent of respondents to our consultation paper called for mandatory payments, and only 17 per cent of aquaculture companies stated such a preference. As a result, the Executive's proposals have very strong support. In any case, given the previous position, surely it is preferable to have a discretionary power to make payments than to have no power at all.
The power in the bill is discretionary for the good reason that there is no provision for it in current spending plans and Scottish ministers will have to consider whether and to what extent the Executive can afford such costs. A good case for introducing such a scheme will have to be made, but still we believe it important to include the provision in the bill. Because the fish farming industry is currently free of any disease that would require compulsory slaughter to be carried out—a situation that we very much hope will continue—there is no immediate pressure to introduce a scheme. Moreover, given that the terrestrial livestock payments scheme is under review, I do not think that it would be either appropriate or sensible to base the design of an aquaculture payments scheme on that scheme.
Instead, we have tried to design something that will best fit the aquaculture industry. At the appropriate time—such as when the outbreak of a serious aquaculture disease requires compulsory slaughter, when changes are made to the arrangements for the terrestrial livestock payments scheme or when some other reason arises—Scottish ministers will consider, under the bill's powers, a payments scheme for aquaculture. Such a scheme would be established by an affirmative instrument to give the committee and the whole Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the proposal in detail.
Amendments 20 and 21 are technical amendments that are intended to correct an oversight. Given that legislation on diseases of fish applies equally to shellfish and that, therefore, ministers have the power to order shellfish to be destroyed, it is only reasonable that shellfish farmers have equal access to payments if their stock has to be destroyed for disease control purposes. These amendments give us the power to consider whether that approach is appropriate.
Given those comments, I hope that Ted Brocklebank will consider withdrawing amendment 19.
The minister said that only 7 per cent of respondents to the consultation supported mandatory payments. Did she mean 7 per cent of fish farmers or 7 per cent of all respondents? If the latter, what proportion of fish farmers who responded to the consultation thought that the scheme should be mandatory?
I restate that 7 per cent of all respondents called for mandatory payments. Only 17 per cent of aquaculture companies—if we take them to be a specific group of fish farming interests—stated a preference for mandatory rather than discretionary payments.
That is helpful.
I hear what the minister said and am grateful that she has explained the matter further. The discretionary power is, of course, welcome. Although I might gather more evidence and return with a similar amendment at stage 3, at this stage I am prepared to accept her arguments and am happy to withdraw amendment 19.
Amendment 19, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 20 and 21 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 30 to 34 agreed to.
Schedule
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendment 22, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 22 is a technical amendment to the bill's schedule. It deals with a matter that the Subordinate Legislation Committee raised in correspondence and in paragraph 17 of its annex to the stage 1 report. The Subordinate Legislation Committee recommended that the Executive lodge an amendment to extend the consequential amendments to section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 to reflect other amendments that will be made by the bill. I am happy to accept its suggestion.
I move amendment 22.
Does anyone have great knowledge of the matter?
I accept every bracket and subsection.
Indeed. We accept every dot and comma.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 35 to 38 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. An amended version of the bill will be printed overnight and will be available tomorrow. The Parliament has not yet set a date for stage 3 consideration of the bill, but stage 3 amendments can now be lodged with the committee clerks.
I thank the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development for attending the meeting.
John Swinney has been waiting for some time to give evidence on the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill. We could therefore take agenda item 3 before agenda item 2.
I would not give him any special treatment at all.
I hope that Mr Swinney did not hear what Mr Gibson just said.
Do members agree to take agenda item 3 before agenda item 2?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—