Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06544, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. Before I invite Paul Wheelhouse to open the debate, I call the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to signify Crown consent to the bill.
I had thought that more members would have hung about for the highlights.
For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
I advise members that we are quite tight for time. I call Paul Wheelhouse to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have nine minutes.
16:34
I am pleased to open this stage 3 debate on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. At the outset, my thanks go to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill; to all those who provided written and oral evidence to the committee, as well as those who responded to the Government consultations; and to everyone who has worked with us throughout the legislative process, including our stakeholder reference group. My thanks are also due to the Subordinate Legislation Committee for its scrutiny of and reports on the bill.
I also record my thanks to Scottish Government officials—in particular, those in the bill team—who have worked extremely hard to bring the bill to this point today. I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed taking my first bill through Parliament. Things may have got a bit ropey at points when Mr Fergusson was questioning me, but I am glad that I got there.
Surely not.
That is very kind of you, Mr Fergusson.
I am sure that every member in the chamber will agree that Scotland is fortunate in having a thriving aquaculture industry, world-renowned salmon fishing rivers and a diverse marine and coastal environment. That places a responsibility on all of us to ensure that our marine ecosystems continue to provide economic, social and wider benefits for people, industry and society.
That responsibility underpins the primary purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that farmed and wild fisheries—and their interactions with each other—continue to be managed effectively as both sectors thrive. Critically, we wish to maximise their combined contribution to supporting sustainable economic growth in rural areas, but with due regard to the wider marine environment. Many and varied interests use and enjoy Scotland’s marine environment, and the quality of the environment is a key element of the market appeal of farmed salmon, trout and shellfish. Maintaining that shared pristine marine environment requires good neighbourliness.
Last week, I chaired the first meeting of the refreshed ministerial group on sustainable aquaculture. I hope and believe that the group will continue to be a forum where such consensus on shared issues can be reached. I have formed an interactions working group as part of the MGSA, and I believe that the group represents a new opportunity to move forward the shared agenda and to put aside some of the friction of the past. I expect the group to establish closer productive working relationships between wild fish interests and farmed fish interests, both locally and Scotland-wide, and to consider more broadly the significant benefits that both sectors can bring to rural and remote communities.
To what do those benefits equate? Well, we are dealing with a £600 million aquaculture sector that employs some 1,800 people in aquaculture production and almost 3,000 people in salmon processing. Similarly, game and coarse angling supports 2,800 full-time equivalent jobs and is worth £134 million in expenditure to the Scottish economy.
Much has been said—not least by the RACCE Committee—about the individual interests and positions that have been taken by stakeholders. I believe that that highlights the need to ensure that we get things right. I want to underline our intention to balance the many interests in the public interest, rather than responding in isolation to single-issue campaigns.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and others have asked for reassurance that the Scottish Government has actively engaged with stakeholders on the provisions in the bill. I confirm that stakeholder engagement has been an important part of our work since the consultation began and will continue to be so long after the provisions of the bill have been implemented.
For example, the wellboats working group has recently been established. Members of the group include wellboat operators, representatives of the fish farming companies, academics, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—in respect of its Freedom Food Ltd assurance scheme—and the code of good practice management committee. The wellboats working group will work to establish the technical requirements for filters to control sea lice on all wellboats operating in Scotland, and for the facilities that will be needed for the new bigger wellboats that will be used in the future.
Colleagues have on occasion thrown—I am sure with good intent—what might usefully be described as a lifeline to save me from what they considered would be unintended consequences of the bill. Although I am always grateful for any such well-intentioned efforts to save me from danger, I consider that in this context the efforts have not been required. The bill has been developed over considerable time with substantial input from others and has rightly been subject to considerable scrutiny by Parliament. I assure members that, in formulating our amendments, we have given serious consideration to, and acted on, the issues that were raised. In my opinion, the bill is fit for purpose.
Part 1 of the bill will strengthen the regulatory framework for the fin-fish sector. Our aim is to support that industry as it continues to deliver its sustainable growth—using a 2011 baseline—of 50 per cent in volume to 2020 and beyond. That means a further 32 per cent growth from now.
During the passage of the bill, it was suggested—unfortunately, Tavish Scott is not in the chamber—that the provisions on farm management agreements are tantamount to micromanaging salmon farms. Although I share the desire to avoid micromanaging the sector, which Tavish Scott suggested might happen, I have not been convinced by that argument. I believe that the bill will not result in micromanagement; I stand by my conviction that the bill is balanced and proportionate.
The provisions will require that all fish farms in a farm management area be party to a farm management agreement or a farm management statement. Such agreements or statements must specify arrangements for a number of critical matters relating to fish health and welfare; namely fish health management, management of parasites, movement of live fish on and off farms, harvesting of fish, and fallowing of farms after harvesting.
At present, 98 per cent of fish farms are signed up to the industry code of good practice and are parties to agreements or statements. If the bill is passed, the provisions will apply to all marine fin-fish farm operators and will set the criteria that we consider are essential for managing the health of farmed fish within an area.
The issue of public reporting of sea lice has been discussed at considerable length during the progress of the bill and again today. I fully recognise that it is an issue of great concern to members. I hope that, even if members do not agree with the Government’s position, they will agree that we have clearly and consistently explained it.
We remain convinced that voluntary public reporting is the right route and that the proposals that the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation has committed to taking forward—which it helpfully reaffirmed in a recent communication to all members—are appropriate from all perspectives: transparency, compliance, science and justifiable commercial interest. However, I repeat the commitment that I gave earlier to review the success or otherwise of the voluntary arrangement in the current session of Parliament. Crucially, we already have powers under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 to implement a mandatory reporting arrangement, should that prove necessary.
Part 2 of the bill will improve the governance of district salmon fishery boards and strengthen management of salmon fisheries. Those are the first steps in delivering our manifesto commitment to modernise the management structures for salmon fisheries and freshwater fisheries, which is a complex area that has been the subject of numerous reports and investigations over the years. The committee took considerable interest in the issues on which more work was needed and provided helpful comments on what the forthcoming review should cover. Work is under way to scope the independent review that will be undertaken. My intention is that it will commence this summer, and I look forward to engaging with colleagues across Parliament and with all other interested parties on that.
Part 4 of the bill will introduce provisions to ensure continued protection of good water quality, which is necessary for a sustainable shellfish industry. We believe that the sector has potential, if it is managed with sensitivity to the environment. The shellfish industry, especially in respect of mussels, is looking to expand from a 2011 baseline by 100 per cent by 2020, which is another 80 per cent growth from now.
Work is under way to build on those provisions, with the aim of consulting on draft regulations for introduction in the autumn. The regulations will introduce a system of quality standards that will bring together environmental standards for good water quality with the food hygiene standards that are required for high-quality shellfish products. That will be a first in Europe and will help to cement Scotland’s reputation for the quality of its produce.
It is a rare treat for any minister to be praised by the Opposition for introducing legislation, so I shall treasure Alex Fergusson’s comments during the committee’s consideration of the Solway cockles provisions. That reflects the genuine consensus that there is a serious issue that merits Government action. I was pleased to see widespread coverage in the media of police and Marine Scotland officers stepping up the patrols to tackle illegal cockling on the Solway Firth. I am sure that we would all prefer to deter people from illegal and potentially dangerous cockling than to use the powers that we seek in the bill, but it has, regrettably, proved to be necessary to take decisive steps to address the issue.
It would perhaps be remiss of me, while speaking about Solway cockles, not to mention the wider improvements in enforcement measures that are included in the bill. The Fisheries Act 1705 makes certain provisions for the
“good subjects of this Kingdom”,
or the people of Scotland, to fish in the seas around our coastline. That act of the old Scottish Parliament perhaps underlines how important Scotland’s seas are to the people of Scotland.
I need you to bring your remarks to a close.
I apologise, Presiding Officer.
Effective monitoring and enforcement of marine and fishing laws is vital if we are to protect Scotland’s valuable marine areas and fisheries in order to benefit the many fisheries-dependent communities around the Scottish coast. The bill is essential to deliver those steps.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill be passed.
16:43
Scottish Labour recognises the significance and importance of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, and of regulation and the wild fisheries review, to present and future employment in what are often fragile rural and coastal communities. There are jobs in wild fisheries, scientific research, aquaculture and—of course—fish processing, retailing and exporting. An excellent example of how the whole production chain can be vertically integrated is that of the co-operative Scottish Shellfish Marketing Group. It gives the customer reassurance about provenance, which is important in the wake of the horsemeat scandal, from which lessons must be learned.
The Scottish Parliament information centre tells us that Scotland is already the largest salmon producer in the European Union and the third largest in the world, after Norway and Chile. I have looked with interest at the cabinet secretary’s drive to promote exports of Scottish salmon and shellfish. Salmon is Scotland’s largest food export, accounting for a third of the value of all food exports. Scottish salmon is exported to more than 50 countries, with the EU and US markets being particularly important. As the minister and cabinet secretary will know, after agreement with the Chinese Government was reached in 2011, a new market opened up in China. Figures show that exports of salmon to the far east went up from 682 tonnes in 2010 to 8,675 tonnes in 2012.
Although there is little doubt about the highly lucrative nature of the exports for Scotland in the short-term, I ask the minister to clarify how that drive in exports can be reconciled with the Scottish Government’s commitment to sustainable seas. The cabinet secretary stated:
“The Scottish salmon industry is committed to nurturing a responsible, sustainable and environmentally aware future based on strong fishing heritage and traditions.”
As the minister has said, our clean waters are “pristine”—or, to use my word, quintessential. That drives us towards the environmental imperative. The biodiversity of our seas, sea lochs, rivers and burns is fundamental to our very future and to the future of the species and habitats for which we have responsibility.
Sustainable development is the key. I seek further assurances from the minister that, if the bill is passed today in spite of the failure of the bill’s policy memorandum to fulfil its potential in that regard, there will be a continuing assessment of sustainable development.
Scotland’s national marine plan, which has been delayed, is fundamental in underpinning the way forward. This summer’s consultations concern sustainable development not just in relation to the employment opportunities that I have highlighted, but in relation to how other industries in the marine sectors—which I do not have time to list—can fit together and be developed sustainably.
At stage 1, I stressed that:
“All potential development in our seas ... must be judged in the context of marine carrying capacity.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2013; c 17200.]
The Scottish Government must always remember that the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 gives us a legally binding obligation to enhance our seas. That sets us a responsibility to recover damaged species, as well as maintaining the status quo.
At stage 1, I highlighted the significance of climate change, so I ask the minister, in his closing speech, to give Parliament and all interested groups reassurance that the bill and the ensuing regulations will be climate change proofed, and reassurance about how that will be monitored. The review of marine protected areas in 2018 will be significant as the science develops.
The health of our rivers and burns is also in need of protection, for the same reasons as our seas are. Can the minister tell Parliament how funding will be made available in the future for the range of initiatives that are needed, such as the Dee tree-planting scheme, which the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee visited.
On wild fisheries, I note:
“The recent increase in rod catch, coupled with the high levels of catch and release, is regarded as evidence of increases in the number of fish entering fresh waters.”
There is still a concern about spring salmon, however. As a sea trout champion, I have concerns about the decline in numbers that Marine Scotland has identified.
If we are to move forward sustainably, science is essential and must be shared. How can science be shared if it is not fully and publicly available to share among Marine Scotland, academia and the range of industries concerned? An honest and full assessment of the industry is needed if we are to achieve our shared aquaculture and shellfish targets.
Scottish Labour is disappointed and perplexed by the final position in the bill on publication of sea lice data. I note the minister’s comments, which are in some sense reassuring, but there should still be an overriding principle of transparency. Our seas are not private property. Moreover, whatever waste comes from fish farms does not stop at the barrier of the cage, any more than diffuse farm pollution stops at a fence near a burn.
The development of effective regulation accompanying the eventual act, the wild fisheries review and the work of the ministerial group on aquaculture will be the make or break of future sustainable activity. The minister’s words today are reassuring on that. Furthermore, there is agreement about the RACCE Committee’s important recommendation at stage 1 that, if there are breakdowns in relationships, a
“fully accessible and fit for purpose ... mediation service”
should be available.
I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.
I will do so, Presiding Officer. The building of good relationships is perhaps more important than anything else, and it is an absolute imperative for the future. Scottish Labour supports the bill, and I ask the minister for reassurance that support for nurturing those relationships will be a priority in the future.
16:49
The passage of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill has been a long and arduous process, and I begin my speech at stage 3 in the same way that I began my speech in the stage 1 debate, by thanking the clerks to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, who have made the process much easier and considerably more enjoyable than it might otherwise have been.
We heard and read an enormous amount of evidence at stage 1. If I have one main regret about where we are today, it is that the bill does not do more to reflect some of the serious issues that we all basically agreed on during stage 1. I suspect it was bound to be thus because, as the committee said in its stage 1 report,
“the Scottish Government could have been clearer in its consultation document ... in order to better manage understanding and expectations amongst stakeholders and the wider public.”
I do not recall the Government ever disagreeing with that statement. The result was that expectations among a range of stakeholders were probably raised to an unachievable level, which is probably not a very helpful way in which to embark on a bill.
The minister described the bill to the committee as future proofing the industry in the light of current growth targets and potential new operators coming to Scotland. Although there is much that I welcome in the bill, I fear that those words will almost certainly come back to haunt him. I say that not to disparage in any way the bill or the minister, but to highlight the inherent missed opportunities.
For instance, the opportunity to have lanced once and for all the boil that is the publication of sea lice data has been missed. The industry has shifted its position, which I welcome, but I suspect that it has not done so enough to satisfy the non-governmental organisations, other organisations and individuals that have called for it and will continue to do so. To be frank, why should they not? The first voluntary publication of a report on sea lice management and control, which was agreed by the industry and the minister, should have been published last Monday, which was six weeks after the end of the first reporting period. By 1 o’clock this afternoon it had not been published: members can read into that what they will. The issue will not go away with passage of the bill, and Parliament missed a huge opportunity to address it more realistically when it rejected Claudia Beamish’s amendment 14 this afternoon.
A properly worked-out tagging scheme should have been in the bill, but I take the minister at his word and look forward to what he will introduce in the consultation.
Sadly, the bill will not do very much—if anything—to bring the wild fish and farmed fish sectors closer together, which was a desired aim of the bill. That is a real shame, because a continued stand-off is in no one’s interests—certainly, it is not in the interests of our inshore marine environment. I have no doubt that those issues will have to be returned to—I fear probably sooner rather than later.
That said, I want to finish on a positive note. I very much welcome the inclusion at stage 2, as the minister has mentioned, of measures to toughen up actions that can be taken against suspected illegal cockle poachers, principally along the Solway coast. That has been long awaited and is greatly welcomed. Although it will not solve the problem—I believe that only the creation of a legal fishery will achieve that—it heralds a vast improvement on where we are today. I thank the Government for taking the opportunity to introduce those measures on the back of the bill.
On that—I hope—positive note, I am pleased to say that we will support the bill at decision time. Despite my reservations about the Government’s introductions of substantive sections at stage 3, which thus bypassed parliamentary scrutiny, I congratulate the minister on steering his first bill through Parliament. If he thinks that I give him a tough time in questions, I say only that I suspect he ain’t seen nothing yet.
We now move to a very short open debate. I am afraid that, in order to be able to call all members, I cannot give you any more than three minutes. If you could confine your remarks to less time than that, I would be most grateful.
16:53
As a relatively new member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I am pleased to have been able to take part in scrutiny of the bill from the start.
Given the constraints of time, I will skip my preamble and go direct to the issue of carcass tagging. I am pleased to acknowledge the minister’s commitment to consult fully on that issue. I also note the minister’s recent explanation to the committee that had the amendment that sought to include the requirement for carcass tags to be individually numbered been successful,
“it would have restricted our ability to progress regulations which adequately reflect the differing views from ... stakeholders, both in terms of application and potential impact on business.”
The minister also said at stage 2 that any specific requirement would be subject to the EU technical standards directive, which would mean that the European Commission would have to be notified if the measure created a “technical barrier to trade”, which would result in a stand-still period of 18 months before it could come into effect. That would impact on the whole bill. I note the failure of Alex Fergusson to have been convinced by the EU technical standards directive argument, although he withdrew amendment 4 in group 6. I ask the minister to detail when the consultation of stakeholders on carcass tagging will be complete. I had hoped that there would be a clear and unambiguous statement from the minister today that any subsequent system will use individually numbered tags and that the system will be in place for the start of the 2014 season. I note the minister’s commitment that that would be an option, but the committee sought further assurances in that respect.
The committee spent considerable time on public reporting of sea lice data and noted the minister’s confirmation during stage 2 of the SSPO’s plans to increase the voluntary public reporting of sea lice data from six to 30 areas and his comment that the SSPO’s voluntary proposal was
“a significant development and an appropriate balance between public reassurance and commercial interests at this time.”
In addition, the SSPO confirmed that it would give Marine Scotland access to sea lice data at farm management area level. I recognise that a number of stakeholders—including the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, which would have preferred publication of all sea lice data on a farm-by-farm basis—were considerably disappointed by that, but I am encouraged by the minister’s commitment this afternoon to review the success or otherwise of the voluntary arrangement during the current parliamentary session.
With that in mind, I welcome the formation of the ministerial group—
You must bring your remarks to a close, please.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We should never lose sight of the fact that whether we are talking about farmed or wild salmon, this is a good news story for Scotland. From angling on royal Deeside to salmon farming in the Western Isles, we have a lot to thank the humble salmon for. However, the aquaculture industry’s excellent prospects can be realised only if the industry observes the best environmental husbandry and governance standards. We will all be watching extremely closely.
16:56
I have not been involved in the bill’s passage but, although I recognise the concerns that members have expressed, I want to use the very short time that I have to welcome the provisions on the Solway cockle beds that the minister did not really have the time to describe in his speech.
The Solway cockle beds have had a very chequered history, having been overfished in the early 2000s and closed in 2002. The Solway Shellfish Management Association, which was formed in 2006 by a statutory instrument from this place, was given the unenviable task of regulating the cockle fishery when it reopened, as well as certain enforcement powers. However, of the more than 100 licences that were granted by the association, 50 per cent were local and the other 50 per cent were not. There was a huge stramash and loads of people turned up at my surgeries to complain about licences and all the rest of it. Unfortunately, despite those actions, cockle stocks declined further. No more licences were issued after 2007-08 and the beds had to be closed again in 2011.
Enforcement has always been extremely difficult. In past centuries, the Solway was infamous for the activities of pirates and smugglers and the physical features that aided those individuals—that coastline of bays and coves with few points of access to the sea from public roads and many crossing private land—also aided the illegal cocklers. Before and after the reopening of the fishery, I received reports from constituents living near the coast of possible illegal activity, including vehicles on the beach, caravans on private land that seemed to contain what might have been migrant workers and boats being launched from private access points. Although those reports were passed to the police and the SSMA, it was very difficult to follow them up.
Of course, such activity is not only illegal but potentially extremely dangerous. The incoming tide in the Solway is famously known as being faster than a galloping horse—in other words, more than 25 to 30mph. It is certainly faster than a person can run and faster than a vehicle can drive in soft sand, with the result that those who are exposed to illegal cockling are also in great danger of losing their lives. Indeed, we remember the events in Morecambe Bay in 2004, when 23 people lost their lives in a gang incident. The same thing could easily happen on the Solway.
At stage 2 we passed amendments to allow the courts to consider circumstantial evidence pointing to illegal activity—
You must bring your remarks to a close, please.
Moreover, police now have powers of access to private land and can enforce that right in order to investigate the reports of possible illegal activity that I have received in the past. That was not possible before and it will be extremely important in detecting and preventing such activity.
Some campaigners think that the bill should have gone further, but I am pleased that the need for action has been recognised and that these measures have been included in the bill.
16:59
To claim that the bill’s progress through its committee stages was without controversy would be pushing it, to say the least. I believe that it marks the first time that the phrase “tit for tat” has been used in a committee report and, if I remember correctly, I also think that it was the first time I have heard anyone accuse a Conservative member of wishing to nationalise an industry.
Today we expressed concern about late amendments from the Government, which the committee did not have enough time to scrutinise. It is essential that all proposed legislation is properly scrutinised—legislating in haste often results in repenting at leisure. We did not vote against the Government’s amendments. However, we abstained, because we could not be confident that the lack of proper scrutiny would not have unintended consequences. However, all those abstentions have helped all our voting records.
I was concerned about the amendments in Alex Fergusson’s name on the numbered tagging of fish. I have been wary of such methods in some aspects of agriculture. Such an approach might constitute overregulation and be difficult to implement, so I am glad that Alex Fergusson did not press his amendments and that the minister promised to look into the issue.
The importance to Scotland’s economy of wild fishing, as well as fish farming, was made clear during the bill process. Wild fishing is important in my region. I understand that fees are up to £30,000 a week for five rods at the junction pool in Kelso. The Government wants fish farming to increase, to contribute to its economic growth agenda, but it is right that we protect what we have.
I share the ambition for growth in the fish farm industry. Scottish smoked salmon achieves a premium in the marketplace, and deservedly so.
At stage 2 I lodged amendments, the principle of which was accepted by the minister. We worked on the matter, and I am glad that members accepted that there needs to be regulation in training. It is obvious that training needs to be part of the developing technical standard, as the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum acknowledged. The improved containment working group has shown that about 29.5 per cent of fish escapes are due to human error.
I do not have time to go into detail on record keeping in relation to sea lice, or on the potential of triploids—
No, you do not. You need to bring your remarks to a close as quickly as possible.
I am glad that we have produced a bill that provides for training requirements on equipment. In anticipation of the bill’s being passed at decision time, I congratulate Paul Wheelhouse.
17:02
I am the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, which has had long oversight of the bill and welcomes its progress.
I was pleased that the bill gives the Scottish Government’s ministerial group on sustainable aquaculture oversight of the code of good practice for aquaculture. Will the minister undertake to consider the provision that genetically modified organisms should not be introduced to fish farms, with a view to changing “should” to “must” as soon as possible?
The urgency of my request is underlined by the relaxation of the rules on the use of GM soya feed for animals and fish by a string of leading retailers, with the exception of Waitrose. Will the minister assure the Parliament that Scottish food authenticity will be a priority? The natural provenance of Scottish produce is not helped by the use of GM soya feed. Waitrose and other European producers have procured GMO-free soya and are labelling their products GMO free, thereby earning a premium for the products, in response to widespread consumer concern that GM ingredients are not welcome in our food.
I am pleased that in summer the Scottish Government will launch a consultation on the further democratisation of district salmon fishery boards. Wider access to our rivers for salmon angling should be a facet of the sustainable management of all species in the total catchment area management approach. Angling is a big—and can be a bigger—contributor to fragile rural economies such as those in my constituency. It can also contribute to climate change mitigation. The matter was discussed and further work will flow from the bill’s successful passage. We wish the bill and what follows well.
17:04
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, in relation to fisheries.
There is widespread recognition of the importance of aquaculture and wild fisheries to Scotland’s economy. In my region, the Highlands and Islands, fish farming helps to underpin many communities. The fact that farmed Scottish salmon has the much-coveted label rouge demonstrates its excellence. At the same time—as the minister stressed—Scotland, with its lochs and rivers, is a world-famous location for wild fishing.
As part of the European and External Relations Committee’s inquiry into the China plan, I recently visited the Marine Harvest processing factory at Fort William, which is a significant employer in Lochaber. I had not visited a salmon processing factory for several years, and the improvement in the quality of the fish over that time was plain to see. All Marine Harvest’s fish are processed in one factory, picked up by lorry, taken to Heathrow and flown out, which means that they can be in China in a very short time. The potential for growth in the Chinese market is great. The labelling on the boxes gives total traceability—it is possible to tell not only what cage on which site the fish came from, but which individual packed the box.
Given that there is no lack of transparency on that side of aquaculture, it is disappointing that, despite lobbying from many sides, the Scottish Government decided not to accept the well-thought-out amendments of my friend Alex Fergusson that proposed that sea lice data should be published on a farm-by-farm basis, as happens in Norway, Chile and Ireland. I invite the minister to explain why that lack of transparency does not exist in other fish farming countries.
A big theme in the stage 1 debate and the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s scrutiny of the bill and its report was the need for the wild fish and the fish farming sectors to work together more constructively. The bill represented an opportunity to improve working methods and public relations. People in the aquaculture industry to whom I spoke were not alarmed by the request for greater transparency, so why is the Scottish Government so intransigent on sea lice? That will leave the wild fish industry disappointed. Indeed, the Salmon & Trout Association is calling the bill a missed opportunity to protect and conserve Scotland’s wild fish heritage. Can the minister say something to relieve those concerns?
The disappointment stems from the Government’s failure to accept amendments at stage 2—and further amendments from Claudia Beamish at stage 3—that would have increased the amount of publicly available information on sea lice. Will the minister at least instruct Marine Scotland to analyse Scotland-wide sea lice data at a farm management area level on a quarterly basis, so that it can assess the performance on sea lice management and test the SSPO reporting system?
I think that all of us recognise that we want and need to achieve the sustainable coexistence of the wild fish and fish farming industries. That is what I have argued for throughout my time in the Parliament. We know that that can best be achieved when both sectors trust each other. It remains to be seen whether the bill will help us to make progress towards that aim, but ministers need to continue to strive to address the concerns of wild fishery interests, particularly in the west and north-west, where genuine concerns still exist about the decline in wild fish numbers and the reasons behind it. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to speak up on such issues, while supporting the sustainable growth of our aquaculture producers.
17:07
The bill has been an attempt to address some of the issues surrounding wild fisheries and the aquaculture sector. Although the debate is an opportunity to reflect on what has been agreed, it is also—as other members have highlighted—the time to turn to questions of implementation and what happens next. Following the initial consultation, a number of contentious issues were not taken forward in the bill—for example, carcass tagging and salmon netting rights—but they must be addressed, and the future work streams that others who are involved in wild fisheries and sustainable aquaculture have highlighted are essential.
As the minister said, 98 per cent of fish farms are signed up to good practice, which raises the question whether the bill is about consolidating what already happens rather than addressing some of the key issues that Alex Fergusson highlighted. We have a growing aquaculture sector that makes a significant contribution to Scotland’s economy nationally and locally. It is a business that provides employment in rural areas—more than 6,000 people are employed, often in long-term, skilled jobs. The amendments on training were welcome. We recognise that people work in difficult conditions, and that standards of training and health and safety must be high.
Achieving the target of increasing the production of all farmed fish by 50 per cent from a 2011 baseline by 2020 is ambitious. If we are to achieve that rate of expansion, we need to be sure that the regulatory system that is in place is robust and has the confidence of consumers and wider interests. In recent weeks, there have been reports that pesticides from 12 salmon farms have contaminated lochs around Scotland’s coast in breach of safety limits. Since 2010, such incidents have been the subject of an annual report by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which consistently raises questions about the environmental impact of fish farming.
Labour has sought to take a proportionate approach to the bill. At stage 1, the committee debated at length the publication of sea lice data. There was certainly recognition that there could be greater transparency and information sharing, and Labour lodged a consensus amendment, so it is disappointing that, once again, the evidence that was heard at stage 1 and supported in the stage 1 report has been rejected at the amendment stage on the minister’s recommendation. We have seen committee members twisting and turning on the issue this afternoon.
We recognise that the industry is to increase its reporting to 30 areas of data, but the international perception of Scottish salmon relies on its reputation for comparatively high standards of health and welfare for farmed fish. Greater transparency should be nothing to fear and would only strengthen its reputation. The industry and the minister raise concerns regarding commercial risk, but it is argued that no other industry is protected in this way, and the strongest comments on the matter came from SEPA. It is disappointing that those concerns have not been addressed in the bill and there has been such reluctance on the Government’s part to take a stronger lead on the issue. Although the minister has given a commitment to review the success or otherwise of the SSPO proposals on sea lice data publication, it is not clear how that success will be judged. He might want to give an indication of that in his closing remarks.
It is crucial that the right level of regulation is in place for the sector. No one in the debate today wants regulation that would damage the industry, but there have been calls for proportionate regulation that protects consumer confidence, in recognition of the fact that across our food chain there is—perhaps now more than ever—a need for transparency and robust governance.
I call Paul Wheelhouse to wind up the debate. You have five minutes, minister.
17:11
I will try my best, Presiding Officer.
I thank all members for their contributions to today’s debate. One thing that I did not mention earlier but which I would like to mention is that I came to the post late in the pre-legislative stage of the bill, and I thank Stewart Stevenson for all his early work in his ministerial capacity. The road that we have travelled since then has not been without its challenges. There have been occasions on which the debate has been less constructive, as the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee noted in its stage 1 report.
The bill provides us with the legislative tools to ensure that farmed and wild fisheries and their interactions with each other continue to be managed effectively, maximising their combined contribution to supporting economic growth but, crucially, with due regard to the wider marine environment. The bill also provides a foundation on which to move forward and better manage our relationships and build trust.
The refreshed ministerial group on sustainable aquaculture has engaged the minds of our stakeholders, and there is a tide of optimism that proactive activity will take place over the coming months and years. Members of the MGSA helped to inform many of the provisions that we have debated in the past few months. The group met for the first time a couple of weeks ago, as I said earlier, and everyone is keen to look forward and not back. They recognise the need to address any negative perceptions that may have emerged, and there is also genuine acceptance that the debate has often excluded the many positive activities that take place. It is important that we do not lose sight of the many good examples of local engagement that already exist.
Improved governance arrangements for our fisheries boards and enhanced salmon management through the bill, coupled with the planned fisheries management review, will bring many opportunities. I encourage all our stakeholders to reflect on how they might better promote those and other positive examples of their work. As I speak here today, I am confident in saying that the bill is proportionate and strikes the right balance.
Time forbids me from saying too much, but I would like to turn to a few points that were made in the debate. Important points were made on carcass tagging by both Angus MacDonald and Alex Fergusson, who sought clarity about the timescales that are involved. The consultation will run for the standard 12-week period, and we will look to run it in parallel with the notification to the EU. The EU approval timetable is for the EU to determine, of course. It can be up to 18 months, but only if the EU has issues with what is proposed. I hope that it will be faster than that.
Rob Gibson made an important point about the potential for GM feed to get into the food chain. The Government intends to bring forward a debate as soon as possible after the summer recess to assess food authenticity and food labelling in recognition of the issue that the member has raised. I welcome his support for the management review that we propose as phase 2 of this important development of the wild fisheries and aquaculture sector.
Jamie McGrigor asked what evidence we have to demonstrate why transparency is a risk. I recognise that the point that Graeme Dey made is open to challenge from others because more than one factor is involved, but it indicated that publication of sea lice data damaged the Irish aquaculture sector. However, I will certainly look more closely at that.
On the measures that we have discussed today, I recognise that some people have reservations about the approach that we have taken to the voluntary reporting of data. Those reservations were evident in the earlier debate. However, I sincerely believe that encouraging the voluntary sharing of information—not just in the context of sea lice—along with appropriate explanatory text, is the right way forward. To repeat what I said previously, we will not seek to legislate where we do not need to, and I believe that this is an example of that. It is clearly for others to demonstrate that the Government’s support for voluntary measures has been well placed—I think that we all know who I mean. Equally clear is our existing ability to progress through secondary legislation if the voluntary approach does not work as expected.
Claire Baker raised the issue of how we will test whether the approach has worked. The publication of data will show us that, because if there is a persistent pattern of sea lice infestations in fish farms across Scotland, we will know that the approach is not working to drive down the numbers. I will certainly keep her informed on what we are doing in that regard.
I was pleased to support the amendments that Jim Hume lodged in relation to training on equipment that is used in fish farming. I thank him for his willingness to engage on the drafting and for the opportunity to explore what might best deliver a result on which we could all agree.
I want to end the debate on a really positive note. Everyone here recognises the enormous benefits to Scotland and the people of Scotland of successful and thriving aquaculture and wild fisheries sectors that can develop. The improved governance arrangements for our fishery boards and enhanced salmon management through the bill, coupled with the planned fisheries management group, will bring many opportunities. I therefore encourage all stakeholders to reflect on how they might better promote those. Now is the time to look forward, to be positive and to begin to build relationships that allow us to prosper in future. We have a clear implementation plan. There is much to do and the bill provides the foundations for that. I ask the Parliament to agree that the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I thank all members for their co-operation in what was a very short space of time.