Infectious Salmon Anaemia
The next item of business is a statement by Mr John Home Robertson on salmon anaemia. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement. There should therefore be no interventions.
I shall make a statement on infectious salmon anaemia, known as ISA for short.
Scotland is the home of the Atlantic salmon. Wild salmon are important for tourism in Scotland, and Scotland has the biggest salmon farming industry in the European Union, worth about £500 million to our rural economy and sustaining about 6,500 jobs. I am sure that all members will agree that we must do everything possible to protect those valuable resources.
ISA is a contagious viral disease that affects salmon in seawater. Other species are known to be capable of carrying the virus without ever developing the disease. The disease was first identified in Norway in 1984, outbreaks were reported in Canada in 1996 and the first Scottish case occurred in May 1998.
Under EU legislation, the disease is regarded as exotic to EU waters. Immediate clearance of fish is required when the disease is confirmed and a raft of controls is put in place when the disease is suspected. Those include movement restrictions on fish, equipment, material and personnel, the disinfection of nets, and fallowing. Zones are created around suspect and confirmed sites and broadly similar controls are applied to non-infected farms located in those zones, depending on the assessment of risk.
At present, there are 11 confirmed and 24 suspect sites, representing roughly 10 per cent of the total number of fish farms. The disease is confirmed where there is a combination of laboratory findings and clinical signs—in other words, where the fish show physical signs of the disease. It is important to recognise that the presence of the virus, which may give grounds for designating a site as suspicious, does not automatically mean that the disease will develop clinically. Only one in three sites declared suspicious have subsequently been confirmed as having the disease.
In November, I announced that the virus had been detected in wild fish for the first time. Virus had been isolated in three cases—two sea trout and one eel. Other laboratory tests provided evidence that the virus may also have been present in brown and rainbow trout and in salmon parr in freshwater in the Conon, in the Tweed and on farms in Aberdeenshire and Kinross-shire.
For those among us who are not scientists, it is important to realise that it is only where the virus is isolated that we can be certain that it is ISA, whereas other screening tests can reveal the presence of a virus that may or may not be ISA. In those cases further confirmatory tests are necessary.
It is important to recognise the limited nature of the evidence surrounding wild fish. It is equally important to recognise that investigations into the latest suspected outbreaks on farms in the western isles and in Orkney, also announced last month, are not yet complete. The apparent lack of site contact with other ISA affected farms and the evidence of virus in wild fish, however limited, could suggest the possibility of a wider prevalence of the virus in the farmed and wild environment than previously thought.
Claims of spread from fish farming to the wild are not supported by any current evidence. The three isolates that I have mentioned were from fish in areas where there are fish farms, but that may be pure coincidence. The possible cases on the east coast are a very long way from fish farming sites.
More work clearly needs to be done. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has agreed to carry out tests in wild fish south of the border. More intensive wild fish surveillance will be conducted in Scotland in the new year and further work on verifying the possible presence of ISA in freshwater is being carried out by the Fisheries Research Services agency in Aberdeen.
We have carried out a comprehensive review of current controls in the light of new circumstances. Central to that review has been the conviction, shared by the industry, that ISA is a pernicious disease and that everything possible should be done to prevent it and to stamp it out where it occurs.
I have decided to take the following action. First, controls on confirmed sites will continue. However, in the light of experience, we believe that greater flexibility in handling the clearance of fish is desirable. We have therefore submitted proposals to the European Commission. The Commission is supporting our initiative and I expect to report the outcome early next year.
Secondly, again in the light of experience, we believe that there is a case for reviewing the criteria for how and when suspect sites should be designated. We will discuss that matter with the Commission, and I can announce the introduction
of more flexible fallowing arrangements in relation to suspect sites.
Thirdly, after careful consideration, we can make adjustments to the requirements that apply to noninfected farms in zones around confirmed and suspect sites. Two thirds of our fish farms have been subject to those restrictions, which were applied on a precautionary basis. I have decided that such farms will be subject only to requirements for permission to move fish, because fish have been identified as the main vector for spreading ISA. Again, we are introducing greater flexibility for fallowing in those non-infected sites.
The details of these proposals are inevitably somewhat technical, and will be made available in the Scottish Parliament information centre.
Our scientists in the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen are still working hard on this extremely important and difficult problem. I am grateful for the advice and co-operation that we are receiving from the European Commission, as well as from Norway and Canada. The measures that I have announced today are completely consistent with our overriding objective of getting rid of ISA. I will keep this Parliament informed about developments.
I welcome the minister's statement, although it is long overdue.
Why has there been such a lengthy delay in introducing flexibility into the Government's policy, which can only be described as heavy-handed and cack-handed? Why has it taken nearly half a year and the slaughter of millions of healthy fish to bring the minister to his senses and make him realise that his policy is untenable? Why has it taken so long to initiate intensive wild fish surveillance, when the incidence of ISA in wild fish has fundamental ramifications for the Government's policy? Does it remain the Government's policy to slaughter healthy fish, and what assistance will be given to the industry to help it to meet the costs incurred by the Government's policy?
Science takes time—the techniques for isolating and diagnosing the virus are complicated. It is important that we take decisions based on good science, rather than on media politics. That is why it has taken time to introduce flexibility. I waited until I had the best advice that I could get from the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen.
Mr Lochhead should not lose sight of the need to safeguard wild fish. If, because of political pressure from the industry, we had simply agreed to relax restrictions early on, we might have been taking risks with a valuable resource. I am not prepared to do that.
The slaughter policy will not apply to healthy fish. That is one of the flexibility points that I am announcing today. Slaughter, disposal and destruction apply to infected fish. Under the flexibility that I am announcing today, we should be in a position to allow farmers to market healthy fish that do not have symptoms and are not diseased.
ISA has imposed a major burden on affected farms. To what extent do today's measures provide relief for an industry that is a major contributor to the rural economy?
On the basis of the science and the good advice that we have had from the Marine Laboratory, we are in a position to introduce more flexible controls, which should help the industry in a number of ways. It will be possible for healthy fish to be marketed and the controls on fallowing areas are being adjusted to take account of the identification of more precise circumstances. I hope that it may be possible, given the new circumstances, for the industry to consider commercial insurance against this disease. All those measures should be helpful to an industry that is important to some of the remotest areas in the Highlands and Islands.
I welcome the minister's statement, but does he agree—or does he know—that the slaughter of stocks without compensation may be a fundamental breach of property rights, as enshrined in the European convention on human rights, which is incorporated in the Scotland Act 1998? Will the Government offer any compensation to those farmers who have been forced to slaughter their stock on suspicion of ISA, only to find that there is no evidence to support the claim?
Does the minister realise that in Norway, where ISA has existed for 15 years, the disease is dealt with case by case and only directly affected salmon are slaughtered? In that way, the incidence of the disease in Norway has been reduced from more than 150 outbreaks in the early 1990s to only two this year, whereas in Scotland, despite the wholesale slaughter policy, the number of outbreaks appears to be on the increase.
Does the minister agree that the compulsory slaughter policy should be ended and a different, comprehensive system should be introduced? We should establish a code of best practice in aquaculture hygiene and management to minimise the incidence and spread of the disease. We should remove the ban on vaccines and encourage further development of effective vaccines. Is the minister aware, for example, that in Canada—
On a point of order. This is a speech, not a question.
Yes. Mr McGrigor must come to a conclusion.
To sum up, we should introduce—[Laughter.]
You must sum up with a question.
Does the minister agree that we should introduce a compensation system for affected fish farms, either through insurance- based schemes or on a co-financing basis, funded by the Commission and the UK Government?
Mr McGrigor asked a lot of questions. Sorry, I will rephrase that—he made a lot of points.
The fundamental point is that no one wants to have to live with this disease; it would be infinitely better if the disease could be prevented and, indeed, eradicated. We are addressing the current situation, but we are bound by EU rules. As those rules stand, ISA is an exotic category list 1 disease, which until recently was not present in EU waters. That is why the tough rules are in place. In light of the new circumstances, we are making proposals to the EU for a more flexible approach. That approach will maintain our position of wanting to minimise the risk of the disease and to get rid of it wherever it crops up, while safeguarding a very important industry in the remotest areas of Scotland. We are liaising with the Norwegians and learning from their experience.
Mr McGrigor referred to vaccines. One of our proposals to the EU is that, instead of a blanket ban on ISA vaccines, we would be prepared to consider vaccines, although it will take time for the pharmaceutical companies to come up with such products.
On compensation, it is in the industry's interests that ISA should be defeated; that is why the controls are in place. It would not be appropriate to compensate in those circumstances, even though we understand that a number of fish farming companies have been very hard hit by the effects of ISA. That is why we have made extra funding of £9 million available to Highlands and Islands Enterprise to enable it to assist companies that have been affected by the controls.
I have two points—
Questions please, Mr Rumbles.
I have two questions. First, will the minister confirm that he will consult industry representatives by sending officials from the
Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen to fish farms on the west coast and in the northern isles, to ensure that the disease is combated not only scientifically, but in the most effective way for the industry?
Secondly, the minister will not need me to remind him that his announcement last month— that the virus had been detected in wild fish for the first time—sent shock waves through those involved in the fishing industry and on many of our famous salmon rivers. In my constituency, I am meeting the Dee salmon fisheries board next month and I will want to be able to give assurances that that announcement will not impact on it unduly. Will the minister confirm that the claims of spread from fish farming to the wild are not supported by any current evidence or fact?
I can confirm that point straight away. There is no evidence that the disease has spread one way or the other at this stage. We may never find that out, but the scientists appear to have established that, in the three cases identified so far, wild fish have the virus. How that virus got to the wild stocks, or whether it had been there all along, remains to be seen. Some of the suspected cases in wild fish are on the east coast, including, for example, on the Tweed, which is a long way from the nearest fish farm. It would be a mistake to jump to conclusions.
Mr Rumbles mentioned the scientists. I am reluctant to impose any more work on the scientists at the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen. They have a lot on their plates because of different problems that have arisen recently, but it would be good if everybody involved had as much information as possible about the way in which the problem has been addressed so that we can tackle it more efficiently.
I would like to thank the minister—he has said a lot of good things today, which bring great relief. With hindsight, would not he agree that we were slow to examine the evidence from Norway? Before I left the European Parliament, the Norwegians proved with graphs that their policy of containment rather than slaughter was working. Although it is good that the minister has told us that there will be some compensation, I do not see why that should be regarded as special in view of the fact that the EU legislation umbrella provides for compensation. We need to know from Mr Home Robertson how the £3 million a year will be distributed. Will it reach the small men with small farms, many of whom have invested heavily in, for example, well boats?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and, having been in opposition for a long time, I am aware of its attractions when one is indulging in debates such as this. I do not have that advantage in this case.
I believe that eradication of ISA from Scottish waters, if it is possible, would from all points of view be infinitely preferable to containment. We might, however, be moving into a different set of circumstances, so the right thing to do is to act on the basis of good science, as with the measures that I have announced today.
Dr Ewing used the word "compensation"—we are not in the business of compensation. We are in the process of making funds available to Highlands and Islands Enterprise to enable it to help businesses that are affected by the consequences of this disease, or the suspicion that their stocks are affected by it. It will be up to HIE to apply its own criteria to assess which businesses are most deserving of support. It is better to leave that to HIE, which knows the Highlands and Islands better than I do.
I welcome the minister's announcement, but will he endeavour to secure the implementation of measures for the control of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia in farmed white fish? Those measures should, at least, be on a par with the measures announced today for ISA. Will he also endeavour to ensure that VHS in the marine environment is not classified as an exotic disease?
That is a separate issue, although I recognise that what Maureen Macmillan says is important. I will consider the specific proposals that she has suggested because I understand that the problems are of great concern to fish farmers.
I am sure that the industry will be grateful for the measures that have been announced today, but I would like to go back to a point that was raised by Mike Rumbles. What plans does the minister have to extend consultation with the industry, in light of the flexibility to which he has referred today?
We consult the industry all the time because it is so important in some of the remotest, most fragile areas in Scotland. Our decisions are driven by science, not by industry lobbying. That is in the interests of the industry. The industry has found some of the controls that existed in the past onerous and has challenged the necessity of some of them. The Executive has considered the situation in the light of good advice from our own scientists and from abroad. I am acting on that advice today. We will keep in touch with the industry at all times because I accept that there must be good liaison.
I thank the minister for his statement—he will be aware that the words that he utters in the chamber are important to the industry in terms of the commercial decisions that it takes every day.
The minister mentioned Norway and Canada. In his discussions with the Norwegians and the Canadians, would he reflect on the control regimes that they have in place? If implemented here, such a regime would allow the Scottish industry to compete on a level playing field in an international commodity market.
Will the minister clarify the terms of the adjustments to the requirements that apply to noninfected farms in the zones around confirmed and suspected sites? Will farms in such areas be able to take commercial decisions on restocking without restrictions, or will restrictions still be in place? If so, what will they be?
Will the minister accept that terminology is important? Words such as "suspicious" are extremely market unfriendly for the industry in terms of supermarkets and consumers in general. Will he consider the terminology when, as he intimated, he makes a further report to the chamber?
The details of the proposals that I am announcing will be available in the information centre. At present, there is a fallow zone, which affects sites that are known to be infected. That is surrounded by a high-risk area, which is in turn surrounded by a surveillance area that extends by a 40 km radius from the infected site. At the moment, control zones of one kind or another cover two thirds of Scotland's salmon farms. I am proposing that an infected area—an area within a tidal excursion area, or between 3 km and 7 km around an infected site—would still be designated and would be subject to exactly the same controls as is the case now.
Beyond that, there will be a surveillance area, which will cover two tidal excursions—between 6 km and 14 km around the infected site—and will be subject to movement controls, fallowing requirements and the rest of the controls. The details are available in the information centre. We are now able to do away with the much wider 40 km area. We have taken that decision in the light of science from the Marine Laboratory.
The minister mentioned the Tweed. Will he confirm my understanding that ISA—in fact, only traces of the virus—was discovered in only one of a batch of fry in one tributary of the Tweed? Will he also confirm that the alarm that has been raised about this should be taken in context? Is he aware of any research that shows that ISA has been prevalent within the environment of Scottish rivers before this latest understanding? Will he consider issuing an information leaflet, like the very good leaflet on gyrodactylus salaris, which was extremely helpful to proprietors, anglers and all other users?
I know that the member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is a keen angler and so naturally has an interest in these matters. As he rightly says, one salmon parr in one tributary of the Tweed gave a positive reading on one of the three tests. Either the immunofluorescent antibody test or the polymerase chain reaction test—I am not sure which—indicated the possible presence of the virus in that fish. It is not confirmed whether that fish had ISA, but it had one of the key indicators of ISA. When we get information such as that, we publish it. That is in everybody's interest. The positive reading may indicate that the virus is present in the wild. That is a matter on which we are doing more work, in Scotland and in England and Wales, to improve the science.
Euan Robson is right to say that nobody is suggesting that the disease is out in the wild and that nobody has ever heard of a wild fish with the clinical manifestation of the disease. However, a fish may not survive for long if it had the disease, so that may not tell us as much as we would like it to. I can confirm that there is no evidence of the disease existing in the wild.
I, too, welcome the minister's statement. May I press him further on what he means by flexibility, particularly in relation to suspect sites? I see from his statement that there is a clear understanding of what it means for sites that are confirmed and for those that are non-infected. However, there is no suggestion of what restrictions will be lifted. Will he recognise that one of the key concerns of the industry is that it continues to operate under unnecessary restrictions and that it is not on a level playing field with the industry in Europe?
I am grateful for the question, as it is helpful to get the facts out to the public. The facts are, of course, available in the Scottish Parliament information centre.
Farms where infection is confirmed will be subject to a six-month fallowing period. Farms where infection is suspected—where the disease has not been seen but the virus has been detected—will be subject to a fallowing period of between three and six months, with monthly inspections by scientists and inspectors. Farms that are not infected, within the narrow zone that I described earlier, will be subject to a six-week fallowing period. Farms in the surveillance area, which is a wide envelope around the infected areas, will also be subject to a six-week fallowing period.
Sixty-six salmon farms will be taken out of the restrictions that apply to them just now, which will mean that, instead of two thirds of our farms being affected, only half will be. I acknowledge, of course, that that is still too many.
I am glad that the minister referred to remote and fragile communities, as the salmon industry is the lifeblood of parts of my constituency. He referred to the money that had been given to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That is for the restart scheme. When will the scheme start? The industry is waiting for the answer.
I have met the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss the matter. There is a technical problem with getting clearance from the European Union on state aid but I am advised that that should happen early in the new year. Highlands and Islands Enterprise is already processing applications. The money is in place and we want to get it out to the people who need it as soon as possible.
I make no apology for quoting from a press release that was put out by a colleague of mine in the European Parliament. I happen to agree with it completely. He says:
"It is a matter of great concern to the aquaculture industry that the tabloid press continue to mis-represent ISA by using emotive terms like ‘fish aids' or even equating the disease to BSE in cattle."
Will the minister put out a statement to reassure the public that ISA is of no danger to human health?
I am keen to be helpful, but it is not always helpful for politicians to try to reassure consumers, even politicians such as Struan Stevenson, who, I presume, issued that press release.
I have been advised that the ISA virus is killed at temperatures higher than 26 deg C. Assuming that we are all alive in this chamber, our blood temperature is 37 deg C. It would follow from that that it is highly unlikely that the ISA virus will do us much damage.
That is as far as I want to go on the matter. Politicians' track record of talking down food scares is not very good. However, the idea that the ISA virus affects people seems a bit farfetched.
My question follows on from Jamie Stone's. Will the minister confirm that the financial package of support accorded to the salmon farming industry, on which he made a statement some weeks ago and which is being administered by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, does not require matching funding from the industry? If it does not, will he tell that to his colleagues in
Highlands and Islands Enterprise, who have taken a contrary view?
Disbursement of the money is up to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. There are some misunderstandings about the question of matching funding.
The original proposal on this package, which was discussed many months ago, mentioned a requirement on the industry for matching funding—in other words, a levy on the industry to match cash put in by the Scottish Executive to help to restart companies affected by ISA. Evidently, that was not realistic, because the industry was not in the position to fund a levy of that nature, so we have simply been putting the money, with no strings attached, in the direction of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, so that it can get on with running the scheme. That is not to say that we expect Highlands and Islands Enterprise to hand out 100 per cent grants. It is unusual for HIE to provide funding on that basis—the proportion might be 50 per cent, but it might be more or less.
Question, That the meeting be now adjourned until 2.30 pm today, put and agreed to.—[Patricia Ferguson.]
Meeting adjourned at 12:30.
On resuming—