Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 18, 2000

Official Report 637KB pdf

---

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-852, in the name of Tavish Scott, on the general principles of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Bill.

I am pleased to be able to move the motion for stage 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Bill here in Glasgow. I would like to start by thanking all those who have assisted me in preparing and lodging this bill. In particular, I thank those in my own office and MSPs from all parties who have supported this measure, many of whom are in the chamber this afternoon, and without whom this bill would not have reached this stage.

I would also like to thank the clerks, who were of great assistance in drafting the bill—although, effectively, it is but two sentences—and in providing guidance on procedure. I also appreciate the work of the members of the Rural Affairs Committee, many of whom are here. Their report helped me in my consideration of the measure. I should mention their tight schedule. The committee has a particularly heavy work load at this time, and it produced the report with minimum delay.

I would like to set on record the encouragement that I have been given by the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers and by its chairman, Doug McLeod. Its members watched with frustration when an earlier version of this bill fell in Westminster, tripped up by a procedural hurdle, despite the best efforts of Jim Wallace MP and Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish. The association had the vision to see that our new Scottish Parliament could deal not only with the great issues of the day, but with such small, but nevertheless important, matters.

My bill is a simple, straightforward measure that seeks to remove an avoidable source of conflict between shellfish farmers and creel fishermen. The two can happily exist side by side, but have been forced into a position of rivalry by the terms of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. Under the act, a shellfish farmer wishing to control an area of sea bed on which to farm his scallops or whatever can apply for a several fisheries order. However, the terms of the act mean that, should the farmer be successful in his application, the order issued will ban most fishing operations in his area in order to protect his stock.

The problem is that the prohibition covers such fishing activities as fishing with creels, even though that would not damage the farmer's scallops. That means that, for a farmer to be successful, creel fishermen may well be banned from fishing in areas in which they have fished for generations. Not surprisingly, that leads to conflict, and applications for several fisheries orders have met with considerable opposition.

I am sure that those who drafted the 1967 act did not wish to create what is an entirely unnecessary conflict, but the drafting ensured that that happened. This bill therefore aims to amend the 1967 act to allow several fisheries orders to be drafted so that fishing with specified non-destructive equipment such as creels can continue.

The problem with the 1967 act was first discovered about 10 years ago, when an application for a several fisheries order in Loch Crinan ran into opposition over exactly this problem. An examination of the act found that the secretary of state could not issue an order which permitted creeling. The result was an unnecessary public inquiry. When the order was eventually issued, the creel fishermen lost an area that they had traditionally fished.

Since then, other applications have run into similar problems, once in Loch Ewe and three times in the area of sea between Skye and Raasay, in the constituency of my colleague John Farquhar Munro. Those applications were all eventually successful, but the applicants had to face the cost of arguing their case at public inquiry and the long delays in the issue of the orders. Yet again, creel fishermen lost out for no reason other than the wording of an act. That is the unnecessary conflict that this bill seeks to avoid.

I welcome the Rural Affairs Committee's support for this bill in its report. I note that all 16 of the organisations that responded to the consultation exercise supported the bill. It is notable that they included fishermen's associations, which have generally not been favourably inclined towards the issuing of several orders, and which will presumably continue to oppose them in areas where their members dredge for scallops. They nevertheless recognise that this bill would remove a source of conflict for those of their members who fish with creels.

I note the committee's recommendation that the Executive should consider amending existing orders if this bill is passed. I commend this recommendation to the Executive. While I am not normally in favour of retrospective legislation, I would be happy to accept at stage 2 suitable amendments permitting that, provided that any amendments to existing orders were carried out with the full agreement of the shellfish farmers holding the orders and with the full consultation of local fishermen. I welcome the minister's views on the matter.

I will set out my perspective on the role of various fishing orders in the wider area of fisheries management. I believe that fishermen recognise that our shellfish stocks need to be better managed and that this management is best controlled by those with an interest in the continued health of the stocks: the fishermen and those who buy and process their catch. I am delighted that Shetland has led the way with a successful promotion of a regulating order for fisheries that puts the control of the shellfish fishing around Shetland into the hands of local management organisations. I am pleased that the Executive has supported that and other initiatives to introduce regulating orders in Orkney and down the west coast of Scotland.

I am sure that the minister will ensure that when Parliament debates the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, particularly the marine parks section of the bill, the Executive will not, on one hand, support a measure that reduces conflict and, on the other hand, establish a mechanism, albeit unwittingly, that could create difficulties. I am sure that, in the spirit of joined-up government, discussions will be going on across departments to ensure that sensitivities are recognised and that no such problems will emerge.

Several fisheries orders can fit in with regulated fisheries orders by setting aside areas for controlled farming of shellfish for commercial or re-stocking purposes. The future that I want will include carefully controlled management of our seas, with a large input from the people who understand those areas—local fishermen, fish farmers and shellfish farmers. The bill aims to remove an unintentional barrier to the smooth and effective management of our coasts and seas.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Bill.

I congratulate Mr Scott on the introduction of his member's bill. The Executive is pleased to support the bill, which will assist not only those interested in developing several orders but also those fishermen who will be given access to several order sites using gear that is appropriate and non-damaging to the sites.

Perhaps I should explain the meaning of the term "several order". It does not, as members might suppose, mean a number of orders; it means an order which has the effect of severing the right to fish for shellfish in a designated area of water from the general right to fish in the sea. The orders confer rights to named fishermen to cultivate and take certain species of shellfish in designated areas. We believe that appropriate several orders can help to develop and expand the Scottish shellfish industry.

As Mr Scott reminded the Parliament, similar bills were presented in Westminster in 1998 and 1999 and had widespread support but were obstructed by certain unmentionable members of Parliament. I will not embarrass the Tory party by naming names. This is the first piece of legislation to be initiated in Glasgow, so it is appropriate that the bill has particular relevance to the west coast of Scotland. I trust that the Scottish Parliament will be able to support the specific requirements of shellfish producers there by delivering this bill after those setbacks at Westminster

The bill is consistent with the Executive's general approach to fisheries management. We have demonstrated our strong commitment to the interests of Scottish fishermen. We are working hard to protect Scottish interests in the European Union, not least in the vital area of the forthcoming review of the common fisheries policy.

The Executive is also committed to greater local involvement in fisheries management. We have worked with local interests already to deliver local management of shellfish in Shetland through the Shetland regulating order. I welcome the comments that Tavish Scott made on that. We are practising what we preach on close co-operation with local fishermen, by setting up the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group, to address issues that affect the inshore fleet.

Having participated in some meetings of that group—SIFAG, to those who are in the know—I appreciate that there can be conflict between the interests of different groups of fishermen. This bill should benefit both several order site operators and local fishermen. However, some issues are rather more complicated, such as the dispute between mobile and static gear operators in the Torridon area, which I heard about when I visited that part of Scotland a few months ago. That dispute has also been drawn to my attention by Rhoda Grant and John Farquhar Munro, whom I met when I visited his constituency. The rural affairs department has just received the socio-economic advice that was commissioned on that issue, and I hope to be able to make an announcement on it soon.

This bill will help local shellfish producers, mainly in the remote coastal communities of Scotland. Fishing for shellfish, either by traditional means or by farming, is recognised as an important and valuable sector of the Scottish fishing industry. With pressure on the main white fish species, and with concerns over many wild shellfish stocks, it is important that we do everything that we can to ensure the sustainability of shellfisheries. There is much scope for the development of shellfish farming in Scotland and we want to promote that development. Consumer demand for high-quality seafood is expected to continue to grow, and the Scottish industry can cultivate high-quality shellfish: that must be our objective.

The Scottish shellfish sector can offer opportunities for a valuable economic activity, particularly in economically fragile coastal communities, provided that it is managed in a sustainable manner. There have been well-publicised problems in the aquaculture industry in recent years, but the Executive is determined to work with the industry to achieve the highest standards. I regard that as a very high priority. The image and quality of Scottish shellfish depend on the quality of our sea water. Clean water is a key marketing factor in the promotion of our shellfish, and the Executive recently announced that 11 additional areas are to be designated under the EC Shellfish Waters Directive.

I am pleased to note that the Rural Affairs Committee's consultation has confirmed the unanimous support that exists for the general principles of the bill. I am also reassured by that committee's report that several orders are, in general, viewed in a favourable light, as facilitating the sustainable exploitation of coastal resources. The majority of respondents clearly welcome the amendment as a means of reducing unnecessary and avoidable conflict between the aquaculture and inshore fisheries sectors.

The Rural Affairs Committee made one recommendation about the possible retrospective application of the bill to existing several orders. It recommended that

"the Scottish Executive give serious consideration to the question of whether existing Orders should be amended if this proposed legislation is passed, in order to ensure consistency."

The committee noted that

"Orders may be granted for up to 60 years."

I understand the point about the risk of misunderstandings over the distinction between old and new orders, and I note what Tavish Scott said about that in his introductory speech. The Executive will consider that proposal seriously. However, the vast majority of existing orders have been granted for much shorter periods than 60 years, to allow review of the sustainability of the operations. The usual term for orders is 15 years, and existing orders can be varied only after public scrutiny—which was the point that Tavish Scott was worried about.

It is right that several orders should be subject to proper public scrutiny, and we are pleased that the Rural Affairs Committee has confirmed that it does not view this amendment as reducing the force of objections that mobile gear operators might have to particular several order applications. We do not expect the process of the public scrutiny of orders to change. I know that Tavish Scott has supported the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999, under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. Despite the fact that there were very few objections, we judged that a local public inquiry was needed there to consider the widest possible views. Minority and even individual interests must be taken into account.

The committee emphasised the need for a greater integration of aquaculture and inshore fisheries policy, and we have been addressing that point. Last year, we gave the inshore branch of our sea fisheries division in the rural affairs department the responsibility for assessing several order proposals.

I take the point that Tavish Scott raised about national parks. Certainly we want to avoid any unnecessary confusion in that area. Officials in my department and in other departments will pay attention to that.

The amendment has widespread, virtually universal, support, not only from creel fishermen but also from the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers, which represents a large proportion of the shellfish farming sector. It has described the bill as a win-win provision—I apologise for the cliché but it is legitimate in this case. That is how the Executive sees it and I am happy to confirm our support for Tavish Scott's bill. I again congratulate him on a legislative initiative that must be the first in Glasgow in modern history.

It is a pleasure to make my first speech in Glasgow. This is an unusual occasion because we have the fisheries spokespeople from all the parties and the Minister for Rural Affairs here. This is an uncontroversial fisheries matter, and we are all in agreement. I am not going to disrupt that.

In the first speech in the Parliament in Glasgow, by Wendy Alexander, she mentioned the former fish market and, quite appropriately, that there was once salmon fishing in the city. I congratulate Tavish Scott on the subject of his first member's bill—one of the first such bills in the Parliament. He is lucky to be put in such an historic position. In Glasgow lucky people are described as being able to fall into the Clyde and come out with a salmon in their pocket. Tavish may want to put that theory to the test later on. If he does, we will have to let The Shetland Times know so that someone can take a photo.

That this is one of the first members' bills highlights the importance attached to fishing by the Scottish Parliament. It has been the subject of many debates already and that is welcomed by the industry. We have had debates on amnesic shellfish poisoning, the fishing boundary, the European negotiations and infectious salmon anaemia, all in a matter of months. The Rural Affairs Committee has also spent a disproportionate amount of time on fishing. We have had three committee reports on fishing matters: on amnesic shellfish poisoning, on the boundary issue and the report on Tavish Scott's bill.

That we can move so quickly on an uncontroversial issue highlights the difference between the Westminster and Scottish parliaments. The Scottish Parliament is much more positive. We recognise the merits of a case, take out the politics and will push it through because it is sensible and the right thing to do, as opposed to the archaic, draconian, undemocratic events we see at Westminster time and time again when perfectly sensible private members' bills are put through their system. That happened on two occasions with similar bills to the bill before us.

The SNP unreservedly supports the bill. It is a very positive measure and we support any such measures to assist the inshore fisheries sector and shellfish farmers. At the moment they need assistance more than ever because of the difficulties facing the industry. The bill irons out anomalies in fishing legislation. There are many more anomalies that should be addressed but at least we are making a start.

I think I am the only member of the Rural Affairs Committee speaking in the debate. The committee spent some time looking into the proposal and found it very sensible. As Tavish Scott said, the committee consulted 40 organisations and those that responded were unanimous in their support for the bill. We had an e-mail just a couple of days ago from Doug McLeod, chairman of the ASSG, to say that, although he would not be present today,

"I shall be there in spirit! It's been many years along the road, to create this positive legislative flexibility and to reduce unnecessary friction between the fishing and aquaculture communities."

He said that he hoped that the bill

"passes with the all-party support it deserves",

which it will do.

I do not want to repeat too much of what has been said before. People have referred to the benefits that the bill will bring to creel fishermen, particularly on the west coast inshore fisheries, and to shellfish growers. As the minister said, it is a win-win situation. It will even save fishermen money, which I guess will be welcomed by the industry, as fewer public inquiries will arise as a result of conflicts.

The Rural Affairs Committee's report raised two issues to which Tavish Scott and the minister both referred. Members of the committee ask them to take those views on board. I am sure that, like the SNP, members of the Rural Affairs Committee will welcome the minister's statement that he will look into the idea of retrospective application of the bill. The bill is a welcome boost for the sea fisheries sector in Scotland and I am glad that ministers support this positive measure, which offers an opportunity to the industry.

However, with Tavish Scott's permission, I take this opportunity to mention a threat to the fishing industry—the multi-annual guidance programme mid-term review proposed by the European Commission. Tavish's bill may provide an opportunity, but that review is a threat on the horizon. I hope that ministers will take a positive attitude towards the review. The cuts in the Scottish fleet proposed by the Commission must not see the light of day, as they would be devastating for the industry. I see that the minister would like to intervene.

I am not sure that this has anything to do with the bill that we are debating but, as Richard Lochhead has raised the point, I am happy to confirm and reiterate the statement that has been issued by the Executive challenging the logic of the Commission's ideas on MAGP, which fail to take account of other measures taken to restrict the efforts of the Scottish fishing fleet. We shall resist those proposals very vigorously indeed.

I welcome the minister's comments. I close by saying that the SNP supports Tavish Scott and congratulates him on his bill, which is a positive measure for the industry. I hope that we will continue to deliver positive measures for the fishing industry in Scotland.

To answer John Home Robertson's jibe, every party has a few landlocked MPs hidden in its cupboards. I congratulate Tavish Scott on introducing this extremely sensible amendment bill, which will go a long way to righting an old wrong and is a big step towards creating greater harmony between traditional fishermen and aquaculturists in Scotland.

Quite naturally, there is always opposition when people are no longer allowed to practise what they have deemed to be their right for centuries. When a new technology appears that is beneficial to the perpetrators and, in this case, also to stocks of wild shellfish in surrounding areas, sometimes it cuts across the traditional rights and practices that have been adhered to in the past. Recently, we have all been made aware of the importance of the scallop industry, because of the unfortunate occurrences of amnesic shellfish poisoning that have plagued the industry for more than a year. The losses to fishermen and fish farmers have been enormous and they have received no compensation whatsoever.

Although the restrictions in many areas have now been lifted, there is the strong possibility that those toxic algal blooms will appear again as the water warms. I call again for a different testing regime that will allow processors to attempt to rid the shellfish of any toxins before they go on to the market and into the food chain. At least that would keep the industry alive and allow the boats to go on fishing.

Regarding the explanation of and reasons for the amendment bill, I do not intend to repeat what has been said today and written in the excellent and concise research note produced by the Scottish Parliament information centre. I only wish to add that I myself was once a part-time lobster fisherman on the island of Coll, and I know how pleased the small coastal fishermen will be with the bill.

I have one caveat. I do not consider it absolutely necessary that an implement requires to be specified in an order. Any implement that does not cause damage, or is used in such a way as not to cause damage, should be permitted, as that would allow for implements not yet invented to be permitted without the necessity of producing a new order.

I am also slightly unhappy about the definition of use. The meaning of the words "not to" is unclear. In my view, that part of section 1 should read either "so used in a manner as to not", or "so used as shall be calculated not to". The first test is absolute, so that whatever the intention of the implement, if it causes damage, an offence is committed. The second gives a defence that there was no intention to cause damage. In the interests of justice, the second definition seems better, because the effects of the implement cannot be seen once it disappears towards the bottom of the sea, where it may cause damage when it lands.

I will expand more on the need for greater harmony between aquaculturists of all descriptions and traditional fishermen, as undoubtedly there are other areas of conflict, which, in my view, could be at least lessened by more diplomatic approaches. Fishermen object to several orders in principle, as they do not like the idea of ownership of the sea bed being put into private hands, unless for scientific, conservation or experimental purposes in the interests of the fishing industry. The argument that money could be generated from a cordoned-off area has always been countered by the claim that livelihoods had also been made from the same areas when they were open to traditional fishing methods, which is a difficult case to argue or prove.

Another bone of contention is that the areas protected by several orders often block off large areas to traditional fishermen, who have to travel across those areas to reach fishing grounds in which they can fish legally. That means added expenditure of time and fuel for creel fishermen as well as for trawlers and dredgers.

Public inquiries were held in Crinan and Portree, where it was stated that the applicant for the several order would have no objection to creel fishing, as the catching of predators such as lobsters and crabs would be beneficial to the scallop beds. Under the chairmanship of Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, the Seafish Industry Authority actively encouraged creel fishing on its site in Loch Ewe. Once this amending bill is passed, any future objections will have to be based on trawling and dredging methodology. It would be inappropriate to try to secure a several order on ground that was fished heavily by those methods, as that would meet with great opposition from fishermen.

To avoid conflict between fishermen and growers, I believe that there should be a code of practice and a better consultation system, as the present system is distinctly inadequate and can prove expensive to objectors and applicants alike. At present, when objections are received and a public inquiry is mounted, if the recorder finds that the objections were frivolous, the objectors carry the costs. Objectors and applicants should be invited to try to resolve matters at meetings. Consultation between the interested parties is the key. The fishermen can suggest alternative sites, a solution that has been achieved quite often between fishermen and sea cage salmon farmers in recent years.

I will give an example of good practice. A recent applicant for a several order in the summer isles consulted the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association for advice. The result of that diplomacy may have meant support for the applicant from the very people who would most certainly have objected under normal circumstances. Good sites for salmon growers can be found in ground that is unsuitable for trawlers. The inland sheltered sea lochs of Scotland's west coast will doubtless have more several orders granted without objection as a result of this amending bill, and other types of acquaculture, such as salmon farming, flourish in those sea lochs. I will spend a moment on that point, as it is important.

The Scottish farmed salmon industry is the third largest in the world. Not only does it support a large number of jobs in remote rural areas, but the salmon produced are noted worldwide as being of the highest quality. France has given that product the label rouge, which is the highest acclaim for a food product and is not given lightly. Unfortunately, conflict has arisen over suspected damage to the wild salmon and sea trout runs, which are of great importance to the angling fraternity and to the Scottish tourist industry.

Please wind up.

I am sure that the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs is aware of the recent impact survey of the western isles, which showed that sport fishing brought some £5 million a year into the local economy and supported 260 jobs in that area alone. In order to have a fishery, there must be a reliable surplus of the fish stock that is being exploited. Stocks of salmon and sea trout have dwindled and declined dangerously. It would be tragic if Scotland lost this wild sea trout and salmon fishery, which has been so valuable and important for centuries.

Wind up, please.

May I have one more minute, please?

No. Come to a close, please.

I will wind up.

The contentious matter seems to be that there could be large escapes of farm stock that is infected with the sea louse that harms wild migrating salmon and sea trout smolts. That would spread disease and harm the gene pool of wild stock if interbreeding occurred. The effluent that falls from sea cages could cause pollution.

I have been made very aware of those problems in the Highlands and Islands and I am sure that the minister will acknowledge the problem. I would also like to know how near is the tripartite group to solving the problems between the interested parties.

I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for calling me to speak and I thank Jamie McGrigor for plundering half of my allotted time.

Mr McGrigor covered all aspects of the fishing industry very well, as did my colleague Richard Lochhead. I am pleased to support Tavish Scott in his efforts to promote the bill. I am sure that it will have great benefits to fishing communities, with regard not only to their sustainability and viability, but to the preservation, conservation and quality of fish stocks. That quality will, at the end of the day, be reflected in the prices of fish.

From where I sit on the west coast, I can see that we will have far more co-operation and harmony between the various sections of the fishing industry if the legislation is implemented. The restrictions that it was assumed would be imposed by the fisheries orders seemed, in the past, to generate aggression.

I need tell no one here that the shellfish industry in the past few years—especially last year—has been almost wiped out because of restrictions that were imposed to deal with amnesic shellfish poisoning caused by consumption of fish that had, in turn, consumed the algal bloom. I am, however, reliably informed that the algal bloom is appearing on the west coast of Scotland in some of our inland lochs.

The problem has been that, where there has been no regulatory order and application is made to introduce one, the habit of the fishing community that will be excluded by such an order has been to object to it. That has been for no good reason other than that that community imagines that it will lose its source of income on the loch that the order applies to. We should not merely satisfy their aspirations and desires, but demonstrate that a regulatory order would be to their advantage and to the benefit of everyone.

In my area around the Sound of Sleat, there has almost been trench warfare between the shell fishermen and the creel fishermen and other more invasive fishers. When the shell fishermen have laid down beds of scallops and other shellfish, they object strongly to any other type of fishing being carried out within the boundaries of their fishery. Tavish Scott's bill proposes co-operation and harmony that will demonstrate to the creel fishermen and other invasive fishers that they have nothing to lose by supporting the application of regulatory orders. I am pleased to rise in support of the bill as proposed by my colleague.

There is still too much ambient noise and it is extremely difficult to hear speeches from the chair.

I am glad to support the bill and to congratulate Tavish Scott on introducing it. It is possibly the least contentious bill the Rural Affairs Committee has had to deal with. The length of the debate does not reflect the importance of the bill, but it is difficult to fill several hours of debate with people saying, "This is a good thing."

When carrying out its consultation, the Rural Affairs Committee received responses from many organisations on the subject of several orders. They are contentious, but they are not what we are considering today. What we are considering is an amendment to legislation that would allow aquaculture and inshore fishermen to work together. Previously there was conflict between anyone who wanted to set up a shellfish farm—for which they required a several order—and local fishermen. The order prohibited any fishing taking place around the farm, regardless of whether it would cause damage. This bill would permit non-damaging fishing, allowing the fishing community to work together.

As Tavish Scott said, the bill was introduced at Westminster but was unsuccessful—not because there was a problem with it, but because it is extremely difficult to take a private member's bill through Westminster. That highlights the benefits of the Scottish Parliament to small sectors in Scotland. Because of the small number of people affected by it, this bill would never have found its way into the Westminster Government's legislative programme; the same may be true of the Executive's programme.

The procedures of this Parliament, however, make it easier for a member's bill to become law. I hope that this bill, if not the first, will be one of the first to be passed. That would show that this Parliament is accessible to all sectors of society, even those that do not have the backing of large organisations. That is especially true of the community from which I come and about which John Home Robertson spoke earlier, on Loch Torridon.

I suggest that those who say that the Parliament is not working or making a difference speak to the small communities affected by this bill. Only a Scottish Parliament could take it forward. We must continue along that road. While looking at the big picture, we must never forget the issues that affect smaller sections of our communities.

As I have said before, the Executive has taken the lead in empowering fishing communities. Shetland now manages its fishery locally and I hope that that will be extended to other areas of Scotland. By introducing legislation that helps people to make decisions at local level, we can empower communities. We must remember that one size does not fit all.

In the e-mail to which Richard Lochhead referred, Doug MacLeod finished by saying:

"I hope all goes well, and the Bill passes with the all-party support it deserves."

I hope so too. I urge all members to support the bill.

I call Tavish Scott to wind up the debate.

I would like briefly to deal with the points that members have made. I take Rhoda Grant's point about people standing up and saying, "This is a good measure," although I thought that that was what coalition back benchers had to do every day.

I am grateful to all the parties, across the political spectrum, that have expressed support for this measure. In his opening remarks, the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs not only expressed the Executive's support for the bill, for which I am grateful, but defined what a several order is, which will be helpful, at least to those who read the Official Report tomorrow, for future occasions.

The minister mentioned the increased role of fisheries management in a local sense, which is an important theme in fisheries management today across Scotland. I welcome his commitment in that area.

Rightly, the minister pointed out the problems of mobile and static equipment that is not addressed by the bill. I do not ignore those problems—they will have to be dealt with—but I believe that the bill goes some way towards addressing the overall issues.

The point that the minister made about marketing and the quality of the product was also important. I hope that, indirectly, this measure will help in that area.

In particular, the bill would bring benefits to rural and isolated areas of Scotland. In that sense, as Rhoda Grant said, it shows the relevance of this Parliament to what is happening across our community, not just in certain parts of it.

I take the minister's point about retrospective legislation and welcome his commitment that the Executive will consider that point. The Rural Affairs Committee will also have a chance to consider it further. I also welcome what was said about the regulating order in Shetland, which fits in with the overall theme of local management of fisheries, to which the Executive parties are committed.

I thank Richard Lochhead for the support he expressed on behalf of the SNP. Richard made a remark about salmon in my pocket. I am usually accused of being in the pocket of the salmon farmers. However, I take that point on board, as well as what he said about the ability to deal with measures quickly and effectively in this place, as compared with Westminster. Other colleagues made the same point.

Richard Lochhead referred briefly to the multi-annual guidance programme, which showed an interesting ability to move directly or indirectly off the point. The minister's response on that issue was important; I hope that Parliament will note that and take it seriously, because the issue will be important over the coming weeks.

I thank Jamie McGrigor for his support—and that of his party. There is only so much to talk about on a two-line bill. Jamie McGrigor—like Richard Lochhead—managed, quite rightly, to find other issues to talk about, in particular the testing regime. Mr McGrigor had concerns about some of the wording. I recognise where he is coming from on the representations that were made by the Clyde Fishermen's Association in its evidence to the Rural Affairs Committee. The committee will come back to those points at stage 2. Consideration could be given to modern developments in fishing and aquaculture techniques—that is a fair point—but there was only one representation on that, despite the 16 other representations that were received. The committee will have to weigh that in the balance at stage 2.

Jamie McGrigor also made good and relevant points about conflict resolution, in particular with regard to the summer isles, which was the example he used.

I thank my colleague John Farquhar Munro for his support. He raised an important point about co-operation between the various sectors of the industry and mentioned the objections procedure that has caused so many problems in the past; he used the example of the Sound of Sleat. He also spoke of the role that can be played by the regulating orders that he sees in his part of Scotland.

I also thank Rhoda Grant for pointing out, again, that the bill is not contentious and that we can make a difference in Scotland when it is not possible to do this at Westminster.

The bill, although simple, can prove that the Parliament works for all the communities of Scotland. In that sense, I am very grateful for the support from across the chamber this afternoon.