Aquaculture
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2921, in the name of Michael Russell, on a fresh start for Scottish aquaculture.
I am very pleased to introduce the debate. I will start with some facts, if members will bear with me while I recite them—this is a bit of a litany, but they are worth remembering. In Scotland in 2007, we produced 130,000 tonnes of farmed salmon, and the figure is estimated to rise to about 136,000 tonnes this year. Farmed salmon is worth around £380 million, which is more than the value of our catching sector. We also produce about 7,500 tonnes of farmed rainbow trout, brown trout and sea trout, worth about £10 million, and smaller amounts of cod, halibut and Arctic char.
We have a highly successful shellfish sector in Scotland; we grow more than 5,000 tonnes, worth more than £5 million. Production is dominated by mussels and Pacific oysters, with small quantities of native oysters and queen and king scallops.
We are the largest producer of farmed salmon in the European Union and the third-largest producer in the world, behind Norway and Chile. In 2006, the value of all fish exports from Scotland, including aquaculture produce, was £425 million, which accounts for 61 per cent of all food exports.
Farmed salmon supports 1,195 direct jobs in salmon production and 3,733 full-time, part-time and seasonal jobs in salmon processing—a significant number. Even with today's dispiriting news from Inverness, the sector continues to operate well and the projections are good.
Production of trout and other fin fish supports an additional 247 jobs, with another 292 in processing, and shellfish production supports about 400 jobs. There are about 6,000 aquaculture jobs in total, most of which are in remote and coastal areas in the Highlands and Islands.
Scotland has a tremendously important aquaculture industry. The industry also makes a worldwide contribution. In 1980, only 9 per cent of the fish consumed throughout the world came from aquaculture; today, the figure is 43 per cent. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports that aquaculture is now seen as the only way to meet the increasing demand for seafood.
The quality of what we produce in Scotland is high. Scottish salmon has held the French Government's top quality award, the label rouge, since 1992, and was the first non-French food to receive that accolade. Scottish farmed salmon enjoys protected geographical indication status alongside Arbroath smokies, Parma ham and Scotch beef.
And black pudding.
Black pudding is soon to come, as Mr Peacock shouts from a sedentary position—perhaps he has had too much.
Aquaculture is a good-news story and we must build on our success. However, in the past year there have been difficulties that we have needed to overcome, and there are more difficulties ahead. I point particularly to the loss of the minimum intervention price, which we fought hard to maintain, but which was not maintained. People in the industry are working together, however, and there is every indication that that difficulty has been overcome. We have taken advantage of the change to re-establish a good relationship with Norway in particular. In my meeting with the Norwegian minister, Helga Pedersen, earlier this year, I agreed to develop a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, to share expertise and experience in areas of common interest in aquaculture.
We are moving ahead in a way that is underpinned by our ambitious vision for aquaculture in Scotland. We want a sustainable, ambitious, thriving, growing, diverse and profitable Scottish industry. We believe that Scotland's coastal waters provide excellent conditions for further growth in the fin-fish and shellfish farming industries.
When I opened the Scottish shellfish farming conference in Oban just a month ago, I discussed with delegates the potential for growth and expansion. The Scottish Government is committed to forward planning for the industry. Next spring, we will launch a new five-year framework for continued success and growth in the industry. The process of putting together the framework, branded a fresh start for Scottish aquaculture, has been inclusive, consultative and collaborative.
The Government is not the creator of the industry, but we recognise the important role that we can play in facilitating growth and development driven by the industry in co-operation with communities in rural Scotland.
Our fresh start proposals incorporate the industry's own seven-point plan for growth, which looks at a range of issues, including environmental ones. The consultation is now closed and although the responses are still being analysed, the early impression is that stakeholders broadly support the key themes that we have included in the framework: health; planning consents and sites; containment; markets, marketing and image; and finance. Our policy will be based around those themes.
Of course, we are also mindful of present challenges. I was struck by the questions that were asked during the previous item of business and the question that Tavish Scott asked the Deputy First Minister this morning about some of the threats to growth and small businesses. Aquaculture is a sector in which there have been financial threats aplenty in the past. The support of the banks is vital to the industry. Some of the stories that I have been hearing in recent weeks of unilateral changes in terms and conditions are very worrying indeed. The industry is vital for Scotland, so we have to ensure that it is helped forward in difficult times—and in good times, too. The support of the banks is important, and I am making that point to them. Provided that they give that support, we can have a profitable aquaculture sector in Scotland. We have included the sector in our economic recovery plan.
I am happy to say that the European fisheries fund opened to bids on 15 September. We face a challenge, which I am bringing forward today. By the end of the year, we will have money available for projects that are of the most strategic importance and which will have the biggest and most immediate impact on the industry's needs. Today, we published a new map of Scotland that shows for the first time the location of all the fin-fish and shellfish farms. We have a fantastic coastline but there is a need for strategic investment, and the European fisheries fund could help in that regard.
We are also helping by bringing forward further legislation. The marine bill will enhance planning and sustainability in Scottish aquaculture.
If we have a strategically sited industry—the new map shows that we have that, but we could do better—we can also develop what we need: an environmentally sensitive and socially responsive industry, which is extremely important.
The industry has been criticised as a bad neighbour that does not respect those among whom it lives. That needs not to be true if the industry is to go forward. The industry, the wild fish sector and the community must live in harmony. To date, I have been very pleased with the work of the tripartite working group, but I acknowledge that the wild fish sector continues to have concerns about the operation of the aquaculture sector. I am sure that we will hear about those concerns during the debate.
Of course, fish farming has some impact on wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout stocks. We know that along the west coast of Scotland a decline in wild stocks began before fish farming arrived and that stock recovery to date has been patchy. Some stocks, particularly of sea trout, are severely depleted. The reasons for that are complex and multifactoral. Fish farming might be one of the contributing factors, but it is not the only factor. Even so, the tripartite working group structure is designed to assist in those circumstances. I have pushed strongly and positively the working group's priorities.
This month, we launched a new inspection regime under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007, which will help to enforce the good practice that exists, supported by the industry itself.
We have worked very hard on—and, as many members know, I have put my support behind—achieving a dramatic reduction in escapes. In 2006, 204,749 fish were lost, and in 2007, 210,643 fish were lost. Those figures are absolutely unacceptable. I am glad to say that, in the year to date, the figure is 66,471. However, that is still too many and we will continue to drive the figure down, just as we will continue to ensure that problems of health and lice infestation are tackled effectively.
We have new regulation in place to encourage and ensure best practice. We have published the fish farm sites map. We are challenging the industry to optimise existing sites. We have developed a siting and database management tool. We are bringing forward funding under the EFF, having accelerated the opening of that programme to ensure that people take part. We have driven down the number of escapes and we have got through a difficult period in which the loss of the minimum import price at least rattled the industry. More than that, we have shown that we are behind the industry and the work that it wishes to do. We are also behind its economic impact, which is vital to Scotland, and to rural Scotland in particular.
For all those reasons, our aquaculture industry can do well and go on doing well. Even with the challenges on consumption in the domestic market, I am glad that the industry believes that production has not yet been affected and that opportunities lie ahead. The favourable dollar to pound exchange rate and the gaps in supply in the USA because of a drop in production in Chile, for example, provide opportunities at a time when some might think that threats were appearing. Indeed, the number of salmon servings that are consumed in the UK increased by 22 per cent from 179 million two years ago to 219 million this year.
For all those reasons, the debate is about a positive: the Government is taking positive action. It would be appropriate if that action were the subject of consensual debate and the Parliament's unanimous support.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the recent consultation, Scottish Aquaculture: A Fresh Start; supports the continued development of an ambitious, sustainable, thriving and growing Scottish aquaculture industry; recognises the economic importance of the industry to Scotland as a whole and many coastal communities in particular; supports efforts to advance the enviable international reputation of quality Scottish aquaculture products, built on high environmental standards and excellent health status when compared to competitor nations, and welcomes the engagement of the shellfish and finfish industries and other stakeholders in the development of the new Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture, to be published in spring 2009.
Quite a period of time is available in the debate. If any member feels particularly loquacious, they may find that we are relaxed about their taking up some time. I do not propose to set a time limit for speeches, unless any member threatens to take up all the available time.
I call Dr Elaine Murray. In theory, she has nine minutes, but we will be flexible with the time.
I was a bit puzzled by the timing of the debate, which takes place only two short weeks after the consultation closed. Consultation responses are to be made available in the Scottish Government's library within 20 days of the closing date, which was 5 November, and they will be published on the consultation web page next month. The timing makes it a bit difficult for non-Government members to have an overview of the responses, but I trust the minister's assertion that most stakeholders supported the new strategy's five principal objectives. I have managed to obtain some responses, but not the majority, unfortunately. That is a disadvantage, because I have been unable to form an impression as to whether or not there is consensus on the various minor issues that the Government's paper raises.
That said, the debate provides a useful opportunity to discuss an industry that contributes significantly and increasingly to the Scottish economy. As the minister said, Scotland is the second-largest producer of farmed Atlantic salmon in Europe and the third-largest salmon producer in the world—its global market share is about 10 per cent. Farmed salmon is estimated to be worth about £380 million a year—I would not repeat the figures unless we had a lot of time for the debate. Brown trout and sea trout are worth about £10 million a year, and shellfish are worth about £5 million a year.
As the minister said, aquaculture is particularly important to many remote rural and island communities, where it is the mainstay of employment opportunities for as much as a third of the workforce. In turn, that employment supports a range of local services and facilities.
Of course, aquaculture supports employment directly. Dumfries and Galloway has several active freshwater fish and shellfish farms. Some produce fish only for food, whereas others, such as Barony College's Carse of Ae fish farm, produce fish principally to restock local lochs and rivers. That supports the local angling economy and produces some fish for consumption. Barony College also provides qualifications in fish farming, which offer students good employment opportunities and enhance the industry's attractiveness as a career.
Aquaculture also supports employment indirectly through fish processing, to which the minister referred. Pinneys of Scotland in Annan, which is part of the multinational uniq, is the largest salmon processor in Scotland. It employs 700 people, of whom 80 are temporary Christmas staff. Pinneys of Scotland is the largest single-site private sector employer in Dumfries and Galloway. I am pleased to report that I have been assured that it uses 100 per cent Scottish salmon. Incidentally, it holds the royal warrant to supply smoked salmon to Her Majesty the Queen and, unsurprisingly, it has an extensive export business. It produces a range of seafood-based products, including fish ready meals—a Marks and Spencer fish ready meal is likely to have come from Pinneys of Annan.
However, the aquaculture industry has attracted criticism and concern, mainly on environmental issues. That is why a ministerial working group for aquaculture was set up during the first session of the Scottish Parliament. The working group consulted a wide group of stakeholders and issued proposals that were subject to consultation between December 2002 and February 2003. "A Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture" was published in March 2003, and all the 36 objectives in it have now been achieved.
After five years, and following the achievement of those objectives, it is timely that we are examining the issues that are pertinent now and building on the lessons that have been learned. However, having examined the previous strategic framework and the proposed renewed framework, I am of the opinion that the new one is more of a refreshed start than a fresh start—although I appreciate that fresh is always a desirable word to use in conjunction with fish.
The Labour Party will support the Government's motion. Our amendment is intended to be a positive addition that addresses some of the concerns that were expressed in consultation responses. One concern is that the various EU directives that have been, or are in the process of being, transposed into Scottish legislation should become part of an integrated and holistic framework for the aquaculture industry. The water framework directive was transposed through the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. It, the forthcoming marine bill, the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill, the proposed climate change bill and the aquaculture strategy are all part of an environmental jigsaw whose pieces need to fit together coherently. [Interruption.] There is a lot of muttering going on. I might have said something amusing that I have not picked up, but I can hear a lot of muttering in the background.
There is no doubt that decades of ignorance and carelessness have resulted in damage to the environment from human activity. Therefore, the objective must be not simply to prevent further damage to the environment but to enable the environment to recover. That will require difficult but unavoidable decisions about policy direction. Of course, a healthy marine ecosystem is also essential for the aquaculture industry.
The former Executive's sustainable development strategy, which was published in 2005, identified five guiding principles of sustainable development. Those included living within environmental limits and achieving a sustainable economy. As far as I am aware, the current Government has accepted that strategy, and I seek ministers' assurances that the renewed strategy for growing the aquaculture industry will accord with those principles. Furthermore, ministers must consider how the renewed strategy will integrate with the marine bill and developments in marine management. The foreword to the strategic framework of 2003 stated:
"aquaculture must grow sustainably if it is to continue to build on its success. That means it must develop in ways which can be accommodated within the overall capacity of the environment to sustain it."
That objective must lie at the heart of the renewed strategy.
The Government's motion refers to "high environmental standards". Scotland will not and should not compete at the cheap and cheerful end of any market. We must aspire to the highest quality, and nowhere more so than in relation to environmental standards. The aquaculture industry's interests do not necessarily have to be in conflict with environmental concerns. Like animal welfare, good environmental practice can be a positive sales attribute and can contribute to marketing and to the industry's image and attractiveness as a career.
The Conservative amendment rightly identifies potential conflict between the interests of the aquaculture industry and those of the angling industry, as well as the potential problems with interaction between farmed and wild fish stocks. The danger that Gyrodactylus salaris poses cannot be denied. Tackling it was a key part of the previous strategy, and measures that reduce the threat of the parasite's introduction to Scotland clearly need to be given serious consideration. However, if the amendment is a rehash of the arguments that were made during the stage 3 debate on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill—and Jamie McGrigor's intervention during the non-native species debate makes me suspicious that it might be—I remind members that the then Minister for Environment and Rural Development rejected a statutory obligation to declare fishing and water sports equipment at customs points because expert assessment was that the risk of Gyrodactylus salaris entering the United Kingdom via such equipment was extremely low.
The Liberal Democrat amendment, which identifies training and retention issues in the aquaculture industry, also has value. Its references to the "current rapid expansion" of the industry and to streamlining the regulatory burden might imply a tipping of the balance in favour of the aquaculture industry, overriding the potential effects on wild fish or the environment. As RSPB Scotland states in its briefing:
"the Renewed Strategic Framework should not have the objective of securing unabated economic growth, but instead should aim for sustainable development".
We agree that there is considerable potential for expansion—Rhoda Grant will elaborate on that in her speech—but it must be within environmental capacity. We will listen very carefully to the arguments that are made in favour of the Liberal Democrat amendment.
The consultation document is structured around five themes. The first is health, including the vital issues of sea lice control, water quality and—although it is not mentioned specifically—Gyrodactylus salaris. The second is planning and identification of sites, and the number of registered sites, including inactive Crown Estate leases. The third is containment and the prevention of escapes. I was trying to work out how the minister had personally prevented escapes from happening, but perhaps he has been swimming around with a net, trying to persuade the fish to go back. I am pleased to hear that he is doing his bit. The fourth is markets and careers and training in aquaculture. The fifth and final theme is financial investment in the industry. I look forward to further discussion of those issues during the debate.
Before I move the amendment in my name, I should say that whatever is buzzing under my desk is not mine; I will try and find out what it is.
I move amendment S3M-2921.2, to insert at end:
"and believes that the renewed strategy for Scottish aquaculture must be consistent with the provisions of the forthcoming Marine Bill and the EU Water Framework Directive."
Perhaps flying fish were buzzing over there.
The Scottish Conservatives are strong supporters of the aquaculture industry, which, with 454 active fin-fish sites and 332 active shellfish sites, is hugely important to the Scottish economy. It is worth almost £400 million to our economy and supports almost 6,000 jobs in our most remote and fragile areas. Aquaculture is a Scottish success story that deserves widespread credit for creating jobs, and I welcome the minister's positive comments on developing the industry.
It is true that the industry has, at times, struggled to overcome negative public perceptions. To that end, I wish to highlight its voluntary code of conduct, which contains more than 300 specific compliance points covering all aspects of fish health and welfare, environmental management and consumer assurance. The code is adhered to widely—more than 95 per cent of Scottish salmon is produced by farms that have signed up to it, which is encouraging. The Government's motion highlights many of the sector's merits and I have no hesitation in supporting it.
The Government's consultation document "A Fresh Start" addresses sensibly most of the major issues that affect the industry. Ultimately, however, a consultation document, although welcome, is no substitute for action, and I therefore encourage the Government to ensure that the forthcoming strategic framework proposes robust solutions to the issues identified by the consultation.
That brings me to the Conservatives' amendment, which deals with two of the most pressing issues in the sector, as envisaged by Elaine Murray. I hope that all parties will feel able to support the amendment at decision time. The first issue is the serious one of escaped farmed fish, and I was pleased that that problem was acknowledged in the consultation document. Escaped fish are a problem for fish farms, which obviously suffer lost revenue, and for anglers, who are gravely concerned about the damage that farmed fish can inflict on wild stock, such as disease and the dilution of the gene pool.
Recreational angling, particularly salmon angling, is worth a huge amount of money to the Scottish economy, and it would be nothing short of a tragedy if our reputation for excellence in that field was to be damaged by question marks arising over the integrity of our wild fish. I therefore ask the minister to ensure both that efforts are redoubled to reduce the risk of escapes and that, as my amendment says, traceability mechanisms are improved to deal with escapes that occur. Those steps must be at the heart of the updated strategic framework.
The second issue that our amendment deals with is the threat posed by the salmon parasite Gyrodactylus salaris. The parasite, which has devastated salmon stocks in Norway, could cause incalculable damage to our fish farms and wild stocks. As the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment recently warned, an outbreak of GS could result in the collapse of what he called our "iconic … salmon angling heritage". Similarly, experts have suggested that a GS outbreak would cost the Scottish economy hundreds of millions of pounds.
As members will recall, the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 deals with the GS threat, but it remains the view of the Scottish Conservatives that the act does not go far enough. It provides ministers with the power to treat infected waters with the chemical rotenone, which is effective in tackling the parasite but has the unfortunate side-effect of wiping out every living thing in the river system. Obviously, that is not a scenario that any of us wishes to contemplate, which is why we must do everything in our power to prevent GS from arriving in the first place.
I remind the minister that, during the passage of the 2007 act, my colleague Ted Brocklebank moved an amendment that would have required people to declare any fishing gear that they brought into Scotland from a country that was potentially affected by GS. That amendment would also have obliged ministers to ensure that appropriate decontamination facilities were in place at points of entry. Such a plan was proposed in the previous Executive's document on GS, which was produced by experts at the University of Stirling's institute of aquaculture and Glasgow Caledonian University's business school.
The proposal was enthusiastically endorsed by the Environment and Rural Development Committee when Sarah Boyack—who I regret is absent today—was the committee's convener. Therefore, it was a great pity that, in her subsequent role as Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ms Boyack marshalled her troops from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to vote down Mr Brocklebank's amendment. Thankfully, the amendment was supported by Scottish National Party members, including the now Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead. I trust that the minister will give a firm commitment to reopen the 2007 act in order to insert into it Mr Brocklebank's amendment, given that the dangers from importing GS are now much greater than they were in 2007.
I also draw the minister's attention to concerns about the possibility of well boats bringing directly from Norway fish that might be contaminated by GS or other diseases. I know that at least three major fish farming companies have made a commitment not to support live smolts from Norway, but I would appreciate further clarity from the minister on what is being done to ensure that the dangers of importing contaminated fish are eliminated. I ask him to keep a close eye on the situation.
On a more positive note, we need to consider the development of the industry and how we can help the growth of the halibut and turbot sector—a subject that I know is close to the minister's heart. To facilitate such growth, we need to make it easier for young fish to be brought in from outside the European Union. We need a border inspection post in Scotland. Having spoken this morning to the chief executive of Prestwick airport, Mark Rodwell, I believe that the airport would be more than happy to consider creating such a facility to allow young fish to be flown into Scotland—perhaps that is a new way of looking at flying fish—to help develop the aquaculture industry.
I welcome the approach that is outlined in the consultation document but reiterate that more concrete action is required if we are serious about combating the concerns that are outlined in my amendment. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name and am happy to intimate that we will support all the other amendments.
I move amendment S3M-2921.1, to insert after "competitor nations":
"further supports efforts to advance the enviable international reputation of Scotland's wild salmon stocks and, in light of the potential damage to the health and integrity of wild stocks caused by escaped farmed fish, believes that a robust commitment to reducing escapes and improved traceability must be a central element of the new Strategic Framework; recognises the continued threat posed by Gyrodactylus salaris to farmed and wild salmon stocks alike and, in light of the economic and ecological damage that an outbreak could cause, considers that further serious consideration must be given to measures aimed at reducing the likelihood of the parasite entering Scotland".
Researching this topic reminded me of the economic value of aquaculture to Scotland as well as of its prospects. As Mike Russell mentioned, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization reported in 2006 that aquaculture, which supplied only 9 per cent of the fish consumed by people in 1980, now provides 43 per cent of the market—a share that is growing. Of course, seafood consumption is expected to increase by 50 per cent between now and 2030. To keep pace with demand, global production of shellfish will need to double by 2030.
Scotland can deliver a chunk of that supply, but we need to ensure that that growth potential is seized upon. Sustainable development of this food sector should be the main focus for policy makers. Atlantic salmon dominates in terms of value, with production at around 130,000 tonnes in 2007, as Mike Russell mentioned. Mussel production dominates shellfish culture in Scotland, but trout is also important in fresh waters. No one would deny that scope exists to increase fin fish and shellfish production. Globally, aquaculture has to make up the gap between the demand for marine protein and what is available from depleting wild fish stocks. It is an industry that has carved a place for itself in the international marketplace and still has a place to go. As Mike Russell mentioned, the industry is worth roughly £400 million each year. To put that in context, the fish-catching sector is worth £370 million, beef £467 million, sheep £151 million and pigs £57 million. Aquaculture already plays a significant economic role in Scotland, although there is obviously room for growth.
The Solway coast has huge potential for development and is considered a growth area by Scottish Enterprise, particularly for niche markets. Members will all have heard of a fish called Wanda, but how many have heard of a fish called tilapia? In the US, it is now ranked as the fifth most consumed seafood and researchers believe that tilapia is destined to be one of the most important farmed seafood products of the century. It is a good substitute for white fish, with the potential to help the recovery of cod; the University of Stirling and Scottish Enterprise have done interesting work on that already.
A report on aquaculture in the Solway indicated potential yields for shellfish production to be in the region of 13,000 tonnes of oysters or 19,000 tonnes of mussels. As with aquaculture elsewhere in Scotland, realising potential will depend on the degree to which the industry can exist in harmony with other marine use, regulations and environmental designations. Will the minister confirm what work is on-going on the Solway? I hope that that conversation will continue between us long after today's debate.
In developing the sector and our potential for increased wealth, we need to ensure that there is a properly-trained, skilled workforce. I know that Liam McArthur will focus on that in more detail later. Elaine Murray mentioned the good work of Barony College where, coincidentally, my sons and my father were educated—albeit in sheep and cattle culture rather than fish culture.
There are some concerns about the environmental consequences of a growing aquaculture industry. Elaine Murray seemed to be concerned that the Liberal Democrat amendment would just bring full-scale industrialisation, but that must happen with the environment in mind. It is therefore key that the Government offers assurances that the development of the sector will not come at the expense of the environment. We know about the problems with cod recovery in the North Sea and the measures to deal with discards. To mirror those efforts, let us ensure that the aquaculture industry is delivered in a way that does not damage existing wild fish or the sea bed. The same goes for freshwater farms and their escapees, which Mike Russell and John Scott rightly have concerns about. The wild fish and invertebrates that live in our waters are an important part of our economy for both tourism and our environment.
Access to support will kick-start any business venture, so I was pleased to read in the strategy that applications to the Scottish fisheries fund from small businesses will be prioritised. It is important that small and medium-sized enterprises are given as much support as possible, whether they are existing businesses or those diversifying for the first time.
Coexistence in the marine environment requires communication between all stakeholders. Planning must be flexible if we in Scotland want to remain competitive and it must be based on what we can do rather than what we cannot. Scotland needs a competitive advantage.
The minister's motion refers to the excellent health of our industry, although Iceland and Norway have advantages over us because of their cooler waters, so we cannot be complacent. The arc of aquaculture also invests heavily in research and development, and we need to learn from those countries. I am pleased to hear that the minister is working with Norway on that.
Red tape remains a barrier. I know of a one-man business in my region that, until recently, paid £600 per year to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for water testing. That charge is now £2,000 per year, which is unsustainable. I look to the minister to address such charges, rather than build up SEPA with more employees—an extra £16 million and 40 more staff are, I believe, being committed to SEPA to address flooding.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I am in my last minute.
It is to correct an inaccuracy.
I am in my last minute.
The member may give way if he wishes to do so.
The original framework can boast such achievements as the industry code of good practice and the inception of the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum. I hope that Mr Russell will not flounder on aquaculture delivery or carp on about other Administrations—that would be very shellfish of him. We have a chance to build on the work of the previous Administration to deliver a successful, sustainable aquaculture industry. I am happy to move my amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
I move amendment S3M-2921.3, to insert at end:
"believes that Scotland can learn valuable lessons from its competitor nations with thriving aquaculture industries; further believes that Scottish aquaculture can maximise the opportunities presented by the current rapid expansion of the international industry to achieve genuinely sustainable growth, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to take decisive action to streamline the regulatory burden, introduce a fair inspection regime, improve community and industry liaison, and encourage the development and retention of a skilled and qualified workforce in the aquaculture industry."
As a member of the previous Environment and Rural Development committee, I was involved in consideration of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill in 2007, so this debate is like déjà vu all over again, as they say.
The renewed strategic framework for aquaculture is to be welcomed, because each Government must have a different name for the same thing as it develops. However, the industry is developing and, despite the times in which we live, we have been successful in maintaining jobs in fin fish and shellfish in some of our most remote areas. I will speak about the perpetuation of those jobs in a minute, but I want first to look at one or two of the themes in the consultation on the renewed strategic framework, especially the "planning, consents and sites" theme.
It would be useful if the minister could provide an update on the use of sites, because, although fish farm sites can be good neighbours, some people see them as bad neighbours. When we debated these issues in March 2007, we found that 121 out of 252 salmon leases established by the Crown Estate had reported nil production in 2004. In 2005, the figure was 125; in 2006, it was 140. Sixty-seven leases reported nil production in the total period 2004 to 2006. There are good reasons, such as fallowing, for keeping certain sites empty, but often it is done for anti-competitive reasons—to stop smaller companies coming into the market. That must be examined. When we considered the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, we were concerned that the Crown Estate did not have an effective way of dealing with the matter.
I hope that changes to our planning processes will enable us to limit the time for which leases are held. If they are not used within five years, planning permission should be withdrawn; there should be a means of regulating that. I hope that the minister will be able to expand on the issue, because local communities are concerned about large companies such as Panfish, which have sites and have applied for more. Those include the site at South Corriegills in Arran, which has been the subject of a public inquiry. Why is the company applying to take up new sites, against the interests of local communities, when many of its sites are unused?
The member raises an important issue, but it was not possible to address the matter in a comprehensive way until we knew where all the sites were. Incredibly, the work that has been done on sites over the past year has enabled us for the first time to map them and to compare them with designated sites in Scotland. That will allow informed decision making for the first time.
I welcome the publication of the map, which shows the progress that is being made in these matters; I referred to that earlier. However, it will also be necessary to tighten up regulations.
The "markets, marketing and image" theme is important. Reference has been made to the image of salmon farming, which is improving considerably. However, we know that the market conditions for shellfish are very difficult at present. Given the fantastic resource of clean waters that we have, it is a great pity that the people who produce shellfish see prices going down. In this period—the run-up to Christmas—there is a lot of evidence of difficulty. Prices are slow. French and Spanish dealers who would normally have struck deals for lobsters and other shellfish by this stage have not done so—they say that the Christmas season has not yet arrived. The credit crunch is affecting our European neighbours, as it is us. Orkney fishermen say that they are having difficulty selling cooked partans. We need to find the means to float companies in weeks 49, 50 and 51 of the year. If the price rises are not achieved then, many shellfish merchants will be in serious difficulty. We therefore hope for evidence of a change in the process for marketing shellfish. There is a period of low demand in January, and if people have to keep over their stocks until then, they will not make money out of them.
Perhaps this is the time to stimulate the home market. Perhaps we should not, with all due respect, be eating turkeys at Christmas, but lobsters or shellfish—as people do in countries such as Portugal. That might be a good thing, because there are large stocks of them needing sold. We hope that there will be help with marketing through the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, which claims to work with aquaculture and which should be given a chance to do more in that direction.
We have questions about the environment, which I am particularly interested in from the point of view of the proposed climate change bill. If, as RSPB Scotland suggests, the growing aquaculture industry is to be consistent with the Scottish Government's sustainable development strategy, we should perhaps ask the minister whether we could have some means of doing a carbon count of the effect of the aquaculture industry, as we do for other industries. Aquaculture is a good industry to choose for ascertaining whether or not it is environmentally sustainable. That fits well with how the forthcoming marine bill will take into account marine spatial planning and the best use of our extremely clean waters.
I hope that the debate focuses on some of the major factors that will help the aquaculture industry to develop. As we have heard, we now have a greater uptake of salmon. Perhaps that is because of the difficulties of getting other fresh stocks, which have been run down through overfishing in some parts of the world. More processed salmon is being eaten. Nevertheless, that is good for the Scottish industry at the top end.
I doubt that we have had enough global warming to develop the necessary climate for flying fish to reach this part of the world, as the Tories suggested, but who knows, they might be farmed in future. In the meantime, in the serious world, this is an excellent debate on an excellent industry that we must support.
Like others, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I was reflecting earlier on what I might say about the 30-plus years that I have now spent living in the Highlands and Islands. I have watched the industry develop and play a very significant role in the economy of the region—from Shetland, in the far north, through Orkney, where I lived in the 1970s, to the Western Isles and right down through most of the sea lochs in the west Highlands into the southern parts of Argyll. The industry has become a significant part of the life of the communities of the coastline of the Highlands and Islands. The salmon and shellfish farming industry has become a significant employer, as the minister indicated, with more than 6,000 people enjoying work from the industry.
As a result of the success of the industry over the years, communities in the Highlands and Islands have remained viable and public services that might otherwise have been lost have been maintained. I can think of schools on the west coast of the Highlands that would probably have closed because of declining population, but have effectively been saved by the industry. If the industry is kept going, it can help to sustain the whole community.
The salmon farming industry has had its highs and lows over the years. I suspect that it will continue to have ups and downs in the economic cycles that we experience. The industry is particularly susceptible to price fluctuations, currency changes and international competition and production levels. It still exists, however, and it employs thousands of people in some of our most remote communities. It is still making progress in the marketplace.
Shellfish farming has particularly huge potential to expand in the Highlands and Islands. We have some of the finest conditions in the world for growing shellfish. We have a long coastline, mostly with high quality clean water. Most of the coastline is undeveloped in terms of shellfish production, so there is capacity for significant expansion in the sector. That expansion would be in harmony with the environment. Indeed, it would have to be, as good shellfish require good clean water to grow. The Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers estimates that we would be capable of supporting about 100,000 tonnes of production per annum, compared with the current levels, which are only a fraction of that, between 5,000 and 7,000 tonnes. The industry can also play a significant part in developing the growing consumer interest in local food. A significant part of the tourist experience of visiting the Highlands and Islands ought to be eating local salmon and shellfish of real quality.
Increasing shellfish production can also play a part in addressing the food security issues that John Scott often raises. We have the capacity to grow more of our own food in Scotland. Further, getting greater access to salmon for our own population will have significant health benefits because it is one of those fish with the right kind of fatty acids. It is good that the number of people who eat salmon is increasing and that the market is therefore growing.
Over the years, as other members mentioned, there has been a lot of controversy in the salmon sector about environmental matters, including overstocking in the early days, the effect on sea lice numbers, the effect of that on natural stocks, and the impact of escapees from fish farms on the genetics of natural stocks and their ability to survive. That is a critical issue because of the economic importance of those stocks. There has also been controversy about the use of chemicals and feedstuffs in and around salmon farms.
It would be foolish to pretend that those controversies are over, but it would be wrong not to acknowledge that huge strides have been taken over the years in acting on those concerns. The minister mentioned the recent reduction in the number of escapes and, like him, I hope that that continues. The move to industry quality standards has played a strong part in the progress that has been made, as has the move to organic production, which improves environmental sustainability.
Quality is the key to success in the marketplace, and there has been an impressive focus on quality over the years. Scottish produce from the sector rightly enjoys an excellent reputation throughout the world, and because people regard the Highlands and Islands as having a clean environment, its reputation for quality in general has also been enhanced. Sound and improving environmental practices are a prerequisite for aquaculture's continuing success.
There have been major changes in ownership patterns in the salmon industry over the years. The industry started with pioneer independent producers, but there were moves first to larger companies and then to multinational companies. The fact that Norway now dominates in the pattern of ownership has implications for Scottish jobs, because the market might compensate for any overproduction in Norway with reduced production here.
It is important to note the difficulty that was experienced in Scotland with overproduction and dumping on the market. We need to remain vigilant about that. I am sure that the member will acknowledge that we have said publicly that, should it recur, we will immediately seek renewed action at a European level.
The minister anticipated the point that I am coming to. One of the continuing challenges in the industry is to consider those issues.
The independent salmon producers, in particular, regret the loss of the minimum import price regulations and find it worrying for the future. They would rather that the EU had not ended the provisions that the estimable Allan Wilson fought for and helped to secure, in tandem with his UK colleagues, when he was Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. He had to fight hard with the sceptical European Commission about that. However, in removing the minimum import price, the EU agreed to monitor closely the Norwegians' practices and any attempt to dump cheaply priced salmon on the EU market. It is important that the monitoring is robust and thorough because it might form the basis of a case that is made to Europe in future. I am glad that the minister acknowledged that.
The independent salmon producers have a particular need to secure working capital if they are to survive. Their plans for an aquaculture finance company have been difficult to advance since the loss of the minimum import price, and the difficulties have no doubt been exacerbated by the banking crisis. The Government might be able to help in that area, and I encourage the minister to say something about that when he sums up.
Shellfish growers are concerned about the availability of sites and leases. They suggest that there should be a presumption in favour of shellfish leases for sites that are freed up under the location and relocation programme. As Rob Gibson and others mentioned, they also want inactive leases to be freed up. There is a role for the Crown Estate in that, but there is also a monitoring role for the Government. Again, I would be interested to hear the minister's views on that.
It would also be interesting to hear the minister's views on planning fees. Shellfish growers believe that they are charged disproportionately high fees because they are assessed on the same basis as much larger salmon enterprises, yet their profits and impacts are significantly different. That must be an impediment to growth and it appears to conflict with previous Government advice on the matter.
As I said, shellfish growing requires clean water and in that respect Scottish Water has a role in ensuring that sewage discharges meet the highest possible standards. Shellfish growers have also highlighted real difficulties with the way in which the measurement of E coli in shellfish is used to assess water quality. That can lead to perverse results; for example, the clean waters of Applecross are regarded as less healthy than the river Clyde, which is hard to imagine. Spikes in E coli levels in shellfish caused by natural stock and not linked to human pathogen presence can result in area closures, and I urge the Government not to compromise on the health question, but to work with the industry on finding alternative measures.
Of course, that will require research and, just as it can help the industry to acquire and develop the skills that are needed, Government can also help aquaculture in that very important area. Indeed, the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation is looking at this very important area for future support. Salmon producers have also highlighted planning issues, marketing, fish health and containment as key concerns.
Whatever emerges from the consultation, I hope that the strategy's next iteration will not only have more substance than the consultation but be consistent with the forthcoming marine bill and address the issues that I have raised this afternoon and that many others have raised in responses to the consultation.
In many ways, aquaculture might have become one of Scotland's forgotten industries. Since its boom years in the 1980s and early 1990s, the industry has faced serious challenges from catastrophic disease to relentless consolidation as major companies have steadily built global concerns.
The industry's difficulties during the latter 1990s and early years of this century are well known, particularly in the communities that have been most affected. Out in the wider population, many people could be forgiven for having formed the view that, as a result of such travails, it is no longer a significant player in the Scottish economy.
As the figures show, nothing could be further from the truth. As has been said more than once this afternoon, Scotland is the largest producer of farmed salmon in the EU and the third largest producer in the world, behind only Norway and Chile. It is worth repeating and constantly reminding ourselves of those facts.
We are responsible for 80 per cent of the UK's entire aquaculture production. According to the latest figures this year from the Fisheries Research Services, there are more than 450 registered active fin-fish sites and more than 330 registered active shellfish sites in Scotland. Although employment levels in the industry tend to fluctuate, the latest figures suggest that more than 6,300 jobs are dependent on salmon farming alone. The vast majority of those jobs and others in the shellfish area of the industry are in the Highlands and Islands, and a great many are based in some of our most fragile coastal and rural communities, both on the mainland and on our islands.
Since its inception in the Highlands and Islands in the 1960s, the aquaculture industry has brought important socioeconomic benefits to these areas. However, the communities that serve it have also experienced something of a socioeconomic rollercoaster ride as the industry has matured to its current form.
A sector profile published by Highlands and Islands Enterprise last year makes for interesting reading. Focusing on cultivation rather than the processing of fish and shellfish, it shows that while the industry is still dominated by salmon, other species of fish grown include rainbow trout; moreover, as we have heard, the output of cod and halibut is rising. Shellfish cultivation, the main products of which are mussels and oysters, is also expanding steadily.
The report highlights some of the key factors affecting the overall expanding global market, including environmental and food safety regulations, technological advances and rising consumer demand for farmed fish. It also underlines the on-going trend of consolidation of the major salmon companies and the continuing potential for job rationalisation that that entails.
The report states that, at the time of writing, 1,325 jobs or 1,215 full-time equivalent posts, including 1,105 full-time and 220 part-time jobs, were involved in the production of salmon, salmon smolts and trout in the Highlands and Islands. As the report says, these figures exclude
"the very significant indirect employment impact throughout businesses in the supply chain to the aquaculture sector".
Indeed, it is estimated that indirect employment could account for as many as 2,100 more jobs in Scotland, the majority of which are in the Highlands and Islands. The report also states that shellfish production supports 401 jobs in Scotland, around 90 per cent of which are located in the Highlands and Islands.
Just this month there was some very welcome news from the aquaculture industry. One of Scotland's principal salmon farming firms, Loch Duart, which is based in north-west Sutherland, embarked on an ambitious £3.7 million development plan, starting with a major upgrade of its hatchery. The company is expanding to keep pace with demand for its high quality fish from caterers and retailers, at home and abroad. The development programme, which includes the acquisition and infrastructure for three sea loch sites in the Uists, has been supported with £740,000 funding from Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Loch Duart, which currently has nine farm sites near Scourie and operates to high environmental standards, intends to increase production by 50 per cent and create 19 new jobs over the next three years.
It is heartening, particularly in the current extremely challenging economic climate, to see a company such as Loch Duart expanding and offering fresh opportunities in fragile communities where alternative employment opportunities are scarce. I sincerely hope that there will be more of this to come from the aquaculture industry.
The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that our aquaculture sector is highly successful as an industry, while remaining sensitive to the needs of the environment. This is where the issue of escapees comes in. My first experience of wild salmon was watching them being netted, legally, on the beach at Lossie, and being illegally ripped out of deep pools in the river Lossie. I have also seen wild salmon being netted illegally on the west side of Lewis, and have witnessed the burning of confiscated nets at the back of my office in the old prison cells in the courthouse in Stornoway. In those days, wild salmon were plentiful, and it was almost a civic duty to get one for the pot or the freezer. Times have probably changed, however.
No, no.
John Farquhar Munro does not agree.
Escapees threaten the future of our wild salmon, and we must do all that we can to ensure that escapes are minimised. I am, therefore, glad that we seem to be getting on top of the issue, so that our legal salmon fishing can prosper.
The consultation on a renewed strategic framework for Scottish aquaculture is an important starting point on a matter that is vital to the industry. The Government and all stakeholders must work together to ensure the future success of the industry.
The Government's long-term goal is to introduce a plan that builds upon an existing aquaculture industry that is ambitious, thriving, growing, diverse and profitable. That development has to be sustainable—environmentally, economically, and socially. There is little to disagree with in those aims.
As Elaine Murray said, this is a strange time to have a debate on the issue. The Government's consultation has closed and the responses have not been published. Indeed, we do not know what the Government's thoughts are on those responses. The Parliament will have to scrutinise the Government's proposals when they are published, and that will be done either in the chamber or in a committee.
Aquaculture is an important industry, because it provides jobs in remote rural areas where there are often few employment opportunities and where the jobs that are on offer tend to be part time or seasonal. The industry brings important economic benefits to all our coastal communities. That is why I was surprised that the consultation document said simply that we need to ensure that there is a good career structure. Nobody could disagree with that sentiment, but it gave us nothing to work with. What is the Government's ambition in that area? What is there to comment on?
I was, therefore, pleased that the industry appears to be progressing the issue by carrying out a study to identify the skills that it requires. Lantra, the sector skills council, is supporting that initiative, which will consider the need to draw up a framework for development and career progression for the workforce. I hope that the initiative will consider how training can reach people who live and work in remote communities. It is not always possible for people to leave home to participate in training, which means that ways of pursuing training remotely must be pursued. The Government can support that by ensuring access to information technology in our remotest areas, which will help to break down geographical barriers. Ensuring that those communities can access high-quality broadband at reasonable cost would help, and I hope that the Government will support the initiative.
I also hope that the Government will consider ways of maximising jobs in the industry through farming and by adding as much value as possible locally.
It is strange that the Government seems to be increasing the bureaucracy surrounding fish farming. Holding the review now means that changes will take place if it is not simply to be a paper exercise. The review will be followed shortly by the marine bill; again, it is inconceivable that that bill will have no impact on fish farming. It seems to me that the already cumbersome bureaucracy that surrounds fish farming will increase. The industry is complaining about the legislative framework.
I know that the member regards me as being capable of achieving much, but I am not capable of implementing a massive and unwieldy bureaucracy in 18 months. If such a thing exists, it was created by her Government; if it does not exist—I do not think that it does and we are, of course, always lessening the burden of bureaucracy—what she has said is wrong and unfair. One way or another, she is wrong.
Needless to say, I do not agree with the minister. What he said in opposition and what I am saying is that the industry is complaining about a bureaucratic legislative framework. In his short time in office, he is already carrying out a review; on top of that, a marine bill will create more bureaucracy. I ask the minister to sweep up measures in the marine bill and streamline the bureaucracy that surrounds the fish farming industry. Perhaps we would get somewhere if he stopped muttering and started listening.
We need to ensure that wherever we create bureaucracy, we protect our aquaculture industry's high standards. It is the best in the world, and we must make it as easy as possible for it to operate, especially in the current economic climate.
We would benefit from further scrutiny of a number of issues that the industry is concerned about. It is concerned that a number of licences have been undeveloped, and it would like them to be freed up for future expansion. Several members have spoken about that. A great deal of anecdotal evidence seems to show that there are a number of reasons why that has happened. Rob Gibson mentioned anti-competitive reasons. Others allude to speculation, and some talk about creating disease barriers. The Government must take a better look at what is happening. We need jobs and investment in aquaculture; in that context, misuse of sites and speculation are criminal, although the aims of protecting the industry from disease and raising quality cannot be argued with.
There is potential for expanding the industry, but we must properly consider disease control before we do so. Having only anecdotal evidence about licensing is not good enough. If evidence shows that we should have protection zones, they should become part of the planning and licensing process. Is the Government working on that with industry and scientists? Our products are recognised globally as high-quality products. We must consider developing jobs in the rural economy, but we must also protect our reputation for quality. The minister must get to grips with that, and leases need to be released if they are not required for disease protection.
There are concerns about cost variations, which Peter Peacock mentioned. In Shetland, a planning application can be got for £3,000; it costs £11,000 in Dumfries and Galloway. There is a huge range of costs, which cannot be linked to reality. The range of costs also creates a disincentive for small projects that lend themselves to shellfish farming. We can expand the industry in that area in a way that does not impact on the environment.
Our shellfish farming output falls way short of that of other countries. It has been said that we could up our output from 7,000 tonnes a year to 100,000 tonnes a year. Spain's output is 250,000 tonnes, and France produces a similar amount. Greece beats us by producing 35,000 tonnes of mussels a year. Shellfish farming lends itself to small operations, which we need to encourage. In some parts of the country, the cost of planning means that very few would be able to pursue such an option financially. What support is available to individuals who want to start a small shellfish farming business?
Water quality is of the utmost importance to fish farming. I assume that the marine bill will address that issue. SEPA and Scottish Water have a role in protecting the quality of our water. The Government must ensure that its agencies are working with the industry to improve water quality.
This might not have been the right time to have the debate, but those issues have to be addressed by Government. We have a unique opportunity to grow our economy and provide jobs in areas that need them. The minister needs to stand back and think about how the Government can make a difference at this stage, by reducing bureaucracy and providing support where it is needed.
The areas that I have touched on are some of the areas that have been highlighted by the people who have responded to the consultation. We need to streamline measures with the forthcoming marine bill; we need to make the planning process more relevant and consistent; and we need to get to grips with licensing problems. We need to find clear and practical ways to move forward and make aquaculture an attractive career for people who live in the areas concerned. We must provide training and personal development.
We must protect our reputation for having a product of excellence. The minister needs to take away such issues and then bring back his ideas, either to the Parliament or to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.
I apologise for missing the opening minutes of the debate.
The Scottish Government has, as one of its principal aims, the promotion of "sustainable development". It is the sustainable part that I want to focus on with regard to Scottish aquaculture.
The salmon aquaculture dialogue, initiated by the WWF, held its 12th meeting in Edinburgh only last week. According to Dr John Webster of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, the international environmental community received—and I quote him exactly—"a real shock". Why were those people reportedly so surprised? They were surprised, Dr Webster says, because those visitors to Scotland had not been aware of the sustained and world-leading efforts of the Scottish salmon industry to develop along sustainable lines over the past quarter of a century. I shall expand on those efforts in the rest of my speech.
A quarter of a century ago, virtually all the feed that was fed to farmed salmon came from marine sources. Today, less than 50 per cent of the protein in the so-called on-growing diet that is fed to Scottish farmed salmon is of marine origin. Much of the diet is sustainably produced from terrestrial crops. That shift has been driven by both environmental and economic factors. The price of fish meal and fish oil is volatile, yes, but it is also better for the environment to reduce the proportion of marine-origin ingredients.
That significant change in the composition of salmon diets has been made possible only by Scottish scientific expertise. The work that is done by the nutrition group at the institute of aquaculture in Stirling, headed by Professor Gordon Bell, is world leading. Professor Bell and his team have found that they can make salmon use protein much more efficiently—for growth rather than for energy—by substituting plant oils for some of the marine-origin protein in salmon feed. According to Dr Webster of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, the research is almost instantly applied: the composition of salmon feed changes as soon as science shows that it is possible. The UK is often criticised for failing to translate the discoveries of its scientists into commercial products and applications, but the Scottish salmon industry can quite reasonably claim to be showing the way.
Despite the surprise that was expressed at the salmon aquaculture dialogue last week, the Scottish salmon industry's efforts over the years have not gone entirely unnoticed. As long ago as 1992, the prestigious Label Rouge designation was awarded to Scottish salmon. That was the first time that the French Government's premier-quality certification was awarded to a non-French product, and the first time that it was given to a fish product. The award is conferred only on products meeting stringent criteria with regard to the quality and sourcing of inputs, and, of course, with regard to the quality of the product itself. No one doubts that the product of Scottish salmon farming is of high quality.
Of course, salmon are piscivorous—their natural diet is other fish—so it is not possible to eliminate marine-origin products from their diets altogether. Indeed, the health-giving omega 3 oils that are found in salmon's flesh—EPA and DHA, though if I tried to pronounce the full names I would get hopelessly confused—depend on their diets containing some marine ingredients. In this area, too, the Scottish salmon industry—and I include the feed-producing companies—is striving to improve the sustainability of its practice. Dr Webster tells me:
"If you talk to any of the Scottish fish-feed manufacturers, they will tell you that the sustainable sourcing of raw materials is a high priority."
Sustainability, he clarifies, is a balance between economic, social and environmental factors—but all are important.
The pressure from consumers, and therefore also from retailers, is inevitably and quite correctly pushing things in that direction. It is good to note here that the southern hemisphere countries are protective of the long-term viability of their fishing waters, so ingredients for salmon feed from that part of the world are increasingly likely to be sustainably sourced.
What of the use of drugs and pesticides in the Scottish salmon industry? As we know, concerns have been reported in the past. For the past four years of analysis of samples of fresh and farmed salmon in Scotland, I ask members to guess how many samples were found to contain pesticides or antimicrobial residues—my request is entirely rhetorical, so members should not feel any need to shout out their guess. Is the answer a few hundred? Indeed it is not. Is it 27? Nope. The answer is two. There have been only two positives in four years.
I believe that the Veterinary Residues Committee's view is that the use of veterinary medicines by the Scottish salmon industry is very well regulated. Key to that, according to Dr Webster, is the inherent discipline in the industry. It is fair to say, then, that Scotland leads the world with regard to the proper and responsible use of veterinary medicines in salmon.
I could talk about the code of good practice for Scottish fin-fish aquaculture and all that that embraces, or about the on-going efforts to prevent escapes of captive salmon—such action is clearly essential to protect Scotland's wild stock. However, time does not permit that—it might, but I think that members would have gone to sleep by the time that I had finished. I think that I have made the point, however, that the Scottish salmon industry and how it has evolved is a good example of the principles of sustainable development.
In that spirit, the industry is interested in exploring the new area of integrated aquaculture. The Scottish Association for Marine Science states:
"The process of farming fish in open water cages releases nutrients into the surrounding environment."
That, of course, we all know. It continues:
"Much of these nutrients … should be readily taken up by macroalgae. SAMS is developing integrated aquaculture systems, growing seaweeds alongside fish farms to investigate their effectiveness at sequestering dissolved nutrients produced by the fish farms. The seaweeds produced will be commercially saleable in their own right and SAMS is testing whether"
the algae might flourish on the by-products of the salmon industry and whether those in turn might feed shellfish.
With its record of cutting-edge science and immediate commercial implementation, Scottish aquaculture, as exemplified by the salmon industry, has a lot to be proud of. However, I agree with the RSPB that there is more to be done in Scotland with regard to marine conservation generally. With that in mind, I am confident that, with sustainability at its core and not simply economic growth, Scottish aquaculture will continue to lead the world. I congratulate the industry and commend the motion.
I start with a bit of a disadvantage in contributing to the debate because, unlike most of the previous speakers, I do not represent a constituency with a significant coastal area. Most of the fish farming that takes place in Clydebank probably takes place in fish tanks, which are primarily there for visual effect rather than a true economic purpose. I am also at a disadvantage in speaking late in the debate, when many of the valid and key points have been made. I noted that the first three speakers all recited essentially the same statistics to underline the aquaculture industry's importance to Scotland in economic and employment terms, and in providing diversity in Scottish agricultural production. All those points are particularly well made and, I hope, will be better understood as a result of the debate.
It is fair to say that debating aquaculture is not new to the Parliament. The issues, as Peter Peacock said, have moved on considerably over the past 10 years. However, in important respects, the persistent issues remain. I want to highlight three of them.
First, there is the balance between fish farming and other areas of activity in the coastal communities where fish farming is concentrated. In some areas of Scotland, that is not a problem because fish farms can happily co-exist alongside other forms of marine and agricultural activity. There is only a relatively small number of fish farms in such areas, so there is no problem of concentration. However, as the map at the front of the consultation document makes clear, a number of other areas have significant concentrations of fish farms. Issues arise from that in terms of the assimilative capacity of the waters to deal with the inevitable concentration of nutrients and therapeutants that are used to make the fish farms operate on a commercial basis and to ensure that the fish remain healthy.
As far back as 2002, when the Transport and the Environment Committee conducted an inquiry into fish farming in Scotland, we recognised that some fish farms were inappropriately located. Either they were in areas where there was insufficient change of water because of tidal movements, or there were issues arising from the concentrations that had built up—a product not necessarily of the water, but of the scale of use. There are significant issues regarding the licensing system and the location of fish farms in terms of planning consents and so on, which have not been altogether successfully addressed.
I know that significant movement has taken place over the period, with the new planning regime and so on, but I do not think that we have really heard from the minister a summary of where we are with the problems of inappropriately located fish farms and how we can rationalise the industry in a sympathetic way to ensure that fish farms are properly located in ways that minimise any risk to the excellent health status to which the minister referred. I would like to know how the regulatory powers of the planning authorities are being employed. Are they entirely effective? Is the inspection regime sufficient? Is there a need for further measures to assist particular fish farms that have a problem simply because of their location or the history of the use of nutrients and therapeutics? How can we help such fish farms to move to places that might provide better circumstances?
The document that has been consulted on is important. The other important document is "Sustainable Seas for All". How will the operation of the aquaculture industry—fish farms—be integrated with other developments such as offshore wind power and tidal power developments, especially those that affect the sea bottom? It is important that we do not consider the aquaculture industry without looking over the edge at what other uses of the sea there might be and what issues they might raise.
That is particularly important given that the nascent companies in the tidal power and offshore wind power sector may not have the legal resources to compete with the fish farming industry and other industries. The Government has a role in ensuring that an appropriate balance is struck in the use of the sea and that the situation is properly managed.
The member raises an important point. The marine spatial planning powers in the marine bill will be extremely important not just because of cost considerations, but because all users of the marine environment need to be considered as legitimate users. The map that we have produced is of vital importance because it shows us, for the first time, where fish farms and shellfish farms are so that we can ensure that they fit into the matrix.
I appreciate that comment from the minister.
My final point is on food security, which was an important issue for discussion at the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Unfortunately, I left that committee before its inquiry could be completed. There are significant issues affecting the aquaculture industry, alongside the agriculture industry, regarding the balance of power between the supermarkets and the producers, and many people feel that the supermarkets now have too much power. I appreciate that there are limitations on the role that the Government can perform in interfering with commercial markets. Nevertheless, we need to think about how the Government, alongside providing support to Scottish agriculture and Scottish fishing, can properly support Scottish aquaculture by ensuring that the imposition of the commercial power of the supermarkets does not unfairly affect Scottish aquaculture producers.
This has been a constructive debate. On the encouragement of the Presiding Officer, there have been many loquacious contributions. It would be invidious to name names, although I did particularly enjoy what appeared to be the Open University lecture from Bill Wilson. This afternoon has offered further proof, if it were needed, that it is not always about quantity; in this debate, the focus has been very much on quality.
I share Elaine Murray's and Rhoda Grant's curiosity about the timing of today's debate, but I certainly welcome the minister's commitment to the development of a renewed—indeed, a refreshed—strategic framework for Scottish aquaculture. As someone who participated in the meetings of the advisory group that was established to help prepare the previous framework strategy, I can certainly reassure the minister that I do not take the move on his part as a slight; indeed, I take modest pride in his reference to being able to build on strong foundations. I also feel some of what Rob Gibson referred to as
"déjà vu all over again".
I am bound to say that successfully balancing the various interests involved is not, as Mr Russell conceded, always easy. I remember—not that fondly—that the previous ministerial advisory group spent the best part of three meetings trying to thrash out a mission statement that was acceptable to all. I was reminded of that when I read RSPB Scotland's briefing note for the debate. Despite what Dave Thompson said, the RSPB does take issue with the foreword to Mr Russell's latest text, which states:
"Scottish ministers want an aquaculture industry that is ambitious, thriving, growing, diverse and profitable."
I am bound to say that that bears a striking resemblance to the previous wording, but there is a tension between continued economic growth and expansion on the one hand, and carrying capacity and sustainability on the other. That can be resolved, but it will require sensible compromises to be made along the way, some of which will be difficult. That is very much encapsulated in the RSPB briefing, and in other briefings, and it is reflected in the Labour amendment, which we will certainly support.
As Des McNulty observed, most members have followed the minister's lead by highlighting the enormous importance of both the fin fish and shellfish industries for many of our remotest communities. My constituency is a case in point, although I know that there is a feeling that Orkney is still not fulfilling its full potential in aquaculture.
Overall, however, the state of the aquaculture industry in Scotland seems to be more encouraging than was the case a few years ago, notwithstanding the news from Inverness this week. The previous strategy was a reflection of the times in which it was developed, so the time is right for a refresh that will reflect new circumstances, opportunities and challenges.
There are plenty of challenges. The battle that was fought to persuade the European Commission to instate a minimum import price in response to what were seen as anti-competitive practices by other farmed-salmon-producing countries should not be underestimated. My colleague Ross Finnie, and Allan Wilson, to whom Peter Peacock referred, should be congratulated on their roles. The fact that the MIP was removed earlier this year will have been greeted with relief by parts of the Scottish industry, although I know that other parts of the industry are feeling extremely anxious—a point that Peter Peacock made well.
The Commission might believe that there is
"little risk of recurrence of dumping",
but as The Herald reported back in August,
"there have been predictions of significant job losses in some of Scotland's most fragile communities as a result of the EU's decision".
The introduction in 2006 of the minimum import price complicated relations with the Norwegians in particular. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that, as the minimum import price was being lifted earlier this year, ministers found alternative ways of displeasing their Norwegian counterparts by making repeated and partisan comparisons between the two countries. However, I am delighted to hear about the memo of understanding that has been agreed.
It is surprising to hear that an offence was created, given that the Norwegian foreign minister and the Norwegian ambassador were at pains to say publicly that no offence had been created, and to apologise for any other impression. I would not want the member to mislead Parliament about matters Norwegian, nor about any other matter.
Goodwill is breaking out everywhere.
Part of our amendment attempts to assist the Government by laying healing hands on what Jim Hume referred to as "the arc of aquaculture". Most members have referred to the twin challenges of disease and escapes. I welcome the figures that the minister announced earlier and the fact that the efforts of the minister with his big net are clearly paying dividends, although he is right to point out that the figures are still too high.
John Scott's amendment and much of what he said in his speech are valid, but we need to be careful. The reputation of our aquaculture sector is good, but it is also vulnerable. Some people have been, and continue periodically to be, only too happy to use specific cases to generalise about the industry as a whole, which is unhelpful. That underscores the importance of effective marketing by individual companies and by the industry as a whole. It would help if the minister were to outline the role that he sees the Government playing in supporting those efforts. For the avoidance of doubt, that also reminds us of the need to continue to focus ruthlessly on quality and on addressing disease, as well as escapes and site location. High environmental standards and an excellent health status lie at the heart of a profitable and competitive industry, as Jim Hume made clear.
Points were made about having an effective and streamlined regulatory environment. I reassure Elaine Murray that that is not about being a soft touch or having a light touch, but about a risk-based approach that is rigorous but not needlessly burdensome, and which does not place unnecessary costs on private businesses and public agencies.
One other key factor in achieving the objectives and ambitions that we all have for the industry is skills, which Elaine Murray mentioned briefly. The minister acknowledges the need to retain and attract skilled workers, not least given the standards to which we want the industry to aspire. I hope that he accepts the need to help our SMEs to create genuine career opportunities and structures, and that he recognises the role that qualifications have to play in achieving that. The minister should therefore be aware of concerns that have been expressed to me about the relatively low profile of skills in the consultation document "A Fresh Start", which I hope will be rectified in the strategy. He might wish to reflect on whether withdrawing funding from over-20s who seek qualifications will help. As the workforce in the Highlands and Islands tends to be older than that elsewhere in the country, it is easy to understand why concerns are being expressed. I encourage the minister to respond to them constructively.
In loquacious conclusion, the debate has been positive and constructive. I hope that the minister has found it helpful in developing his thinking. The Liberal Democrats are happy to support the motion and the amendments, although we were slightly concerned by some of Mr Scott's interpretation of his amendment. I look forward to the development of the strategy and to further debate on its detail.
As my colleague John Scott said, we warmly welcome the Government's review of the strategic framework for Scottish aquaculture. We have had a useful discussion about the issues that face the industry and about what we wish to see in the new framework when it is published next spring. We look forward to seeing the consultation responses and the Government's reaction to them once they have been collated and studied in detail.
As other members have done, I will quote the consultation paper, which says:
"Scotland should have sustainable, growing, diverse, market-led and profitable farmed fish and shellfish industries, which promote best practice and provide significant economic and social benefits for its people, while respecting the environment."
The new strategic framework must reflect that ambition and must enable the fish farming sector to achieve it.
The minister said that Scotland is the largest farmed Atlantic salmon producer in Europe; I thought that it was the second largest.
I understand that priority goes to Norway and Chile and that we are the third-largest producer in the world, but Norway is not a member of the European Union, of course.
I thank the minister for that clarification. Scotland also produces large quantities of farmed rainbow, brown and sea trout, as well as halibut, char and cod.
The health benefits of eating fish are increasingly recognised, global consumption of fish is growing and the aquaculture industry's importance is growing apace—43 per cent of fish that are eaten are produced on fish farms. Despite that, aquaculture in the EU and Scotland has not yet expanded in line with global market development.
As Peter Peacock said, expansion of the aquaculture industry could contribute significantly to our food security by delivering more home-grown, healthy and nutritious products. Therefore, the approach in the Government's consultation document to promoting and enhancing the industry is welcome. However, as my colleague John Scott said, actions speak louder than words. I hope that the new strategic framework will identify robust solutions to the important problems that are identified in "A Fresh Start". The new locational map that was announced and other significant statements by the minister this afternoon represent a good start. We look forward to more supportive action in the future.
We have heard from many members that Scottish farmed salmon is extremely important to the economy, with the Highlands and Islands in particular depending on the industry for economic growth. It accounts for nearly 40 per cent of all Scottish food exports, and its high quality is internationally recognised. According to the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation's briefing document, farmed salmon generates close to £200 million for Scotland every year and sustains many businesses that have grown to support the salmon farming sector, such as haulage firms, ice suppliers, equipment manufacturers and, of course, the veterinary services that look after the health of the fish stocks. There is also a significant spin-off for other small local businesses, such as hotels, that feed off the increasing success of the aquaculture industry.
A sustainable future for the industry is clearly of major importance to Scotland, particularly for some of its more remote and fragile populations. If the industry is to compete successfully in a growing global market, its commitment to good practice, environmental responsibility and sound commercial judgment will be increasingly important. Several members have rightly stressed the importance of environmental responsibility. The voluntary code of good practice that the sector has pioneered has been a major success, and more than 95 per cent of Scottish farmed salmon is now produced by companies that adhere to the code. Therefore, we welcome the involvement of the shellfish and fin-fish industries—as well as other groups—in development of the new strategic framework, which must be in harmony with the code that is already in place.
As our amendment suggests and as John Scott explained, we have two major concerns: the problem of escaped farmed fish and the need to keep the Gyrodactylus salaris parasite out of Scotland. Tougher action is still needed on both. Our wild salmon angling sector is internationally renowned for the salmon's quality and purity, so contamination of wild salmon stocks from escaped farm fish could have a catastrophic effect on that reputation. Therefore, the interests of the wild salmon sector must be a key and integral part of the renewed framework, and robust measures should be put in place to limit escapes further and to improve traceability when they occur. Parliament knows our serious concern about the on-going threat to farmed and wild salmon stocks from potential infestation by the G salaris parasite, which has already devastated salmon stocks in Norway. It is vital that action be taken to keep it out of Scotland and, as we said in the recent debate on non-native invasive species, we are of the firm opinion that the Government should consider amending the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 to include Ted Brocklebank's stage 3 amendment that would require declaration of potentially contaminated fishing gear, and the decontamination of such gear, at ports of entry. The cabinet secretary is well aware of the dangers of allowing the parasite into Scotland—indeed, he supported the amendment in Ted Brocklebank's name during the stage 3 debate last year—and I hope that the Government will accept our amendment to the motion as an indication that it will give serious consideration to our proposals.
John Scott also made some practical suggestions concerning the development of fish farming, particularly about facilitating the growth of the halibut and turbot sectors. I hope the Government will consider those suggestions.
The RSPB briefing raises some serious issues about the health of Scotland's seas. Repeated breeding failures and significant population decline of some species of coastal birds are worrying and make it crucial that we enshrine environmental sustainability in the renewed strategic framework and the forthcoming marine bill. It is important that the new framework be consistent with the bill and the EU water framework directive, therefore we are happy to support the Labour amendment.
We will also support the Liberal Democrat amendment because a streamlined regulatory system, a fair inspection regime, a skilled and qualified workforce and good liaison between communities and the industry are all desirable and ought to be achievable.
The Scottish Conservatives recognise the enormous importance of the fish farming industry to Scotland. We are generally supportive of the Government's proposals to promote and enhance it and we look forward to the publication of the new strategic framework next spring, which we hope will reflect the areas of concern that have been raised and discussed in the debate.
This has been a useful debate and I appreciate members' attempts to be as loquacious as possible and to extend their contributions beyond six minutes to seven, eight or nine minutes to assist us poor individuals who have to sum up at the end and fill the remaining time. I do not know whether the minister and I can rise to the challenge of filling the 25 minutes that I see are left to us.
The debate has been useful, despite some concerns about its early timing. I hope that we will get the opportunity in the committee or in the chamber to scrutinise the consultation results. It is the shape of the final document that will be most important.
A number of contributors to the debate have linked the development of the aquaculture industry to other priorities of the Scottish economy, such as tourism. Food security is also becoming increasingly important. Another link is with the health benefits to be gained from consuming fish and, indeed, from consuming good, fresh, local produce whether it be fish, meat or vegetables—I think that we would all like that to be developed in a local food strategy. Fish products can also play a role in Scotland's reputation for high quality foodstuffs.
Much as I enjoyed Dave Thompson's description of observing illegal salmon fishing—he seems to have had a career in that—I do not agree that aquaculture is a forgotten issue. The Transport and the Environment Committee in the first session of Parliament conducted an investigation into fish farming, and a strategy was published in March 2003. Now, five years on, the Scottish Government is considering the issue again and proposing a refreshed strategy. Therefore, since the start of the Scottish Parliament, awareness of the industry's importance to the Scottish economy has increased, as has the desire to address and solve the various problems that surround the industry so that it can be promoted.
Various members have commented on the need to limit escapes and to monitor and trace escapes that occur. That is a difficult issue and I would be glad to hear more from the minister about how he has achieved the reductions of the past 18 months, although it has been happening for the past three years. Obviously, there will be lessons to learn from that.
Members have also referred to the interaction between wild and farmed fish. Of course, the consultation document identifies the key theme of sea lice, which was also a key theme of the 2003 strategy because it is important to the health and welfare of farmed fish as well as wild fish. Unfortunately, there now appears to be evidence of sea lice resistance to some of the available treatments, so authorisation is being sought for new treatments.
Exciting possibilities are being developed for non-chemical treatments, which would avoid some of the complications of chemical treatments, such as the release of chemicals into the natural environment and the build-up of resistance to treatments, which seems to be happening. One of those natural methods of control is done by cleaner fish, which are fish such as wrass that remove sea lice from the host fish rather than fish that have superior personal hygiene habits.
Tackling the problem of sea lice is important to the aquaculture industry, but it is also important to wild salmonid stocks. It is worrying that the 2007 wild sea trout catch was the lowest ever, at 27,115, which was down 0.6 per cent on 2006, which was also a poor year. The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards and Rivers and Fisheries Trusts Scotland estimate that sea lice cost their industry £30 million per annum. Although a single treatment is unlikely to be applicable in all cases, the use of non-chemical, natural treatments and the management of sites to reduce infection, as well as possible chemical treatments, need to be high on the agenda.
Several members, including Rhoda Grant and Rob Gibson, mentioned planning issues. The consultation document refers to the perception that there is a lack of sites for the expansion of aquaculture in Scotland and to the fact that, historically, development was permitted on sites that would now be considered unsuitable.
The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation is concerned that the introduction of the new planning system and the provisions of the new marine bill may complicate the optimisation of sites and new site identification. However, as Rob Gibson said, there are a considerable number of unproductive sites. We need to know where those are and sanctions perhaps need to be imposed on people who continue to sit on sites year after year without using them. Unfortunately, a number of those inactive sites have Crown Estate leases. We hear that there are various reasons for that, including companies keeping leases as an asset for the future, but that all conflicts with the perception that there is a lack of sites. I appreciate that the matter is the subject of an expert group investigation; the group can perhaps consider the possibility of sanctions, should those turn out to be necessary.
Scottish Environment LINK argues that it is too soon to introduce permanent site consents. It identifies concerns over the possibility of mass escapes or increases in disease outbreak should there be a move to larger sites and larger cage diameters.
The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards and Rivers and Fisheries Trusts Scotland also have serious reservations about permanent planning consent, because of the dynamic nature of the issue and the difficulty in predicting how the industry will develop in future decades. Obviously, the marine bill provides the opportunity for a new and, I hope, clearer planning system for the marine environment. Will the minister consider at least delaying making any decisions on permanent planning permission until after the bill has been passed and we have the framework for marine planning in place?
The submission from the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards and Rivers and Fisheries Trusts Scotland disputes the statement in the consultation document about the success of the tripartite working group—that is at odds with the minister's opinion. The group was set up to promote dialogue between the wild fish and fin-fish farm sectors and the 18 area management associations. Their submission observes that, although some AMAs are working well together, others have so far failed to progress beyond problem identification to solution identification, which is more important.
As always, Bill Wilson was very interesting and educational owing to his knowledge of fish. I have benefited from his knowledge of the breeding cycles of fish, which the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee found helpful in its recent discussions. I was interested to hear about Professor Bell's research at the University of Stirling into reducing the need for fish products in feedstuffs, because the issue of feed sustainability has been a concern. The issue has been raised with regard to feed ingredients that have been derived from wild fish captures; I was told in a recent conversation that it can take 5kg of wild fish to create 1kg of farmed fish. If there is another way of producing quality farmed fish that is not as dependent on wild fish stocks to feed the farmed fish, that is an important development and I am grateful to Dr Wilson for advising the chamber about it.
I was also interested to hear more about the use of microalgae to reduce the release of nutrients from fish farming cages, because that has been one of the environmental concerns about fish farming. It is helpful to hear of natural ways of controlling the problem and I look forward to hearing more about that in the future.
I was happy to accept Mr McArthur's reassurances that the Liberal Democrat amendment is not intended in any way to suggest a light-touch approach. Scotland is, of course, obliged to meet international commitments under the OSPAR convention, the world summit on sustainable development, the EU marine strategy framework directive, the EU water framework directive and the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. The new strategic framework needs to be developed in the context of meeting all those international obligations.
Des McNulty referred to problems where there is a heavy concentration of sites and mentioned the map that shows how close many of those sites are to each other. The 2003 strategy included the principle of operating within the
"biological, assimilative and visual carrying capacity of the environment".
The current consultation document refers only to the
"carrying capacity of the environment".
Scottish Environment LINK suggests that, in the final document, the term "carrying capacity" needs to be more fully defined and that means of monitoring carrying capacity need to be further developed.
Rob Gibson referred to the possibility of a carbon count in discussing the environmental issues of fish farms. The concern is not so much the carbon footprint but the effect on biodiversity.
Liam McArthur and Rhoda Grant mentioned training. For any industry to be viable, its workforce must be appropriately trained. In my opening speech, I referred to courses that are offered by the Barony College in Dumfriesshire. They include a higher national certificate in fish farm and production management, work-based level 2 Scottish vocational qualifications in aquaculture and fisheries, and short courses in fish disease diagnosis and treatment and in something called electro-fishing—I am not quite sure what that is.
Rhoda Grant made an important point about the difficulties of accessing training for people who live in remote and rural communities. The obvious answer to that is distance learning, but that is not easy if people do not have access to good broadband. The problems of broadband access in some of our remote and rural communities compound the problems for people trying to access training through distance learning.
Peter Peacock and Liam McArthur also referred to unfair competition, particularly from Norway, and the unwelcome loss of the European Commission's minimum import price. I know that the minister said that the Government also regrets that.
With particular reference to Norway and regrets, does the member, on behalf of the previous Labour Government, regret not taking more precautionary measures to ward off the risk of Gyrodactylus salaris being imported into this country?
I am not sure that that is a correct interpretation of events. As I said in my opening speech, the amendment that John Scott refers to was rejected on the advice of an expert group, which said that the chances of GS coming into the country through the mechanism in question were very low.
On the minimum import price, it is important that the Government continues to monitor what is happening. If Norwegian producers face economic problems at home, the easy answer for them is to make production cuts in Scotland. If that happens, can the Scottish Government take action to protect Scottish jobs and will it work with the Scotland Office and counterparts in the UK Government? Action will need to be taken if we are to protect the jobs both of people working directly in the aquaculture industry and of those, such as my 700 constituents who work at Pinneys of Scotland in Annan, whose employment is dependent on the industry.
You should wind up now, Dr Murray.
I will do so, Presiding Officer.
I am happy to accept both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments, and I am pleased to hear that others intend to accept our amendment. I am also very pleased, on behalf of the Labour Party, to say that we will support the Government motion at decision time.
I express my gratitude to Dr Elaine Murray, who has filled more than half the time that was available, which means that my summing up will be shorter than hers. I congratulate her, as I have been able to throw away a great deal of material that I would otherwise have commented on.
I shall make two points at the outset. First, I was slightly surprised that several members talked about the strange timing of the debate. I cannot imagine that anybody would be suspicious of my motivations, but I will make it clear that it has been sensible to hear MSPs' views before the revised framework is finalised. Of course we intend to discuss it in Parliament following its publication, and of course it will have to interface closely with the provisions in the marine bill. That is entirely accepted. Today's debate has been a good opportunity to hear from members a variety of views that we will integrate into the Government's thinking. I am grateful to all members who have contributed.
Secondly, I say to Rhoda Grant, who raised this issue, that I am passionately committed to reducing bureaucracy. It is a little rich to be criticised for not being so committed when I am trying to deconstruct a system of bureaucracy that was created by her party in government. Nevertheless, I believe that the debate overall has been positive, and I will go through a range of speeches.
Many members focused on planning and sites. Members seem to accept that a lack of information has been a difficulty, so we have taken a big step forward today by publishing the map of sites. We now need to do several other things.
We know that fin-fish production takes place in 263 sites out of the 458 sites that have been consented. There is a gap between the number of consents and the number of sites that are being operated. That gives us an opportunity. We want to develop a siting tool that will allow us to examine all environmental and other considerations—along the lines of the spatial planning to which Mr McNulty referred. Development of the tool will allow informed decisions to be made about exact siting—where opportunities are great and where there are potential difficulties, including with interactions.
It is important to note that the SEPA consenting process involves close consideration of the carrying capacity of the environment. No site that would degrade the environment at any stage is consented. In addition, the good practice of rotating cages allows environmental recovery from the small amount of damage that is done. In the summer, I was at a fish farm in Skye that operates the system on three sites: one site is fallow and two are occupied. We are concerned about environmental issues, which our policy on consenting sites allows us to consider.
We and the industry are concerned about inconsistencies in the approach to planning. I am glad to say that planning fees are being normalised. The expert working group on sites has gathered information on all sites, and inactivity will be a factor in the system for deciding future priorities. There is much work to be done, but we recognise that a modern approach to sites is needed.
We must also remember that the cost of production is often dependent on the site, its carrying capacity and the size of the installation. If the industry is to remain competitive in Scotland, it will have to recognise the drive towards larger and more efficient sites that is taking place in Norway, for example, but it will have to do so with full recognition of the environmental difficulties that such an approach may cause. I am sympathetic to the environmental points that the RSPB makes but, as ever, we must ensure that we strike a balance between environmental issues and commercial imperatives in a sensitive and forward-looking way.
Does the minister accept that there is still a huge opportunity for development of the fin-fish industry and the shellfish industry through co-operation? There are already models of such co-operation. Does he agree that there is room for expansion?
I entirely endorse the member's view. Working in partnership and co-operation is a huge issue for the industry.
Other important issues have been raised. For example, Mr Peacock mentioned the protection of shellfish waters. There are some inconsistencies, which we are trying to drive out, but it is important to recognise that 112 waters in Scotland—the number was previously 105—are now protected under the shellfish waters directive. Seven waters—Loch Ailort, Sandsound Voe, Baltasound Voe, East of Burki Taing, Muckle Roe, South Wick and Loch Fyne coastal strip—were designated this month. In 2007, shellfish growing waters achieved 100 per cent compliance with standards. We are always aware that the quality of the environment and of the water is what makes the industry successful, because it makes for a first-class product. Environmental and commercial issues must be kept in balance, and we will endeavour to do that.
As new species are introduced, we will have to recognise what they need in terms of clean water and nutrients. I say to Mr Hume that although tilapia is an interesting possibility it flourishes best in the warm waters of the Nile. So far, despite global warming, we do not have the warm waters of the Nile, even in the Solway.
The Government intends to support the amendments, but I want to make our position clear on the policy positions that the other parties have helpfully put forward. I will deal first with the amendment in the name of Dr Elaine Murray. The renewed strategy will sit within the marine management provisions of the proposed Scottish marine bill and the marine management organisation. We are entirely aware that we will have to ensure that this set of policy proposals is sensitive to those provisions and that the timing is correct. Aquaculture policy will develop alongside and dovetail with wider EU, UK and Scottish initiatives, including the water framework directive. Dr Murray recited well just some of the conventions and directives that apply in the area and of which we are extremely aware. We are happy to accept in full the two points that she makes.
With regard to the amendment in the name of John Scott, we have a robust commitment to reduce the number of escapes. That is clear under our existing policy and in the renewed framework. Dr Murray asked how that had been achieved. Despite what Mr McArthur claimed, I do not have a net and some very large waders that I am using to block the escape of the 66,000 fish I talked about.
What a pity.
I am sure it is a pity, but they just do not exist.
The combination of a number of factors has allowed progress to be made. One is zero tolerance. The Government has zero tolerance of escapes. Escapes should not take place on the scale that they have been, and the figure of 200,000 plus was a nonsense. Good practice means running a fish farm in a way that stops escapes. A further factor is continued investment—ensuring that investment is up to date and that equipment does not fail. There is also new technology. All those things have come together.
The biggest factor is determination that escapes should not happen. The figure for escapes in Norway is substantially lower than the figure here. It simply should not be happening, and we are continuing to press the matter. I entirely respect the view of the angling community, which thinks that escapes are a big downside to fish farming in Scotland. Good neighbourliness will develop for a variety of reasons, one of which will be if escapes stop happening.
Sea lice infection is of great concern to us. Inspections for sea lice and containment under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 will commence next week. We will continue to work with others, including other countries—we are working with Norway on the matter—to ensure that we have the right regime for sea lice. Reduced escapes and sea lice issues are key themes of our approach under the "Fresh Start" document. The traceability of escaped fish is a further issue. If escapes take place, we want to know where and why they happened. There is of course a legal requirement to report them. The industry knows that we mean business on that.
John Scott spoke about Gyrodactylus salaris. I appreciate the points that he made, and he is absolutely right that we should eliminate any threat from well boats—but we already do that. Legislation bans imports from GS-diseased areas. That will continue. We have guarantees that there will not be such imports. We are able to regulate imports from all diseased areas, and we are doing so. We have a Gyrodactylus salaris contingency plan in place and we have a concordat with the Norwegian Government on the provision of assistance and expertise should we have an outbreak—which we absolutely intend not to have. [Interruption.] Finally—
Order. There is too much noise in the chamber during the winding up of a very interesting debate.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very glad that you have found the subject interesting. I do, and many members do. Had some other members been here during the afternoon, they would have learned a great deal. In the few minutes still available to me, I shall give them some information. For example, the regular public awareness campaigns on the dangers of introducing the parasite go on. Most recently, the BBC went on a G salaris fact-finding mission to Norway. The Scottish Government was there too, and we now have a new video on YouTube, which helps. We will continue to push the matter. Dr Murray looks surprised. We continually place on YouTube videos that give interesting information. Finally—[Interruption.] There is even one about beavers, which I made myself. I do not want to self-advertise at this late stage in the day, though.
Finally, I turn to Mr Hume's amendment. As I have mentioned, we are developing a concordat—a memorandum of understanding—for mutual benefit between Scotland and Norway. Regulation is a key issue, but everything I have said today is about reducing the burden of regulation, and all the organisations involved know that the guiding principle from the Government is that regulations should encourage good practice and not just stamp out bad practice. That is what is happening in the aquaculture industry, as in every other. Significant advances have been made in streamlining the aquaculture regulatory burden. A new framework will be made to facilitate a further lightening of the load—rather than to increase it. A lot of things are imposed on us; our job is to ensure that we do not impose on others. The renewed framework will highlight skills issues. I take issue with Mr McArthur—the skills issue is included, and the framework highlights the importance of the industry in rural and other parts of Scotland.
This has been a good and productive debate in which many other points that I do not have time to cover have been made. I was startled at one stage to hear Rob Gibson call for us to serve lobster as Christmas dinner. I cannot imagine lobster with bread sauce, but no doubt somebody has done and is already making it. That point aside, the aquaculture industries in Scotland are good industries with huge potential and they are doing well. Our job as a Government is not to get in their way; our job is to encourage their development. The debate has provided us with a lot of information about how to do that. I am grateful to all members who participated. I hope that, like me, they will support not just the motion but all the amendments.