Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5224, in the name of Ross Finnie, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.
I thank all those who were involved in the preparation and scrutiny of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. In particular, I record my gratitude to the many people who volunteered their time to help work up the proposals and to give oral and written evidence. Above all, the bill is a collaborative effort, which is why I believe it has found favour with the vast majority of stakeholders.
I thank the Environment and Rural Development Committee sincerely for its diligent and helpful scrutiny of the bill and I welcome its endorsement of the bill in its stage 1 report and its recommendation that the general principles be agreed to.
I have written to thank the committee for its report and my letter responds to some of the main points that are raised in the report. I confirm that the additional information that was requested in the report will be provided to the committee before stage 2 proceedings start.
At the outset, I underline the importance and potential in Scotland of aquaculture and freshwater fisheries. Retail spend on salmon products in the United Kingdom this year has been some £430 million and the salmon farming industry is estimated to support the employment of some 8,500 people. There is scope for aquaculture to grow in Scotland, particularly for other sectors such as shellfish and other marine species.
Anglers who fish in Scotland spend some £113 million annually and support some 2,800 full-time equivalent jobs, mostly in rural areas. There is considerable scope for angling, particularly coarse angling, to grow in Scotland and the bill helps to lay the foundations for such growth to take place sustainably. Ministers are committed to the sustainable development of both sectors for the greater good of Scotland.
In recent years, the Executive has worked with stakeholders and other parts of the public sector to progress a range of initiatives to help protect and promote the two sectors. Our main policy instrument has been the Executive's aquaculture strategy and its rolling programme of priorities for action. We are drawing up a similar strategic framework for the freshwater sector. Initiatives such as the trade defence measures in Europe protect our smaller salmon businesses from unfair trading practices, and the tripartite working group on aquaculture—the TWG—tackles the tensions between aquaculture and freshwater interests, particularly on sea lice and escapes. The TWG process has developed 15 area management agreements, which provide for greater understanding—for example the exchange of information on sea lice—and the promotion of best practice.
The bill seeks to act as a backstop to the fish farming industry's code of good practice. All sides have recognised that it strikes the right balance on the degree of regulation that is required. It also lays strong foundations for the further development of both freshwater fisheries and aquaculture. I am heartened that the proposals are on the right track and am optimistic that the measured and consensual approach that has been taken will continue for the remainder of the bill's passage through the Parliament.
I am delighted that the committee has recognised the importance of good relations among stakeholders and between stakeholders and the Executive. In particular, I welcome the statement in paragraph 12 of its stage 1 report that the Executive's
"commitment to stakeholder involvement in the early processes of the Bill's development has been widely demonstrated throughout the evidence the Committee received."
The ministerial working group on aquaculture, the freshwater fisheries forum and the tripartite working group have been extremely useful arenas for working through problems together and for coming up with joint solutions. The bill is therefore representative of the agreed views of stakeholders. I thank members of the Scottish Parliament who have been involved with those bodies and have given their time over the years to work with them.
We have said all along that the Executive strongly supports the voluntary approach that is set out in the aquaculture industry's code of practice, which includes robust provisions on the prevention of escapes and the control of sea lice. The purpose of the bill is to underpin that code of practice and strengthen public confidence in the industry by ensuring that companies that do not sign up to or cannot adhere to the code in respect of the key issues of sea lice and containment have to meet the agreed standards. The purpose is not to push beyond the industry-accepted norms of good practice. Our guiding principles for the bill are fairness, inclusiveness, lightness of touch and responsiveness to need.
The bill provides powers to tackle the parasite Gyrodactylus salaris, if it should ever enter Scotland. On 7 December, I published the Executive's contingency plan on how to tackle an outbreak of the parasite. I draw members' attention to that plan. I emphasise that implementation of the plan, when ministers decide that eradication is the appropriate response, depends on approval of the powers in the bill. I have offered committee members a detailed briefing by my officials on GS and the contingency plan, which I encourage them to take up. I am pleased that the committee broadly supports the proposals in the remainder of the bill, including the sea fisheries provisions, which are due to be contained in an Executive amendment at stage 2.
As members know, the purpose of this debate is to discuss the general principles of the bill rather than to provide detailed responses to all the points that have been made. However, I assure members that we will consider and carefully reflect on the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report and the points that members make in this debate. Ministers will seek to respond to those views as positively as they can and to give views that are consistent with the fundamental principles of the bill. I hope that the bill will move to the next stage of consideration with continuing broad-based support. Our shared purpose has been evident in the constructive attitude that has dominated the debate on the bill thus far. I look forward to having further detailed debates on the bill's details with committee members at stage 2.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.
I, too, welcome the committee's report and the debate, in which I speak both as the spokesperson for the Scottish National Party and as a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee who has been involved in the production of the report.
The debate and the bill are about two vital sectors in Scotland: the aquaculture sector and the freshwater fisheries sector. Our natural environment plays host to both sectors. The debate is not only about the jobs in those two sectors and their importance to the economy; the impact of the sectors on the environment and on biodiversity is of equal importance.
All the sectors that use our natural environment for commercial, economic or recreational purposes must do so responsibly. The purpose of the Parliament is to ensure that the necessary regulation is in place.
As the minister outlined, aquaculture is an enormously valuable industry in many rural and remote parts of Scotland. It is not only about salmon but about the wider sector, which brings £700 million of value to the Scottish economy and sustains more than 10,000 jobs. As I found out during my visit last week to the Spey District Salmon Fishery Board in my constituency, the freshwater sector continues to be of enormous importance to many of our constituencies. The great salmon rivers that many of us are lucky to have in our constituencies also continue to play an important role. Last week, I met staff and anglers at the fishery board and spoke to them about their livelihoods and their hobbies. The discussions were informative and interesting. The Spey is worth £11.8 million and sustains 370 jobs in Moray. Such a scenario is replicated on our other salmon rivers throughout Scotland.
The aquaculture sector in Scotland has taken enormous strides in recent years, and the Parliament has played a valuable role in ensuring that that has happened. As the minister says, the voluntary code of practice is in place. However, only 97 per cent of operators have signed up to it, so the SNP supports the minister's view that it is important to have a legislative backstop to the voluntary code of practice. It will also give more meaning to the code of practice and send out the right message from the Parliament about the code's importance.
The bill aims to achieve two goals in the aquaculture sector: first, to prevent escapes; and, secondly, to control parasites and, in particular, the infamous sea louse, which can also impact on a freshwater fisheries environment. In that context, the SNP welcomes the creation of the new inspection regime. We take into account the commitment that the minister recently gave to the committee that she will do her best to rationalise the number of inspections that will take place at salmon farms, because a common theme throughout the aquaculture debates in the Parliament has been the level of bureaucracy foisted on salmon farms. We must do what we can to streamline the bureaucracy. There have been calls in the past for a one-stop shop. The bill creates a new inspection and we must recognise that it is in the interests of the sector and the Parliament that we streamline the process. The committee calls for the "intelligent rationalisation" of the inspections and the minister has given a commitment to address the matter; it is very important that that is done. We must ensure that regulation is in place, but it must be proportionate and necessary. It should not lead to significant increases in expenses for salmon farm operators in Scotland.
To stick with the aquaculture sector, we note that the minister did not include in the bill introduced to Parliament the concept of strict liability in respect of escapes from salmon farms, despite the fact that that concept was included in the consultation process. The committee report expresses concern about the matter, which the SNP shares. I think that I am right in saying that the minister has agreed to reconsider the issue at stage 2, but perhaps she will verify that when she sums up.
The reason for our concern is that although we welcome the enforcement regime that will be put in place by the new inspectors' use of enforcement notices and we welcome the fact that there will now be an appeals process for salmon farmers in that context, that is taking action after the event and after escapes have occurred. Having a strict liability offence in the bill would perhaps create an incentive for salmon farmers to ensure that they take all possible steps to ensure that such escapes do not happen in the first place.
The threat that GS poses to Scotland's rivers overshadowed most of the committee's consideration of the bill. The seriousness of that particular fish disease is explained by the Government's economic impact assessment statement on GS. It states:
"The prevalence of Gs throughout Scotland would destroy salmon angling."
That is how serious the issue is. If GS occurs in Scotland, it will destroy many jobs, it will be a huge economic blow and it will be bad for Scotland's main salmon rivers and for the rest of our freshwater fisheries. We must take every step to ensure that if GS occurs, the impact is minimised.
It is difficult to argue against the minister acquiring powers to eradicate GS if it occurs in Scotland, but we must ensure that we take into account the serious concerns expressed to the committee. It was put to the committee that the cost of eradication could outweigh the benefits. That point must be at the heart of the Government's strategy in this context. Very serious concerns were expressed to the committee by the malt whisky sector. It said that, given that the only chemical that is available at the moment to treat GS would kill all life in and close down all activities related to a river, eradication would have dire consequences for local economies, including the malt whisky industry. If to treat this fish disease chemicals were inserted into some of the rivers from which water is taken for distilleries, distilleries would have to stop operating and the image of malt whisky distilling in Scotland would be affected. We must take into account the wider ramifications of treatment for GS. Other sectors such as the renewable energy sector also expressed concern about the issue.
One common theme of the debate on GS throughout the committee's deliberations was that prevention, rather than cure, is the answer. We must prevent GS from occurring in Scotland in the first place, as that is the key to safeguarding many jobs and the biodiversity of our rivers. The minister gave a lukewarm response to the committee's suggestion that we introduce stringent measures at ports of entry not just throughout Scotland, but throughout the UK, for people returning to Scotland from GS hot spots in Scandinavia, especially Norway, who have been involved in water-based sports or angling. We must ensure that disinfection takes place at ports of entry, so that we minimise the risk of GS coming into the country. The committee took a strong line on that issue.
The SNP shares the view that we must speak to HM Revenue and Customs and the port authorities about ensuring that the best-possible steps are taken to encourage disinfection of people involved in angling or water-based sports when they come into the country. It is also essential that there is a big education campaign among the angling population in Scotland and other users of our rivers. The minister says that our Achilles' heel in that regard is the Scotland-England border, but the Republic of Ireland was not put off from combating foot-and-mouth disease by its border with Northern Ireland. In the same way, it is important that we should not be put off from establishing the most stringent safeguards at ports of entry in Scotland.
The economic study says that the cost of running a major information campaign and putting in place disinfecting facilities at ports of entry would be £6 million. Perhaps when the minister sums up she will indicate whether that money will be provided by the Government, from where it will be provided and what progress has been made on putting together the information campaign that the minister says she supports.
The SNP supports the general principles of the bill and will vote for it. We await the return to the chamber in May—when the minister may no longer be the person responsible for the matter—of the issue of freshwater fisheries management, which is the missing part of the jigsaw and is not addressed in the bill. The SNP supports the modernisation of freshwater fisheries management by updating the fisheries boards that govern Scotland's freshwater fisheries.
Conservative members, too, welcome the debate and the committee's report. Although this week much attention has rightly been focused on Brussels, where ministers are wrestling with the problems of managing deep-sea fish stocks, we in Scotland must never forget that we have a vibrant and growing aquaculture and recreational angling sector. The bill that we are debating today is relatively uncontentious, but it is hugely important for controlling and avoiding disease in farmed stocks, and in addressing the problem of escapes from fish farms. Rightly, the bill seeks to penalise those who misbehave but, equally important, it proposes compensation for those affected by disease or the measures that are taken to eradicate it. It also includes important new provisions relating to recreational angling and the preservation of freshwater fish stocks, virtually all of which we support. My colleague Jamie McGrigor will deal with that part of the bill.
Despite occasional misdirected scares, no one should underestimate the importance to Scotland of the farmed salmon industry. We are the third-largest global producer of Atlantic salmon, after Norway and Chile. As we heard from the minister, the industry is directly worth £350 million, with an added value of about £400 million. It supports about 10,000 jobs in some of the most remote parts of Scotland. As we have heard, at present it is regulated by a code of good practice that is supported by 97 per cent of the industry. The Executive considers part 1 of the bill to be a legislative backdrop to the code.
Infestation by sea lice is a major problem for the fish farming industry. Two main species are present in Scotland, and fish farms appear to provide the conditions in which the lice can thrive and subsequently affect wild fish. However, it is also true to say that wild fish are the carriers that bring the lice into waters where fish farms are located.
As we have heard, the bill attempts to underpin the voluntary management agreements that are currently in place by giving statutory force to the control of lice. We support the committee's view that inspection is vital but that
"an intelligent rationalisation of the various inspection regimes should be attempted so that the number of visits is not necessarily increased".
We certainly do not want an increase in costs for the industry, which is already operating on very slim profit margins.
On escapes, we broadly support the dropping of the strict liability offence. We fully understand the fears of anglers that farmed fish might get into wild stocks, with disastrous effects on the genetic pool, but we believe that containment is now much more successful than it has ever been. We agree with the committee that the key issues are effective inspection and the standards that the inspectors apply in assessing the adequacy of containment measures. However, we are also concerned that Fisheries Research Services should have sufficient funds to take on those inspection duties.
The one parasitical name that I will attempt to pronounce in full is the dreaded Gyrodactylus salaris, which is probably the most pernicious salmon parasite that we know. GS has decimated fish populations across the continent. Thus far, GS has not been found in this country, although it is fairly widespread in Norwegian rivers. Although some witnesses claimed that it is simply a matter of time before GS arrives in the UK, we must take every step possible to prevent that from happening. Action is required because the arrival of GS would not only cause devastation to our wild salmon but affect other river users such as—perhaps most significantly—the whisky producers that Richard Lochhead mentioned. The only way to get rid of GS in a river is by massive flushing with chemicals. One can imagine what that would do to famous whisky rivers such as the Spey.
We totally support the committee's view that at airports and other ports of entry we should take more robust measures, such as requiring people to declare fishing gear or other water-sports equipment. Every possible step should be taken to prevent the scourge of GS from ever coming into Scotland. We also believe that smolts and eggs from GS-infected countries should be banned from the UK. That might sound drastic, but we have far too much to lose.
On a connected issue, we are not convinced by the Executive's proposals for compensation, which ought to be available both for fish farmers who are forced to slaughter stocks because of disease and for whisky producers whose rivers are polluted by chemicals to eradicate the disease. We question why there is not parity between the compensation payments that can be made for the destruction of livestock and those that are proposed for the slaughter of fish. Although producers may, at the Executive's discretion, be compensated for fish that have been destroyed, the bill makes no reference to compensation for wider consequential losses, such as those that might be incurred by fish farmers who are prevented from moving or harvesting their stock even though they are not the primary target of the disease control measures.
Given that the Executive has admitted that it forgot about compensation for shellfish farmers, a clearer line on compensation will be essential at stage 2. As we have heard, representatives of the whisky industry expressed concern about the Executive's confusion on whether whisky producers might receive compensation.
On fish movements, we recognise the serious problems of non-native fish species and the spread of disease due to unauthorised introductions into this country. We agree with the committee that the preventive measures that are outlined in the bill might not go far enough.
We are wholly supportive of the general principles of the bill and we will vote for it.
It is fair to say that the bill was introduced after a lot of good work had already been done to bring together the different interests of fish farming, shellfish farming and angling. The bill will provide powers to support the aquaculture industry and to ensure continued confidence in its products by giving statutory underpinning to the codes of good practice that have already been drawn up by the industry.
The two issues that are of paramount importance are the control of parasitic lice and the prevention of escapes. Although there is no conclusive evidence that either of those have caused the decline in wild salmon stocks, it is accepted that they may have made a bad situation worse either because passing wild fish have been infected with lice that developed in fish farms or because the genetic stock has been weakened due to wild fish interbreeding with escapees.
The parasite that is defined in the bill is the sea louse, but it is possible to widen the definition, if necessary, through statutory instrument. Argulus has been cited as a parasite that should perhaps be considered. The Scottish Executive has said that it is monitoring the situation with Argulus and will take action if it is deemed necessary.
There is provision in the bill to regulate the movement of farmed marine fish between specified sea areas, to maintain health and restrict movement of disease. There are powers to have inspectors assess the measures in place for controlling parasites and preventing escapes. Inspectors will have discretion to serve enforcement notices if such notices are deemed necessary.
There were some areas of concern around inspection—there are concerns about who the inspectors would be, what their qualifications would be and whether their actions would cut across the veterinary advice that fish farmers get from their own vets. Those issues were all raised in the discussions and the evidence sessions during our stage 1 consideration of the bill and I think that they have all been satisfactorily addressed. The bill offers an opportunity to rationalise the number of inspection regimes, which is generally to be welcomed. Inspection must be proportionate, although the committee sounded the cautionary note that inspections must still be effective.
There was a lot of discussion on whether there should be strict liability for escapes. Again, the issues were thrashed out in evidence and discussion and it was felt that the provisions would be adequate and effective.
Relocation of fish farms was a hot topic some time ago. There are issues to do with the historical difficulties that there have been with Crown Estate-approved sites that are left unused, but there has been a general welcome for the fact that that issue will be tackled. The new planning regime that is being brought in by the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will also be helpful.
For salmon and freshwater fishing—both game and coarse fishing—the bill's provisions fall into three main categories: improving rules on access; welfare of fish, with the prohibition of certain gear that can be damaging; and conservation. There will be regulation, for example, of the introduction of live fish into inland waters and there will be contingency powers to control GS. The worst-case scenario for GS is very scary indeed and the best strategy would be to keep it out at almost all costs. There are practical difficulties in checking every port of entry to Scotland, but the committee felt that there might be mileage in having a requirement for people to declare whether they have been anywhere where they might have come into contact with GS and, if they have, whether they have treated their gear. We also felt that as much as possible should be done to raise awareness at points of entry, through fishing bodies and where permits for fishing are sold.
However, the biggest single danger seems to be the import of live fish. The committee had concerns about how good the information is about where GS is prevalent in other countries and other waters and about the opportunities that exist for banning the import of live fish. As far as incoming gear is concerned, we heard that people who have been engaged in water sports or angling in countries where there is GS could take simple precautions that work—either by freezing their gear or by soaking equipment in salt water.
There were concerns about the draconian nature of treatment and how effectively a whole river system could be treated. There are also complex issues to do with balancing priorities—whether we should sacrifice salmon for whisky or vice versa, for example. There was discussion about protection orders, and the feeling was that they could work well, and that, although they had been abused in some areas, they are reasonably fit for purpose. However, it was accepted that it was time to bring them up to date, and that was welcomed. There are some points to be tidied up, but the bill in general is widely supported and welcomed, and the general principles should be endorsed by the Parliament.
I speak on behalf of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, so I thank the committee clerks for all their work in helping to arrange our scrutiny of the bill. I also thank the witnesses who were prepared to be grilled by committee members and the people who submitted detailed written evidence. I thank the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development and her officials for their briefings and their answers to the many detailed questions that the committee put to them, which were extremely helpful.
I thank the minister for the letter that she sent to the committee and for her commitment to allowing us early sight of amendments to the bill, in January. It will be important for us to see the amendments on some of the detailed issues about which we have expressed concern.
I also thank the people who were involved in the process before the bill was introduced—[Interruption.]
I remind members that mobile phones should be switched off.
Members have talked about how the process helped us to have a fairly consensual debate at stage 1.
I will focus on parts 1 and 2 of the bill. All speakers in the debate so far have reflected on the significance of aquaculture and particularly salmon to Scotland. The committee agrees with the proposals on inspection for fish farms, but we want visits to be co-ordinated. We note that the minister has agreed to monitor the situation, but we want to ensure that no additional burdens are added to the industry.
There is always a risk of fish escape, but the committee wants the greatest effort to be put into minimising that risk. We want the code of practice to be used and adhered to and we understand that there could be a legislative backstop if the industry does not comply. Although most of the industry will be happy to comply with the code, it will take only one or two rogue operators to let the whole industry down. We do not want that to happen, so high standards are needed. The committee wants details on how rigorous the regime will be and how it will be applied, particularly in cases in which there is cause for concern about the effectiveness of management to avoid escapes. What assurances will there be that the regime will operate effectively? The Executive must ensure that the FRS has the resources that it needs to operate the inspection regime. We welcome the fact that further detail on appeals mechanisms will be provided in January.
I highlight an issue that the minister did not address in her letter to the committee, although she welcomed the new measures on fish farm consents in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. The committee agreed unanimously that the long-term retention of sites that remain undeveloped is unacceptable. It would be good for the Parliament if the minister could update us on the progress that she is making in her discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Competition Commission in that regard.
Part 2 of the bill deals with GS. The committee spent a huge amount of time on GS because of the devastation that it would cause if it arrived in Scotland. Many members have said that strong action is required and that we should do everything that we can do to prevent GS from reaching our shores. Most people regard the importation of live fish as the biggest risk. The committee asked the Executive whether it would be possible to institute a total ban on the importation of live fish and I welcome the Executive's clarification that we can ban the importation of live fish from areas in which fish are known to be infected with GS. However, the committee remains concerned about the robustness of monitoring in other countries and the potential for a gap in time between the identification of GS and action to prevent the importation of live fish from the area affected. I am concerned that no discussions on the matter are taking place at European Union level—I hope the minister will change that.
Members were sent a copy of the GS contingency plan a week or so ago. The committee has asked why particular areas would be chosen in which the contingency plan would be put into effect. The plan refers to the River Dee network but does not say why it has been chosen or explain its significance in relation to other river networks in Scotland. Clarification would be helpful.
We must consider what would happen if GS arrived in Scotland. The committee wanted clarification on compensation, which members mentioned. The fundamental issue is the use of powerful chemicals such as rotenone and the damage that they could cause to our rivers and lochs. We must consider the impact not just on Scotland's image but on wildlife, which would continue for a significant period after the use of the products. Members have talked about the importance of raising awareness and it is crucial that we do everything that we can do to raise awareness of the issue among the people who use our rivers for angling and other leisure and recreational purposes. I welcome the minister's commitment to seek a meeting with the European Commission to ensure that approvals for payment schemes are in place.
Everything in the bill underlines how important it is that we try to stop GS reaching Scotland. That has to be our top priority, although compensation issues must also be resolved.
There is strong support for the general principles of the bill and I look forward to addressing the remaining concerns in detail at stage 2.
I say again to members that someone still has their phone on. Please put it off.
I have checked that my phones are off.
I have constituents who are closely tied to the success of our distant water fishing fleet, but I also have many constituents who work onshore and are highly dependent on aquaculture. Few supermarkets do not have farmed fish on their shelves that have had value added by factories in my constituency that fit between farmer and retailer. We should not fail to understand the importance of such work to the economy of my constituency and of other parts of Scotland that also process the products of our fish farms.
I have one or two concerns about the bill, although I come at it from the outside, not having been involved in the consideration of the bill so far. When she sums up, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development might be able to clarify a point about the use of the Fisheries Research Services in inspections. I can see the value in avoiding setting up another agency, but I wonder there might be a conflict of interests between the FRS's research responsibilities and its enforcement responsibilities, which have a different character. However, I am sure that a separation of responsibilities within the FRS can be managed—although I would welcome the minister's comments.
I have some slight concerns about taking the strict liability route, but I understand the tension between anglers—who are interested in the preservation of the gene stock of our existing native fish—and farmers.
The committee's report on the bill refers to the code of practice. I hope that the code will be aspirational, rather than one that sets out minimum standards. However, if it is the latter, we will have to be careful about the duties that are placed on fish farms. Those duties will have to be able to be implemented in practice.
The Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will lead for the first time to a proper planning framework for fish farms. I welcome that, but I hope that the framework will be flexible and that, under planning regulations, there will be sufficient allowance for fallow periods so that areas of Scotland that are used for fish farming can recover.
I turn to angling. As a young country lad, I was a brown trout fisherman. The world was very different then: there were many more fish in our burns and they were much bigger than they are today. As a student, I also worked—
How big?
This big?
Yes, I thought they were waiting for that, and very enjoyable it was too. As I was saying, I also worked for the Tay Salmon Fisheries Board.
The world has changed dramatically. The cost of fishing has risen hugely, and we must not lose sight of the economic contribution of fishing to the remote parts of Scotland in particular. In my constituency, and in that of my colleague Richard Lochhead, we are developing a tourism industry that depends on there being fish in our rivers.
Paragraph 149 of the committee's report on the bill says that the minister has written to the committee on the subject of fishing opportunities for people on low incomes and for children. At the end of last week, I met the Ugie Angling Association in my constituency in relation to the sale of that fishery. I hope that we will be able to ensure that we do not lose those fishing opportunities for the population as a whole.
There are some concerns over section 28, which contains the sentence:
"A person who commits an offence under this section may be convicted on the evidence of one witness."
I understand the reasons for that, but I would like to hear the minister's justification for the breach of what is a fundamental principle of Scots law—corroboration. What might the implications of that be?
Although the bill has some interesting content, it has not been hugely controversial, with the exception of a few sections that previous speakers have mentioned and to which I will get shortly. In general, there has been a great deal of consensus on the bill, which, as we made clear in the committee's report, reflects the way in which the Executive has gone about matters, by involving stakeholders and the committee's predecessor committee in the first session of the Parliament from the beginning. I do not want to break the consensus, but I still believe that the plethora of legislation that impacts on our marine environment needs to be consolidated into a single marine act for Scotland.
That said, I broadly welcome the provisions in the part of the bill that deals with aquaculture. Since the beginnings of the aquaculture industry in Scotland, it has been a concern that farmed salmon have been a cause of increased infestation of wild salmonids by sea lice. Although some people might dispute that there is a direct relationship, there is agreement that lice need to be controlled, both to conserve wild stocks and to protect the welfare of farmed fish, so I very much welcome the provisions on inspections for the control of parasites. I do not believe that that need be a burden on the industry, particularly if inspections can be rationalised and multiple inspections avoided, as our report suggests.
Some witnesses expressed disappointment with the bill's provisions on escapes of farmed fish. There is a great deal of concern about the effect of such escapes on the indigenous fish and some witnesses felt that allowing escapes to occur should be a strict liability offence; I tend to agree with that position. Others felt that because escapes might not occur as a result of neglect on the part of the firm concerned—for example, they might be caused by storm damage—it would be unreasonable to make allowing them to happen a strict liability offence, which has a specific meaning in law.
My feeling is that when any operation is carried out in our marine and coastal environment, the company concerned should be obliged to ensure that its equipment is proof against severe weather events. I would be interested to hear from the minister how the Executive would distinguish between escapes that were the result of cages that were simply not fit for purpose and those that were caused by extreme weather. I certainly concur with the committee's view that the Executive should consider whether there should be an offence of negligently permitting escapes of fish. I would also like the minister to tell us about criteria that could be used during inspections of fish farms to assess the adequacy of cages. On the subject of inspections, I draw attention to the need for the FRS to be adequately resourced to carry them out, which other members have mentioned.
Section 7 allows the Executive to approve by order a code of practice for fish farms. We heard that the vast majority of companies—I think that someone used the figure of 97 per cent—are already signed up to a voluntary code and some witnesses felt that that was sufficient. However, others, with whom I agree, felt that legislative underpinning would be a good thing, provided—as Stewart Stevenson said—that any code that the Executive adopts is a code of best practice rather than one that represents the lowest common denominator.
I turn to an issue that is not dealt with in the bill. Like some people from whom the committee heard, I was disappointed that the provision to give the Executive powers to relocate, or even to close, poorly sited fish farms, which was in the consultation that led up to the introduction of the bill, was omitted from the bill itself. I am aware of the relocation working group, but I understand that so far only two farms have been relocated with the group's support. I feel that the issue is particularly relevant, given that permission for the siting of a fish farm will become a local authority planning issue and that the granting of planning permission will be permanent, which is not the case with the existing system, under which fish farms are licensed for a limited period—usually about 15 years. The fact that planning permission will be permanent means that it is more crucial than ever to have a system that allows farms to be relocated if they turn out to be poorly sited.
I turn to part 2. Until the committee started considering the bill, I was—like many members, I suspect—blissfully unaware of Gyrodactylus salaris. Now I know about it and about how devastating it would be to our wild salmon if it ever got into our rivers—the mortality rate is higher than 90 per cent—and what a devastating effect any attempt to eradicate it would have. As other members have spoken about that, I will not go into detail, but simply endorse the view that we must consider every possible measure to keep GS out of Scotland.
I will deal briefly with an angling issue—that of live bait. There are two problems with using live fish as bait. First, if they escape the potential exists for them to establish themselves in areas where they do not belong—which, it has been argued, has already happened—with consequent effects on the ecosystem. The second problem is fish welfare. Some angling groups have suggested using as bait fish that were caught in the same waters on the same day. That would solve one problem, but it would not solve the fish welfare problem. Fish are sentient beings. That is acknowledged by the aquaculture industry, which has taken steps over the years progressively to safeguard fish welfare. I do not believe that any live vertebrates should be used as bait and I endorse the committee's request that the Executive lodges an amendment to prohibit the practice.
Having said that, I support the principles of the bill and I ask all members to do likewise.
It gives me great satisfaction to speak in support of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, which is the culmination of years of hard work by all those with an interest in the industry, including members and clerks of two parliamentary committees—the Transport and the Environment Committee in the first session, and the Environment and Rural Development Committee.
In 2000, petition PE96 reached the Transport and the Environment Committee, asking for an independent public inquiry into the adverse environmental effects of sea cage fish farming. We found ourselves caught between the aspirations of a young industry that employed 5,000 to 6,000 people in remote areas of the Highlands and Islands and the industry's perceived impact—I say "perceived" because the research was patchy—on wild salmon in west Highland rivers, the numbers of which were in decline.
Uniquely, the committee and the Executive jointly commissioned an assessment of the research. That was in no small measure thanks to Rhona Brankin—who then, as now, was responsible for aquaculture—and Allan Wilson, who followed her. The committee's involvement was crucial because it reassured parties that the research was independent. The research, which was conducted by Dr Kenny Black of the Dunstaffnage marine laboratory, found that the two major environmental impacts of aquaculture were the impacts on wild salmon of sea lice and escapes from fish cages.
A tripartite working group had already been established between the Executive, wild salmon interests and the industry, and area management agreements were being encouraged. The Executive then set up a ministerial working group whose task was to find the right environmental, social and economic balance for the industry. The group's membership involved representatives of all stakeholders and—again, uniquely—a committee member. That had never been done before. I hope that other committees and Executive departments will note that approach and consider it as a way of getting consensus on particularly contentious issues.
The parts of the bill on aquaculture, then, are the result of a huge amount of work. That is not to say that equal work has not gone into the other parts, about which other members have spoken. The bill is finely balanced between the industry's need to be economically viable and the need to control the environment for the sake of biodiversity and the sustainability of the wild salmon fishery, which is also of economic benefit to remote, rural communities. Good environmental status is, of course, also of crucial importance to our aspiration for a high-quality farmed salmon product.
The industry has had input as well as the Executive. The industry set itself a high standard in its code of practice and almost 100 per cent of fish farmers have signed up to it. The fact that the bill underpins the code of practice is crucial to retaining the confidence of the other sectors that I mentioned.
A great deal of work has been done to minimise the occurrence of sea lice and treat fish effectively and safely using medicines or synchronised fallowing. That includes the relocation of farms from river estuaries. I do not share Eleanor Scott's concern about permanent planning permission, because the bill is the carrot that will move operators from unsuitable sites. We must balance environmental responsibility, fish health and welfare, and the industry's need to remain competitive.
Escapes might seriously damage the genetic make-up of our wild salmon, which is specific to those in each river, and weaken their ability to survive in the wild. The Executive believes that we cannot make every escape incident a statutory offence, although that seems to have been its original intention. I agree that fish farmers cannot be held accountable for misguided animal rights activists or extreme weather events, but they should keep their cages fit for purpose, as their code of practice requires. The committee is seeking further information on the matter.
I would like more detail on the robustness of the specification of fish cages; on whether an inspection every five years is sufficient to monitor good practice; and on whether there will be sanctions for negligence such as careless handling when fish are being transferred. I accept that no salmon farmer wants to lose his stock—which should be incentive enough to ensure good practice—and that draconian measures could result in escapes not being reported. However, I urge the Executive to give us a clearer idea of the point of balance.
On the GS threat, suffice it to say that we need a robust education campaign to make anglers and game fishermen aware of the risks to our rivers. The risks may be perceived to be small, but the consequences would be catastrophic.
The committee heard evidence on affordable access to angling. Although it seems that more access is available than is taken up by the public, a perception still exists that, on some rivers, the riparian proprietors have protection orders in place but are denying the quid pro quo of allowing access. Each protection order area has a liaison committee. We were impressed by the liaison committee for the River Tay and I am pleased that the minister will explore the possibility of issuing guidance to all such committees. I am sure that other members will expand on that matter.
The bill is a good one. As with other bills, there will be some tweaking at stage 2, but I have no hesitation in endorsing its principles.
Thirty years ago, I voted in the House of Commons against the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976, which introduced protection orders. The Government at the time claimed that protection orders would be granted only in return for increased access, but I predicted that, in many cases, that would not happen. In fact, the opposite has happened. Rather than increased access, there has been decreased access in many areas and, in some areas, no access at all. That situation has resulted in protection orders being referred to by many ordinary anglers as exclusion orders. I have campaigned for 30 years for the repeal of the 1976 act. After the Scottish Parliament was set up, I welcomed the repeated firm commitments to repeal the 1976 act that the Scottish Executive gave to the Parliament.
I remind the Parliament of those specific commitments. In August 2001, the Executive published a consultation document that announced a review of freshwater fishing. The document, which is signed by the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, states:
"We propose to undertake the review by 2003, aiming to repeal the 1976 Act and replace Protection Orders with a new system when an opportunity arises."
On 28 March 2002, the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, told the Parliament:
"We aim to repeal the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 and replace protection orders with a new system".
He said:
"As soon as a legislative opportunity arises, we will introduce legislation to repeal the 1976 act".
He continued:
"I repeat that it is our intention to introduce legislation to repeal the 1976 act to broaden access."—[Official Report, 28 March 2002; c 10780-10781.]
On 25 April 2002, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, told the Parliament:
"The 1976 act will be reformed and repealed. It will have to be replaced."—[Official Report, 25 April 2002; c 11360.]
On 1 July 2004, deputy minister Allan Wilson told the Parliament:
"a fisheries bill … will provide the means for repealing the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976, which would be widely welcomed."
It is an affront to parliamentary democracy for the Scottish Executive to abandon such repeated and unequivocal commitments to the Scottish Parliament, but that is what the Scottish Executive is apparently trying to do. Rather than repeal the 1976 act, it has been consolidated under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003 and there is no mention of repealing protection orders in the bill that is before us. Yet deputy minister Allan Wilson told the Parliament on 1 July 2004:
"there is a provisional slot for a fisheries bill this session. That will provide the means for repealing the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976, which would be widely welcomed. We are in the process of consulting on what we would wish to put in its place."
For years, I have been suggesting what should be put in its place: a democratically constituted Scottish anglers trust, to administer and decide the rules on freshwater fishing throughout Scotland. The then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, apparently expressed support for that idea when he said in response to a question from me on 1 July 2004:
"we intend to repeal the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 and replace it with more modern mechanisms, which will include the trusts to which the member refers.—[Official Report, 1 July 2004; c 9780-9781.]
Where is the Scottish anglers trust? There is no mention of any trust in the bill and it is little wonder that many anglers have little, if any, trust in the Scottish Executive to deliver its pledge to repeal protection orders.
The bill fails completely to honour the repeated commitments that have been given to the Parliament. It is a lost opportunity and its omissions will be seen as a sell-out by those who respect parliamentary democracy, as well as those who believe that angling should be a sporting opportunity for the many rather than the privileged few.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this stage 1 debate on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. During their contributions, Sarah Boyack, Maureen Macmillan and others outlined the joint working between stakeholders, the industry and the Executive. Maureen Macmillan also reflected on recent history and the work of various committees, as did the measured Ted Brocklebank from the Tory benches.
I will focus on the needs of my constituency and the role that it plays in what is a hugely important industry. There is no need for me to retrace the facts and figures that the minister quoted in her opening speech. Members have already placed on the record the numbers employed, exports and so on.
In many of the communities that I represent, fish farming is the central, dominant economic activity that helps to retain and sustain the population and vibrancy of many villages. In the Western Isles, the importance of fish farming cannot be overstated. I was particularly delighted to read last week in the West Highland Free Press, which, among other things, champions the aquaculture industry, that the European Commission has rejected decisively the case that is being presented for a review of the minimum import price imposed on non-European Union countries—namely, salmon that is farmed in Norway. For years, our fish farmers have been trying to compete against industry barons whose banks were constantly backed by the Norwegian Government, which helped the Norwegians to flood the market with cheap salmon.
There is no doubt in my mind—and in the minds of many in the Western Isles—that securing the minimum import price was a triumph for British diplomacy. From the Prime Minister down, UK and Scottish Executive ministers and officials are to be congratulated on their efforts in Europe on behalf of Scottish fish farming. The prospects for businesses, for their employees and for families are infinitely better today than they were when we debated aquaculture previously.
To those who constantly come to the chamber wittering away and asking people to stand up for Scotland, I pose the delicate question: where were the separatists when we were fighting for Scottish jobs, most of which are based in the islands and in the west Highlands? The separatists—the Scottish nationalists, one of whom I see has deemed the debate important enough to turn up at this stage—ignore the needs of Scottish fish farmers. They were content—as they still are—to roam the country peddling their dreary politics of grudge and grievance while others focused on the politics of making a difference for Scottish fish farmers and their families.
Some years ago, when the political editor of the Sunday Post, Campbell Gunn, splashed on the front page a story that quoted Allan Wilson, the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, as saying that the minister had secured the support of the Prime Minister, the London leader of the Scottish nationalist party scoffed and dismissed it and said that the Prime Minister would not be interested in fish farming.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have enough time. It is amazing that when one mentions dreary, Mr Lochhead gets on his feet.
The Prime Minister is and was interested in fish farming. Securing the minimum import price was a triumph for British diplomacy. I suspect that the minister will not be able to do this in her summing up, but I would appreciate it if, early in the new year, she could quantify and present to Parliament or the Environment and Rural Development Committee the economic impact of securing that important measure in Europe.
I wish to raise the issue of the role and status of the Crown Estate, a matter that I raised at First Minister's question time a few months ago. I believe that the Crown Estate and some of the larger fish farming operators must resolve a scandalous situation that has been allowed to develop over many years. The convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee has highlighted the matter: it is the issue of land banking—as it were—and of fish farm consents. There are far too many fish farm sites where valid consents are not being used. Large swathes of our sea and sea bed are effectively being sterilised, with no activity. I was pleased to hear Sid Patten saying on the record that his organisation will take that issue seriously.
As other members have said, the bill addresses a number of important areas and issues of concern, and I look forward to positive engagement with the industry and the minister as we take it forward. I urge all members to support the general principles of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill—I suspect that members of most, if not all, parties will do so.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I am sure that there is consensus all round about what should happen to the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.
As we have just heard from Mr Morrison, there is no doubt that there is tremendous support for the fish farming industry throughout the Highlands and Islands. That is not surprising when one considers that about 10,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in the industry at various stages of the process—in production at the sea cages, in processing or in all the other associated activities. Members can imagine the level of revenue that the industry brings into remote rural areas.
The great pity is that, over the years, the fish farming industry has been taken over by the bigger national companies. Currently, 80 per cent of the fish farming industry up and down our coast is owned or managed by Norwegian interests. That should be considered, and it might be addressed in the future. I know that another merger is taking place between two of the big fish farming interests: Pan Fish ASA and Marine Harvest, which is one of the biggest operators. That merger is currently undergoing an inquiry by the Competition Commission. Very few private operators are left in the industry, which is sad.
There is no doubt that the fish farming industry has had many problems to contend with over the years. Members have mentioned the storm damage to nets and cages, which resulted in many thousands of fish escaping. Not only is that a loss to the fish farming company; it is also detrimental to our environment, because the escapees fight with the native stock for food in the rivers and tributaries, and there are fears that interbreeding of wild and caged salmon is not in the best interests of the industry.
There is a fear of a further problem. Many medicines and chemicals have been introduced to try to get rid of sea lice. I note that the word "chemicals" is no longer used—they are all now referred to as "medicines". Whatever they are, the treatment has been fairly effective. The big fear, however, is that another disease will come in from the Norwegian sector: Gyrodactylus salaris, which is a deadly parasite. The fear is that, if GS gets into our river systems, much of our salmon will be destroyed.
This comment will perhaps appeal to my friend, Dennis Canavan. Interestingly, the bill says that fishing for salmon or sea trout is a criminal offence. I am not so sure. When someone catches a salmon or a sea trout and takes it on to the bank or the shore, that may be an offence, but to suggest that fishing for them is an offence is pushing it a bit too far.
As we have heard, the fish farming industry is in a healthy situation and brings a tremendous amount of revenue into remote and rural areas. I am sure that we would like it to continue into the future and to be sustainable.
This has been a good debate about a bill that I hope will prove to be a good piece of legislation. As my colleague Ted Brocklebank said, the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1, although we have a small number of concerns about what its implementation may mean in practice. I will reiterate a few of those concerns.
An important issue that is dealt with in the bill is the control of Gyrodactylus salaris, the parasite that has devastated salmon stocks in Norway. The impact of the parasite in Scottish waters would be awful, and it is right that the Scottish ministers should have the powers that are needed to deal with such an outbreak. However, I cannot help but worry that the available treatments may prove even more damaging than the parasite itself. For example, the chemical rotenone would completely destroy the ecosystem of some of our rivers, not to mention the impact that it would have on the whisky industry, agriculture, recreational angling and tourism.
As Ted Brocklebank said, the point is surely that we must do everything in our power to ensure that the GS parasite does not come to Scotland. I simply do not accept the view of the Executive's GS task force that comprehensive screening of people who arrive in Scotland from GS-infected countries with fishing gear, canoes and the like is a step too far. I say that because the appearance of GS and the use of associated treatments in Scotland would be nothing short of a national disaster, and we simply cannot afford to compromise on prevention.
I will touch on the sections of the bill that relate to recreational angling. I have spoken before about the importance of angling to the Scottish economy, particularly the rural economy, and I believe that the Executive and VisitScotland should redouble their already commendable efforts to promote Scotland as a first-rate angling destination. Although I generally welcome the provisions in part 3 of the bill, I would like reassurances from the minister that the measures relating to close seasons for species other than trout will be used wisely. Will she consider establishing a close season for rainbow trout—which does not exist at present—to protect wild brown trout from being caught out of season? There could, of course, be a derogation for put-and-take rainbow trout ponds. Will close seasons for coarse fish be created in line with English coarse fish seasons? The suggestion of increasing the rod limit to four rods for pike fishing must have strict conditions—such as bite indicators, wire traces and large baits—attached to it to ensure that the increase does not impact on trout fisheries where both species are present.
It would be a tragedy if the bill's powers were in any way to damage Scotland's reputation with anglers, which I am sure is not the Executive's intention. Anglers will be interested in part 1 of the bill and will no doubt be disappointed that the strict liability offence in relation to escapees from fish farms has been dropped. It would be good if the bill could ease the tension that has existed between salmon farmers and wild sea trout and salmon anglers for the past 20 years. That is far too long to have an argument. Both industries are vital to Scotland's rural economy and, given the length of Scotland's west coast, there is no reason why they cannot co-exist in reasonable harmony. Good practice measures have helped, but the loss of many west coast sea trout stocks over the past 20 years is a tragedy that should be righted.
The west coast fishery trusts employ scientists who do great work, but the problems of wild sea trout and salmon are complex and the scientists require further funding to do additional research, especially at sea. Although present funding for the trusts is welcome, it is inadequate to do that work properly. Sea trout fishing was a famous Scottish sport, especially in areas such as Loch Maree, and we ought to do something to get it back. Considering what the sea fishing industry has had to sacrifice to preserve cod, we should do something to bring sea trout back to Scotland.
More needs to be done to ensure that fewer farmed fish escape and to trace where escapees come from. There is no point in legislating on that if we cannot police the legislation because we do not know where the fish have come from. In this day and age, traceability of food and livestock is vital, so surely it is vital that farmed fish be traceable as well.
This has been an interesting debate—reasoned for the most part—in which there has been a strong degree of consensus.
It is interesting to note the background to the bill. The shellfish industry already has its own voluntary code of practice that works in many parts of the country, but we need an approved code of practice for salmon farming, which has a much greater impact on other industries than does the shellfish industry. In so saying, I think that everyone agrees that the development of the approved code is one thing that the committee has in mind.
Members have raised issues about fallowing fish farms, the use of existing sites and the fact that more than half the existing Crown Estate licences were not used in the past year. Indeed, 67 of the 252 licences have not been used at all in the past four years. The idea that planning permission should be sought for more and more sites must be questioned, particularly given the Marine Harvest—or Pan Fish, as it now is—application for a site off the coast of Arran. We do not need more sites; we need to sort out the ones that we have and use them better. That point answers the question raised by Nora Radcliffe.
Escapes, parasites and enforcement are all serious issues. The FRS has a job to do, and it will be interesting to hear what the minister has to say about the research and regulatory parts of that job. We would like to consider that in more detail.
I do not have the huge amount of time to go into the bill that the committee had, but I am glad that the evidence that we received often gave us insights into the difficulty of applying the science and the question whether the science is fit for purpose. It is obvious that our understanding of the effects of Gyrodactylus salaris has not yet been tested. It is of considerable concern that we are making a law before the exercise in January and February takes place and can be evaluated. It is up to us to ensure that the Government keeps a close watch on how that is carried out. The import of GS would be devastating.
Ted Brocklebank commented on compensation for people who would be affected by such an outbreak. It is inconceivable to think about future compensation for Diageo or the whisky industry now. The costs would be so high that they cannot possibly be taken on board at this stage. We must be careful about defining how compensation should be stated.
The question of live imports is the most crucial in preventing GS from getting here, but the situation in ports of entry is not yet clear. The GS task force called for stricter control, as has the committee. Education is one thing, but if members peruse the current leaflet on GS, they can see that it is not just Norway that has the disease: Sweden, Finland, Russia, Germany, France, Denmark, Spain and Portugal also all have sources. People travelling on angling trips to this country will be part of a problem that has to be solved at the port of entry.
Live fish imports are the biggest problem, and the question of how they will be policed gives us the greatest problem. Norway imported GS through smolts from Sweden, and we must clamp down on live fish imports. I hope that we will be able to agree that they are virtually a no-no.
A great deal could be said about the bill. I thank the members who made reasoned remarks, but I must comment, once again, that the Alasdair Morrison rant serves no purpose in helping us to make the best of what is a consensus. Echoing Sarah Boyack, I think that the European Union must decide how quickly to identify areas that are affected by GS. The British Prime Minister and others must act on our behalf.
I thank the members who have spoken in today's debate. The vast majority have been thoughtful and constructive and have brought a degree of consensus to our deliberations. I am glad that there has been widespread support for the broad sweep of our proposals from across the chamber. I believe that that reflects our stakeholders' views about the bill. There have been relatively minor disagreements, and some points of detail for us to consider further at stage 2 have been raised.
I will address one or two points at least, but I hope, if I speak quickly, to address as many as possible. If I do not cover them all, I apologise, but there will be time to cover them at stage 2. I repeat my commitment to provide the committee with information about amendments as early as possible. I continue to be willing to listen to any constructive arguments that will help us to improve the bill as it proceeds through its parliamentary stages.
I reassure members who are concerned about action that might have to be taken by the Scotch whisky industry and the hydro industry—I do not know whether anybody mentioned that—in what I hope is the unlikely event of GS coming to Scotland. I emphasise that stakeholders have of course been involved. All the key stakeholders, including the Scotch Whisky Association and the hydro industry, were represented on the GS task force. The whisky industry was briefed separately on the possible implications of an outbreak of GS in a whisky-producing area and the association has been assured that it will be directly involved in the dry-run exercise in the new year that will test the contingency plan.
Many members talked about the risks that are involved in GS coming to this country. The Executive and I do not underestimate the risks, but they should be put in context. I provided the Environment and Rural Development Committee with a scientific paper by Dr Ed Peeler on the risk of introducing GS into the United Kingdom. In that paper, Dr Peeler says that the risk that is presented by canoes and angling is
"extremely low because the volume of water transported is minimal (therefore unlikely to contain a parasite) and the parasite is likely to be desiccated during transit … canoes, boats and angling equipment have not been implicated in the transmission of the parasite between rivers in Norway".
That is not to say that we underestimate the risk, about which my officials have had several discussions with colleagues in Whitehall and the customs authorities.
Our position is that mandatory controls are not appropriate at this stage. It would be impossible to confirm the veracity of any declaration of disinfection and, in any event, points of entry are not always manned by customs officials, so checking equipment would be something of a lottery. It is hugely important to educate people to disinfect their gear before they travel. That is more effective than hoping to find damp gear as it enters the country.
The evidence that was given to the committee supports the view that preventive measures at ports of entry do not lend themselves to legislation and that education is likely to be more effective in keeping GS out of Scotland. We are moving up a gear in the development of our communication plans for GS and are actively considering strategies for what needs to be a high-profile education campaign. I will of course keep the committee up to date on those developments.
Eleanor Scott talked about using live fish as bait. The Executive will lodge a stage 2 amendment to introduce explicit provision in the bill that will prohibit the use of live vertebrates as bait. That is in response to the committee's recommendations and stakeholders' wishes.
I take the minister back to stopping GS coming into the country in the first place. She has not addressed the widespread concern that the Scottish National Party, committee members and other members have expressed about the proposed scope of the ban on live fish imports. Does she see any chance of expanding the scope of that ban from what is proposed?
The member will be aware that the importation of live fish is regulated at European Union level, so no scope exists to do anything unilaterally. However, current rules prohibit the importation of live salmonids from areas that are affected by GS. Fish health experts have assessed those rules as posing a low risk of the import of GS.
As I said to the committee, the industry code of practice requires any imports of live fish from countries with a lower fish health status, such as Norway, to be held in quarantine until tests can be done that demonstrate their freedom from infection. The matter is hugely important and we will continue to keep it under review.
Several members raised issues relating to site availability. The issues, which affect large and small companies, appear to apply to the fish and the shellfish farming sectors. We must ensure that we know the full facts. The Crown Estate has commissioned an independent study to co-ordinate site-use data from FRS, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and its own records and to ascertain trends in regional variation. The Executive will consider whether any action could or should be taken if the study identifies any problems associated with site availability. Of course, we are continuing discussions with the DTI and the Competition Commission.
I say to Dennis Canavan, who is interested in such matters, that we have worked painstakingly for a number of years with stakeholders who have made it clear that protection orders must not be removed until new management structures are in place. However, we will continue to consider that matter. If stakeholders want us to return to legislation, we will do so.
Will the minister take an intervention?
My time is restricted.
I am sorry, but the minister is in her final minute.
Alasdair Morrison and other members mentioned minimum import prices. It is hugely important that we have a floor price that is aimed at promoting market stability. Many members are well aware that not having a minimum import price in place could condemn the Scottish independent sector to a slow death.
I hope that my brief comments underline the breadth of support that exists for the principles of the bill. I encourage members to follow the lead of the Environment and Rural Development Committee in supporting those general principles and to support the Executive's motion at decision time.