Aquaculture
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4186, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the importance of aquaculture to the Scottish economy.
I remind members that we are tight for time, so Presiding Officers will have to be strict in enforcing the time limit for each member.
I am happy to be here for today's debate, but I begin by expressing my condolences to the families of Maarten Pieter Den Heijer and Robert MacDonald, the fish farm workers who died in the tragic accident on Loch Creran earlier this month. Our thoughts are with their family members and friends at this time, and we await the report on the incident from the relevant authorities.
This is an important debate. The aquaculture industry is enormously important to Scotland, both economically and socially, and in particular to the many remote and rural communities within which much of the industry's activity takes place. The total farm gate value of Scottish aquaculture is estimated at around £350 million per annum, which is broadly in line with the value of catches from Scottish fishing vessels—a fact that many people might find surprising.
We are the largest producer of farmed salmon in the European Union, and the third-largest producer in the world behind Norway and Chile, although current problems in the industry in Chile mean that Scotland could overtake it to become the world's second-largest producer.
Aquaculture is a major success story for Scotland. There are 1,200 jobs in salmon production and a further 3,700 jobs in salmon processing alone. It is not just about salmon, however; Scotland also produces some 7,500 tonnes of rainbow trout, brown and sea trout, halibut and arctic char. That fin-fish production supports an additional 600 jobs, and shellfish production supports another 400 jobs.
The United Nations food and agriculture organisation states that aquaculture is probably the world's
"fastest growing food-producing sector",
which accounts for nearly 50 per cent of the world's consumed fish, compared with just 9 per cent in 1980. Importantly, it suggests that aquaculture is the only way to meet surging worldwide demand for seafood in a sustainable way. Scotland should be in a good position to benefit from that increased demand.
The strategic framework that we are discussing today results from a wide-ranging consultative process that took place throughout 2008. An analysis of the responses is available on the Scottish Government website. That consultative process included a debate in November, and the points that were raised at that time have—I hope—been addressed. Members who participated in that debate may be able to pick up on some of the issues that have now been dealt with.
The framework sets out plans for a refocused ministerial group on aquaculture, which will be chaired by me and will meet for the first time this summer. It will oversee the work of five sub-groups, which will be working on critical themes for the industry: healthier fish and shellfish; improved systems for licensing aquaculture developments; improved containment; better marketing and improved image; and improved access to finance.
I turn to the first theme of healthier fish and shellfish. Scotland's fish-health status compares extremely well with that of other countries that are farming the same species. However, the incidence of infectious salmon anaemia this year, which includes the confirmation this week of a site close to existing sites, and the continuing challenges that are posed by sea lice, pancreatic disease and bacterial kidney disease, underline the need to remain vigilant at all times.
The healthy fish and shellfish group will have the task of further strengthening the industry's approach to disease control through carefully planned and managed approaches to disease and parasite control and synchronised production and treatments in management areas of an appropriate size, as suggested by the science. The group will be supported by a specialist expert group on sea lice, the details of which I recently set out in response to a question from Robin Harper. The sea lice group will examine the range of factors that contribute to the effectiveness of current treatment strategies and make recommendations on how we can be more effective. It will also comment on the proposals that we will bring forward later this year on strengthening Marine Scotland's understanding of the prevalence of sea lice in Scottish aquaculture.
I have been very impressed by the industry's optimism and ambition; indeed, despite the current economic climate, it remains extraordinarily upbeat. That presents opportunities that we must grasp, but to do so we will need to improve the licensing and planning of aquaculture development. That will require a far more strategic approach to the siting of fish farms that not only recognises the importance of wild salmon and trout rivers, but offers the industry much greater certainty about prospects for expansion and the areas in which such expansion can take place. Make no mistake: fish farms want to expand.
The development of marine spatial planning in Scotland, which will be supported by the Marine (Scotland) Bill and Marine Scotland, provides an opportunity to get all this right. The licensing sub-group will provide a forum for early discussion of and agreement on siting between the relevant regulators, including local government, and the various interests. That work will inform not only future marine spatial planning but any revived relocation programme for fish farms.
The industry's current code of good practice has already driven significant improvements in containment and the minimising of fish escapes. I know that the issue is of concern to many members; however, the number of escapes in 2008 was significantly down on that for 2007. In fact, so far in 2009, there has been only one reported escape, which I am sad to say happened only very recently. If it had not happened, I would have been able to say that there had been no escapes in 2009 to date. One escape is still one escape too many, but we should welcome the fact that a clear downward trend is emerging. The industry deserves a great deal of credit for that improvement and we will continue to work with it as the inspection regime under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 beds in.
Predators can be a cause of escapes from fish farms, and the containment sub-group will examine how such events can be avoided, taking into account international best practice. A number of wild fisheries interests have expressed concern over freshwater smolt production, and the containment sub-group will consider the most appropriate equipment or facilities to ensure containment at such sites and will set out its views in due course.
I am absolutely determined to promote a positive image of Scottish aquaculture at home and abroad, and the marketing and image sub-group will ensure that we get across the positive story that the industry has to tell about the health benefits of fish and shellfish; the strong progress on minimising environmental impacts by, for example, tackling escapes; progress on feed sustainability and so on. To get such messages across, we must raise public awareness and understanding of the industry, particularly given its importance to not only the whole Scottish economy, but many local communities.
That sub-group will also consider another issue of concern to members: how best the aquaculture industry can attract and retain talented people. The strategy explicitly states that a greater focus on training and education will be required. Scotland is already well equipped in that respect, with a number of Scottish vocational qualifications in aquaculture and degree-level study at Stirling University. Moreover, the European fisheries fund is open to bids from companies or associations for training purposes. As a result, resources are available to the industry to allow it to develop in that direction. The memorandum of understanding that we hope to sign this year with Norway on co-operation in aquaculture will allow us to compare approaches to training and education, to share lessons appropriately and to learn from good practice elsewhere.
Like many other industries, the aquaculture industry faces challenges in securing finance. The access to finance sub-group will look at ways of improving that situation, including Marine Scotland considering with the industry what it can do to develop data and information sources that can highlight the value of and prospects for the industry in Scotland. I do not think that such matters are widely understood, and those efforts will be supported by the minimising of disease risks and the improved public perception that should follow the industry's continuing efforts to act as a good neighbour to other users of the water environment.
We are also using the European fisheries fund to support the sustainable development of the industry in Scotland. The EFF is helping businesses to invest in the latest technology and is supporting trade bodies in opening new markets for our wonderful produce. Anybody who saw, as I did, the amazing expo in Brussels just a few weeks ago will understand the unbelievably staggering contribution that the aquaculture industry makes in Scotland, the importance of new markets, particularly given the Chilean collapse, and the incredible importance of the industry to the whole of the United Kingdom.
We expect that shellfish interests will be covered by each of the five sub-groups. However, in recognition of the unique challenges and opportunities that the shellfish sector faces, we will establish a regular shellfish forum, with a secretariat provided by Marine Scotland and a membership that is drawn from those with an interest in supporting the sector's growth. I am particularly conscious that we can do more to promote the health and environmental benefits of shellfish to the public, and look forward to working with the industry on that.
I will announce membership of the ministerial group on aquaculture and the chairs of our five sub-groups in June. "A Fresh Start: The renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture" provides the context within which they will operate and the key outcomes against which we expect them to make progress. It is important that the industry is judged against its actions. The progress that has been made in recent years must be recognised, as must the actions that are outlined to secure further improvements with respect to sea lice, disease control, containment and the strategic siting of fish farms. In turn, it is up to the public sector to listen to the industry's concerns and needs and to be responsive to them where we can.
I reiterate that the industry is incredibly economically important to Scotland, and that amazing optimism and ambition have been expressed by people throughout the industry who, despite the current economic climate, see huge opportunities for expansion. That there is such a vibrant and growing industry that wants to grow further is incredibly important for the Scottish economy.
I invite all members to support the Government's motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication of A Fresh Start – the renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture and its key themes; promotes the continued development of an ambitious, sustainable, profitable, thriving and growing Scottish aquaculture industry; recognises the economic importance of the industry to Scotland as a whole and many coastal communities in particular; acknowledges the vital role to be played by aquaculture production, processing and associated businesses during the economic downturn; supports efforts to promote the many positives of the industry and to advance the enviable international reputation of quality Scottish aquaculture products, built on high environmental standards; encourages Marine Scotland to work with others to deliver a transparent, streamlined and proportionate regulatory framework that encourages shellfish and finfish industries while at the same time ensuring that adverse impacts on biodiversity and other users of the marine and freshwater environment are minimised and managed; welcomes proactive and effective engagement with other aquaculture-producing countries through sharing knowledge and promoting best practice and Scotland's role as a major contributor to international cooperation on research, and acknowledges the continued engagement of the shellfish and finfish industries and other stakeholders in the development and implementation of the Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture.
I associate Labour members with the condolences that the minister offered to the families of the two gentlemen who died.
It seems only a matter of weeks since the previous Minister for Environment and I, despite the best efforts of colleagues throughout the chamber to protract their speeches, had 25 minutes between us to sum up in a debate on the draft "Scottish Aquaculture: A Fresh Start". I feared that we might have the same problem today, but the Presiding Officer has assured us that time is tight, so more members may want to speak in this debate than spoke in the previous one.
Last November's debate was held shortly after the consultation on a refreshed strategy had taken place. At the time, some of us felt hampered by not being able to access responses to the consultation, as they had not yet been published. This time round we are in a marginally better position, as we have had access to the consultation responses. The Government's decision to unveil the refreshed strategy in this debate rather than before it has restricted our ability to assess whether the new strategy addresses the issues that were raised in the consultation. Prior publication would have afforded members and—this is important—stakeholders a chance to digest the strategy's contents. The whole thing smells a bit fishy, if members will excuse the pun. I suspect that the Government is trying to hide something. Why has it left things to the last minute? Is it because, although the strategy's aspirations and objectives are worthy, it is a bit thin on action?
Whatever has prompted the Government's move, the opportunity for a full and frank debate on the future of Scottish aquaculture will now have to wait for another day. Crucially, stakeholders have had no chance to brief us in advance of the debate. If the Scottish Government wanted to launch the strategy in Parliament, a ministerial statement would have been the appropriate mechanism for doing so. To expect members to debate the strategy without having seen it and without having had expert input through external briefings is disrespectful. This morning, I thought of raising a point of order on why the document had not been made available to all members, including the back benchers who will speak today. It was somewhat disrespectful that that did not happen. There seems to be more of a false start than a fresh start.
That said, the desired outcomes that are listed in the strategy seem to include most of the issues that the consultees raised. For example, under the key theme of health, the complex topic of the control of sea lice was a specific concern for many, including the Fish Veterinary Society, the University of Stirling's institute of aquaculture, the Scottish Association for Marine Science, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland and the Atlantic Salmon Trust. Sea lice control was identified as a key concern by about two thirds of the respondents to the consultation. That is acknowledged in the new strategy, which states that the issue is
"crucial for the long-term future"
of "farmed and wild salmonids." That is welcome, but from my brief study of the strategy, I am uncertain as to what will actually be done, other than data collection.
The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards wants all escapes to be reported to district salmon fishery boards. The prevention of escapes was mentioned as a concern by 29 of the 47 respondents to the consultation, despite the previous Minister for Environment's assurances that he had reduced the number of escapes from 210,643 in 2007 to 66,471 by November last year. If the current minister has reduced that to only one, she has done remarkably well. I note that Marine Scotland is to undertake an inspection role and that the industry code of good practice is to be revised.
In addition to asking for specific action on sea lice, the Atlantic Salmon Trust pointed out in its consultation response that there should be a specific link with the strategic framework for Scottish freshwater fisheries. I would appreciate clarification on how that will be achieved. The trust also suggests that freshwater smolting cages should be sited not in lochs, but in tanks on land, where pollution and escapes can be controlled better. I have observed cages of that type at Barony College, where trout and salmon are bred for the specific purpose of release into rivers and lochs for the pursuit of angling.
The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation has informed us in a briefing that, in 2008, salmon farming was worth £500 million to the Scottish economy, including £36 million directly in wages, principally to workers in remote and rural communities. The briefing also describes the success of the industry on exports, which have increased by more than 500 per cent in two decades, and in the UK market. A fresh salmon meal is consumed by almost 2 per cent of the UK population every day. The industry contributes significantly to the availability of healthy, locally produced food.
Several organisations, including Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, wanted a clear indication of how aquaculture will be dealt with in marine planning. They sought assurance that the creation of Marine Scotland will not cause further uncertainty. On Tuesday, along with other members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, I met representatives of Marine Scotland and was reassured to hear that consideration of that aspect of marine planning is already well on the body's radar. Nevertheless, the concern about marine planning was the one that was mentioned by the highest number of respondents to the consultation, with 31 of the 47 respondents raising the issue.
Scottish Environment LINK pointed out in its response that the sustainability of feed ingredients is a major long-term concern. Excessive nutrients entering watercourses and the marine environment can seriously alter the ecological balance and can lead to algal blooms and other problems. Questions also arise about whether the feeding of fish-derived product to fish is sustainable. The figure of 5kg of feed to produce 1kg of fish has been referred to in briefings for previous debates. Again, that issue is reflected in the desired outcomes but, so far, without any detail.
The Labour Party proposes a minor amendment to the motion. We do not in any way disagree with the content of the motion and seek only to expand the welcome reference to "high environmental standards" with a reference to
"the principles of sustainable development".
Those principles were detailed in the previous Executive's strategy on sustainable development, which was published in 2005, and they are acknowledged throughout the UK and internationally. I am sure that every member in the chamber recalls what they are, but I will reiterate them just in case. The principles are: living within environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly. Although those principles are implicit in the motion and are mentioned specifically in the strategy document, we feel that it would be useful to refer explicitly to them, as they are relevant to the future of the aquaculture industry in Scotland and to the balance that must be struck between economic growth and environmental protection.
John Scott's amendment makes reference to the importance of aquaculture in supporting not only employment, but the existence of many remote and rural communities. It is impossible to disagree. I have already referred to the importance of the industry in remote and rural communities. We will of course support the Conservative amendment.
Liam McArthur's amendment highlights the importance of training and career opportunities to the long-term future of the industry. In our previous debate on aquaculture, I mentioned the courses that are delivered at the Barony College in my constituency, which provides higher national certificate and Scottish vocational qualifications level 2 qualifications through a variety of aquaculture-related courses. The strategy refers to the role of education and training in promoting aquaculture as a viable career. Training is vital to the future of any quality industry, which is another reason why we will support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
When I first read Robin Harper's amendment, I thought that he was being a little harsh in concentrating on the problems created within and by the industry in the past. I had hoped that study of the new strategy would reveal the way in which those issues were being addressed. However, the embargo on the document has meant that there has been no opportunity for the industry, organisations that represent anglers or any other stakeholders to comment on its contents and, therefore, it is difficult to know whether the strategy is adequate. In addition, I feel that the strategy as it stands is a little thin. As a precaution, we will support Robin Harper's amendment to retain attention on the need for the strategy to continue to address those serious issues.
I agree completely that the industry is extremely valuable to the Scottish economy, but it is also important that it does not interfere with other industries and activities that are equally valuable to the Scottish economy. I hope that the strategy is able to produce a way forward that ensures the viability of the industry as well as the protection of the environment and the viability of angling and other industries that are important to Scotland.
I move amendment S3M-4186.2, after "environmental standards" insert:
"and the principles of sustainable development".
All speeches from now on should be of no more than six minutes.
I associate my party with the condolences that have been expressed by the minister to the families of those who recently lost their lives.
I welcome this debate on the importance of aquaculture to the Scottish economy and the Government's revised strategic framework, which was delivered to my office late this morning. Our aquaculture industry is one of our biggest success stories in Scotland. As other members have said, it produces economic benefits through the sale of farmed salmon and shellfish worth over £500 million annually, and has a retail value of well over £1 billion. In addition, it supports 1,579 direct jobs and a further 4,700 downstream jobs, which makes a total of almost 6,300 jobs. However, those jobs—which would be valuable in any community—are lifeline jobs, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, which contains some of the most remote and fragile areas in Scotland. Those key jobs, 77 per cent of which are based in the Highlands and Islands, put £33 million into local pay packets and 92 per cent of them are in recognised rural communities. In my view, that makes them doubly valuable because jobs in those areas are so difficult to create and sustain.
We have an industry that has a worldwide reputation of which we should be justifiably proud, and which I have admired for many years. Our fish-farming industry, with 454 registered finfish sites and 332 registered active shellfish sites, is ideally placed to grow further. Of course, we in Scotland have to compete with Chile and Norway to do so, but the potential for growth is huge. We in this Parliament and the Government must do all that we can to encourage the appropriately and sympathetically sited growth of the industry. However, in order to achieve that, barriers need to be overcome. They are, in the framework document that has been published today, identified under five headings: healthier fish and shellfish, improved systems for licensing aquaculture developments, improved containment, better marketing and improved image and improved access to finance. I will try to address a few of those issues in the time that is available to me.
It is self-evident that fish farming has to be a good neighbour to other users of the seas, as well as a custodian of the environment. That means that future development has, whenever possible, to be achieved with wild-fish interests in mind and with due regard having been given to the marine environment in which it operates. As a specific example, we must make every effort to control escapes—my colleague Jamie McGrigor will say more about that later. We need to deal with the problem of seals attacking cages and we need do more to develop deterrents to keep them from doing so. I appreciate that that is more easily said than done, but it has to be achieved. With wild stocks under pressure and fish farming trying to keep its costs to a minimum, there has to be a cool-headed approach to the problem. I suspect that in order to take matters forward, the industry will have to continue to invest in increased cage protection measures.
On the health of farmed fish, I noted with regret last night that the fourth outbreak of infectious salmon anaemia has taken place in Shetland. Again, I ask the minister to reassure Parliament in more detail that all that can be done is being done to contain that outbreak. The dangers are not just to our farmed salmon, but to our wild salmon, which makes resolution of the problem all the more important. Sea lice are a problem, and will remain so in the foreseeable future, but with the likely worldwide growth of the industry it will be important that research and development continues to develop the next generation of treatments and best-practice fish-farming techniques, in order that we can protect farmed fish and keep to a minimum the transfer of sea lice to wild fish.
I turn to development of the industry. Recently, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee visited the seafood fisheries trade fair in Brussels. I was hugely proud of Scotland's part in that event and I offer my congratulations to all those involved. It is important to support the fantastic image of our seafood industry. For farmed salmon in particular, that means that we must continue to support the cherished label rouge status, which the French gave our salmon producers some years ago. It means, however, that we must continue to support the industry in other ways, now that the minimum input price has been abolished, and that efforts must be made to retain and attract young people in and to the aquaculture industry.
We should encourage further public and private sector investment in the industry which—as the minister has said—has a huge future, albeit that it has to operate in competitive circumstances. However, ‘twas ever thus, and the size of the industry in that competitive marketplace is a tribute to the people who have already grown this unique Scottish industry. Every encouragement and succour should be given to those risk takers who want to take the industry on from its already dominant market position. In that context, the ministerial working group must drive forward progress and innovation in order to sustain this world-class business. The Scottish Conservatives will certainly give that every support.
We welcome the production of the strategic framework document, which we will now study in detail. It is a pity that it was not available earlier, which might have meant that the debate was more focused on its contents. However, the fundamental issues have not changed overnight, and nor will they. The Scottish Conservatives will consistently do all they can to support this vital and vibrant Scottish industry.
I move amendment S3M-4186.3, to insert at end:
"and notes the importance of the 6,200 Scottish jobs supported by the aquaculture industry in maintaining the environmental, economic and social fabric in communities often located in Scotland's most remote and fragile areas."
I start by associating the Liberal Democrats with the condolences that were expressed by the minister to the families of those who lost their lives on Loch Creran. As we consider the importance of the aquaculture industry to the Scottish economy, we are ever more conscious of the potential dangers for those who are employed in the industry. The minister was right to acknowledge that any lessons that emerge from the investigation into the two deaths must be taken on board fully in the strategic framework. A prosperous and sustainable aquaculture industry can be founded only on ensuring the highest possible standards of health and safety, and on addressing its impact on the environment.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the Government's framework, although I share Elaine Murray's and John Scott's concerns about its timing. As, I am sure, my colleague Ross Finnie will observe, the document is the latest contribution in a process that was initiated in 2003.
In launching the consultation on the document last year, Mike Russell acknowledged that "strong foundations" were "already in place" as a result of the original framework. As other members have already suggested, those strong foundations were much in evidence at the recent European seafood exposition in Brussels. During a visit to Brussels at the end of April, members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee were privileged to be able to attend the exposition, albeit briefly, which is now unquestionably the world's largest gathering of those involved in and interested in all aspects of fisheries and aquaculture.
In this year of homecoming, when Scotland opens its arms and its doors to the world, it is fair to say that the committee perhaps felt that the organisers of the exposition might have reciprocated that welcome a little more wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, even in the short time that was available to us at the site of the 1958 world fair, it was impressive to see such a formidable presence from the Scottish shellfish and finfish industries. The response from those who attended the event—from customers right through to competitors—was impressive, too. In the discussions that I had with various exhibitors, it was clear that the industry faces challenges, not least in the availability and, more often, the cost of finance. Equally clear, however, was the message of optimism about the future. In most instances, the banks appear to recognise the encouraging prospects for established and innovative companies, although I suspect that that might not be the case for all companies.
Many people I spoke to were concerned about how their businesses—their staff, in particular—might cope with the pressures of expansion. Although those are problems that managers, and the industry in general, would wish to have, it would be wrong to underestimate the strains that can result from trying to expand within existing markets or moving into entirely new ones. The middle east was the market that was cited most often as the one where opportunities exist. I note what the minister said, but it would be helpful to hear from her what specific support is being provided to support efforts—such as what work Scottish Development International has done—to identify and develop those market opportunities.
It would also be interesting to hear what assessment the Government has made of potential market opportunities, notably in the United States of America, that might result from the difficulties that the industry in Chile is experiencing as a result of ISA. The perception, at least, appears to be that global supply will not, because of the reduced Chilean harvest, meet demand. That is also pushing up the price of salmon. Of course, it would be a mistake for the Scottish industry to scale up simply to try to fill a short-term gap in the US marketplace, not least because US customers might look for cheaper alternatives to farmed salmon if prices continue to rise, as Callander McDowell has said. It would help to know what discussions ministers have had with the industry about how they might respond to the situation and what assisting role the Government might play.
It is not only Chile that has been forced to deal with the consequences of ISA, as John Scott said. My colleague Tavish Scott has worked hard to support the industry in Shetland, following the discovery of the ISA virus in four farms in his constituency, first in January and with the latest discovery as recently as yesterday. I acknowledge that ministers and officials have been closely involved in the situation. However, some companies that are free of the virus have been forced to cease or to scale back their operations significantly. Without further help, companies such as Skelda Salmon Farms Limited face serious financial risk.
Liberal Democrats support the substance of and approach in the Government's motion. I accept that any criticism that I might have made of its length is fully undermined by my attempt to add to it. As I said, Liberal Democrats believe that the highest environmental standards are essential if we are to have the industry that we wish to have. A tension exists with the commitment to growth, but that can be effectively managed, and the Labour amendment would make a sensible addition. John Scott's amendment repeats the motion somewhat, but it would place a more specific emphasis on the industry's impact on Scotland's more remote and fragile areas—including my constituency—so it is valuable.
Robin Harper's amendment asserts that more must be done in several areas. He will struggle to find anyone—certainly among Liberal Democrats—who would argue with that. However, I am concerned by the tone, extent and underlying motivation of his amendment. I will listen carefully to what he says, but I am minded to vote against his amendment.
My amendment returns to skills and training. Members will recall that when we debated aquaculture back in November, the Parliament voted unanimously for our amendment, which encouraged the development and retention of a skilled and qualified workforce in the aquaculture industry. Back then, Mr Russell refused to accept that a problem even existed. I note what his successor has said today, acknowledge that Mr Russell might have been the barrier to change and welcome the Government's change of heart.
Given the standards to which we want the industry to aspire, it is self-evident that we must retain and attract skilled workers. Our small and medium-sized enterprises must be supported to create genuine career opportunities. In both instances, qualifications have a vital role to play. It is therefore of concern that the Government is withdrawing funding from over-20s who seek qualifications. In general, the workforce in the Highlands and Islands is older. Training providers and aquaculture companies in the region are worried about the impact that withdrawal of that funding will have on efforts to improve and extend skills.
Scotland is the top European Union salmon producer and the third-biggest salmon producer in the world. However, with scale come challenges, not least in controlling disease and managing the impact on the environment. If we are to meet those challenges successfully, the framework will need to be backed by private and public investment. That is the only way of burnishing the industry's reputation. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S3M-4186.4, after "economic downturn" to insert:
"; further recognises that, if the industry is to attract, retain and develop people for a long-term career in aquaculture, the Scottish Government must ensure that a range of suitable training opportunities are made available".
I, too, associate myself and my party with the condolences and sympathy for the families who recently suffered bereavement.
I was pleased to see the SNP's motion. I would have appreciated a copy of the mysterious document that everybody else appears to have seen—perhaps it is on its way to my desk. It would have helped me to prepare my speech, but the burden of my speech will remain the same.
I reassure the Liberal party that I will not speak against aquaculture, if that is what is at the back of the party's mind. My speech will support what I believe to be the Government's attitude, which is that we need to strike the correct balance between the expansion and development in an environmentally sustainable way of an industry that is enormously important to Scotland—and to the world, as a provider of protein—and the demands of profitability.
As has been said, aquaculture represents the fastest-growing food production system in the world. However, putting unnaturally large numbers of farmed fish into a water body that would normally host a much smaller number of animals, most of which would not be there for long times, will inevitably cause serious problems for the health and welfare of fish, and for the local marine environment.
Countries such as Chile and Norway have learned that lesson the hard way, through losing massive numbers of farmed fish to disease and parasite attack. With infectious salmon anaemia back in Shetland, Scotland must learn from the lessons of Chile and Norway and take action now to ensure that we do not face the same problems. For some time, Scotland appeared to be making great strides in dealing with the problem of sea lice. However, owing to the recent loss of effectiveness of Slice, we once again face the prospect of a potential overuse of toxic and polluting chemicals in the marine environment in order to control parasites on fish—a prospect that would see the industry emulate the constant chemical treadmill on which conventional terrestrial farming is trapped.
I appreciate Robin Harper's concerns about chemicals, but how would he do away with the sea lice problem?
I will address the matter in some detail, either before the end of this speech or in my summing up.
It would be criminal of the Government to allow the annihilation of wild salmon and trout stocks for financial gain—I think that it will not do that—particularly when about 80 per cent of the fish that are farmed in Scotland are produced by large companies that are based overseas.
The most frustrating part of all of this is that those actions are simply unnecessary. Responsible aquaculture can have a minimal impact on wild fish populations, marine habitats and water quality. I offered a solution to the minister the last time I spoke on the subject in the chamber. At the time, she was unable to respond. I am, in respect of the new structure, hopeful for our conversations. The five subgroups that are being established—which are a great step forward—will give time and opportunity for people to look at the issue, under the heading of containment.
There needs to be a physical barrier between farmed fish stocks and the wider environment. Enclosed tanks, into which sea water is pumped from below the level at which sea-lice larvae survive, would eliminate the problem of lice. Such tanks not only prevent sea lice from making contact with wild stocks, but protect farmed fish from adverse weather conditions, algal blooms, jellyfish swarms and predation by seals. In other words, they provide complete protection for the farmed salmon. People may think that doing that would be extremely expensive. However, the technology to make large tanks exists. Indeed, it has been since the days of the Mulberry harbour, but the technology is now much better. Seals would no longer be able to eat the farmed fish or spook them, which would remove any justification that salmon farmers have relied on in the past for shooting seals. All of this could be achieved without reliance on the use of acoustic deterrents, which we know can have a detrimental effect on cetaceans and other marine life.
Unfortunately, thus far, the aquaculture industry has chosen—over and over again—to reject the idea. How many millions of pounds do these companies have to lose in places like Chile and Norway before they realise that they cannot afford not to move down this path?
I am only part way through my argument, Presiding Officer, but I will keep to my time and continue my speech in my summing up.
I move amendment S3M-4186.1, to insert at end:
"and further notes that problems remain to be addressed by the aquaculture industry, including the commercial confidentiality clauses that restrict access to the minutes of area management group meetings, the comparative lack of action on re-siting fish farm activities where this could be advisable, the huge problem of sea lice infestation and the industry's wider impact on wild fish stocks, seals and the marine environment and its relationship with future plans for marine conservation areas and no-take zones for fisheries."
I am obliged.
We move to the open debate.
I welcome the publication of "A Fresh Start: The renewed strategic framework for Scottish aquaculture." The framework will help to strengthen and maintain the continued sustainable development of the Scottish aquaculture industry.
The negativity of the Opposition's comments is a shame. There is nothing surprising in the document: it reflects the views of the various consultees, which is of course the whole point of consultation. Opposition members never see anything good in anything that our SNP Government does. Why do they always have to have frowns on their brows? Lighten up, folks—this is good news.
As other members have said, aquaculture is vital to Scotland as whole, and to the Highlands and Islands in particular, where it provides a lot of much-needed employment in many remote and rural areas. We have only to look at the map in the "Fresh Start" document to see how true that is. The map shows that all the freshwater and shellfish sites are in the Highlands and Islands. That is how important shellfish and salmon farming are to the Highlands and Islands.
I will put the issue in context and give members an idea of the industry's importance to Scotland. It has been calculated that salmon farming is worth around £380 million a year, although the figures vary. As well as salmon, we farm trout, cod, halibut, char and shellfish. I had a very nice bit of halibut in Lerwick on Saturday; I would recommend the halibut there to everyone.
As has been said, salmon farming supports many jobs—1,195 people are involved directly in salmon production, and there are 3,733 full-time, part-time and seasonal jobs in salmon processing. Those are significant numbers. In total, there are about 6,000 jobs in aquaculture, most of which are in remote and coastal areas of the Highlands and Islands. The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation's briefing claims that the results of the organisation's survey show that salmon farming brings £500 million to the Scottish economy, which is more than the official figures suggest. The SSPO's also figures show that if one applies standard Government multipliers to the £36 million in local wage payments that primary salmon production provides, it translates to an injection of £165 million into the wider local rural economy, because money that is earned locally is spent locally.
The SSPO also says that expenditure on supplies and services has continued to increase, despite the recession. In 2008, it reached £304 million, £223 million of which was spent in Scotland and, of that, £143 million was spent in the Highlands and Islands. The SSPO's members estimate that they have invested more than £84 million in capital projects over the past three years, the vast majority of which has been spent in the Highlands and Islands. Capital investment has risen year on year from £19.5 million in 2006 to £35 million in 2008.
I believe that the key to future prosperity in Scottish aquaculture, as in so many areas, is the quality that goes with our clean green image. Our unique selling point is that consumers are guaranteed quality from food that is produced in our pristine environment. We need to do everything possible to retain that reputation. It is essential that we take the necessary measures to protect and promote such a valuable industry, which has an enviable worldwide reputation for quality. The aquaculture industry needs a sound regulatory framework that promotes sustainable development, protects jobs and incomes, and enables the industry to continue to make such an important contribution to the Scottish economy.
As has been said, outbreaks of infectious salmon anaemia, for example, can dent our reputation. Other countries have found, and are finding, to their cost that lax regulation can lead to devastation of their industries—the Chilean industry is in real trouble and the Norwegian industry is severely affected. However, tight regulation and good practice in our industry have meant that we have had only one outbreak in 10 years. It was one outbreak too many, unfortunately, but we are still streets ahead of our competitors. That gives us a huge advantage that we can exploit.
Following the Chilean industry's problems, the American market is now wide open, so we must ensure that our aquaculture industry can take advantage. The Scottish aquaculture industry is amazingly upbeat and optimistic, despite the recession. We must do all that we can to help it to fulfil its ambition to expand, to develop and to be the best in the world. It has earned an enviable worldwide reputation for quality, sustainability and high standards, and it deserves praise for its achievements. It also deserves our support and help to ensure that its reputation is maintained and enhanced.
It is imperative that our aquaculture industry continues to play a major role in providing jobs and income for our local remote and rural communities, and to make a valuable contribution to the Scottish economy. The Scottish Government is highly supportive of an aquaculture industry that is sustainable, ambitious, thriving, competitive, profitable and diverse. The renewed strategic framework for Scottish aquaculture will help the Government to meet those aspirations and to deliver a sustainable industry.
As other members have said, it is unfortunate that we did not get access to the framework document until this morning, after we went hunting for it. As a result, we have not had the benefit of feedback from the industry or those that surround it about their reaction to the document or whether it provides for their needs.
I was going to be critical of the Government for not giving us the time to absorb fully what I had anticipated to be a substantial and detailed document. However, now that I have seen the document, I could argue that the Government's judgment might have been right after all, as it clearly knew that it would take only a few minutes to read and absorb the detail. I have to confess that I am completely underwhelmed by the publication.
Back in November, we debated the consultation document that preceded this document. At that time, I set out a range of issues that I thought needed attention. Those issues were against the background of the recognition—which has been mentioned today by other members—that the aquaculture sector has had a huge and beneficial impact on the social and economic life of the Highlands and Islands, especially on the most remote parts.
The salmon and shellfish industry has become a significant employer that employs about 6,000 people. As a result of its success over the years, communities in the Highlands and Islands have remained viable, and public services in those communities have been sustained, which might not have been the case but for that industry. It is one of the few industries that can revive that part of the world because of its close association with the particular environment of that part of the world.
I noted during the debate in November that the aquaculture industry has considerable scope to grow. Thankfully, the industry—particularly the salmon industry—is in one of its best periods. The market is strong and prices are good. As other members have mentioned, when a number of us were in Brussels a couple of weeks ago considering environmental issues and visiting the expo that the minister talked about, we were struck by the industry's optimism, and its confidence in the future. That is partly due to the plight of the Chilean industry, which was mentioned by Dave Thompson and which has been seriously affected by disease.
The problem for Scotland is that although we can enjoy the benefits of that in the short term—we should build on it—Chile will undoubtedly recover and solve its problems, just as Scotland has solved its own problems in the past. The world market will then become more competitive again. Our industry needs to prepare for those days by becoming even better and more efficient at what it does, and with even higher environmental standards. It must build on its reputation for quality in order to hold and grow its markets.
In November, I noted some of the issues that the industry needs to address and the areas in which it needs help to meet those challenges. Among those issues was the enduring problem of sea lice, which Robin Harper and others have mentioned. I am glad to see that today's document makes it clear that that problem needs continuing attention. I had, however, hoped that it would not just confirm that the problem exists, but would set out a detailed approach to addressing it. The document alludes to the need for more research and the development of a more sophisticated view throughout Scotland about what is going on, but there is no definite action plan, there is no timescale and there are no sums of money attached. I hope that the minister will take the opportunity to say a bit more about that when she sums up.
I hope, too, that she will say how she will report to Parliament on the action plan that will be developed through the various work streams that she talked about, in order to deal with the problem of sea lice, so that we can give the matter attention in the future.
In November, I mentioned the minimum import price to protect against dumping of salmon by Norway. The MIP was discontinued by the EU, and the then minister made it clear that the Government would monitor the situation closely. Again, I hope that the minister will say something in summing up about the Government's current assessment of Norwegian salmon coming into EU markets and the impact—if there is any—of that.
The independent salmon producers have a particular need to secure working capital if they are to invest for the future. Their plans for an aquaculture finance company have been difficult to advance and the difficulties have, no doubt, been exacerbated by the banking crisis. In November, I urged the Government to help in that respect. Although there is mention of the need for access to finance in the framework document that has been published today, there is no indication of what is to be done. I would have hoped that the document would have said something concrete about what can be done and what the Government's intentions are on the issue. If there is no intention, through its economic development agencies or in partnerships with others, to offer practical assistance in that financial sector, it might have been best to say that, so that people can begin to consider the alternatives. As matters stand, it is not clear what role the Government thinks it might play, so I hope that the minister will say something about that when she sums up.
The financial issues are especially acute because of the contraction in the availability of trade credit insurance, which has been raised by many people in Brussels. Frank Johnson of Framgord in Shetland has told me of his great confidence for his business. He knew of the possibility of an expanding market, but he knew also that he was facing real difficulties because access to trade credit insurance had tightened. The other night, some of us discussed the issue with representatives of the Clydesdale Bank. They acknowledged that the issue had arisen, and felt that the Government might have a role to play, at least in the short term. Again, I hope that the minister might say something about that.
I see that my time is running out. I have more to say, but, on this occasion, I will not say it.
As other members have said, aquaculture is extraordinarily important to the Scottish economy—not just because of the headline figure of the 40 per cent of all Scottish food exports that the industry accounts for or the quality of the product, but because, as John Scott and others have said, of its location among the rural and remote communities of Scotland, where the industry is critical.
The industry has come a long way over the past 10 years. Its potential has always been immense, as has the industry's sense of optimism, but 10 years ago the industry was plagued by poor site management. Too many farms had allowed ISA to take hold, and a combination of contaminated and compulsorily fallow sites had laid the industry low. It is therefore all the more disappointing to hear of the cases that have broken out in Shetland. Those cases serve to remind us of how vulnerable the industry could be to the onset of disease.
Liam McArthur said that he would listen carefully to what Robin Harper had to say. Unfortunately, so far we have heard only volume 1 of Robin's two-volume prose anthology on the control of sea lice. I am therefore unable to offer him any further assistance on how Liberal Democrats might respond to his amendment. However, some of the issues that he raised are critical to the industry's future and potential development. Those issues include the importance of site selection; the need for the industry to take seriously the importance of a tidal flow to scour the sea bed in farms; and the need for effluent management systems to separate out the elements that can give rise to disease. Other members have mentioned escapes management, and Robin Harper got halfway through the question of what we can do about sea lice management. There is no doubt that there is a good deal of scientific knowledge in Scotland to assist with work on sea lice—and I hope that time will permit Robin Harper to complete his anthology, which will be fascinating.
To some extent, all the issues that I have just mentioned are incorporated in measures in the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation code of good practice for fin-fish aquaculture. However, the industry must take up those measures and reach the target that it has set for itself—100 per cent achievement under its third and highest recommended strategy.
It is axiomatic that the maintenance of high standards is critical for the maintenance of quality and a hard-earned international reputation. The attraction of good people to the industry will be critical, as will their retention and development. That is why Liberal Democrats have attached such importance to that issue in our amendment.
The previous aquaculture strategy was a start and, although I say it myself, I thought that it was a reasonably good start. However, time has moved on, and so has the industry. As Liam McArthur has said, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's new framework, "A Fresh Start". All frameworks leave gaps to be filled in—that we accept—but we would like the minister to explain the timetable and the progress that she expects. As she said, the provisions of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 are also available to her, which are critical in the imposition of standards.
The international reputation of Scottish seafood in general and aquaculture in particular is immense. The industry's international potential has not yet been exploited, but we must be cautious: that potential can be exploited only on a sustainable basis. In developing the industry we must be sure of that principle, which is critically related to how the industry responds to environmental concerns. Environmental problems are exacerbated whenever the volume of the industry increases at a particular location.
Peter Peacock talked about finance, which has long been a critical and difficult matter. It is not easy to assess the value of the aquaculture industry. For example, it is difficult for banks to put a value on smoults, which are subject to disease. I will be fair to bankers—I have not been fair to them recently—and say that in the current climate the problem is all the more difficult. We must be serious about ensuring that finance is available for the development of the industry.
We should be aware of the competition. We should not be complacent because Chile is suffering from ISA; we should remember what happened in Scotland when we were plagued with the disease and learn lessons about how we develop the industry.
I was pleased to hear from the minister about the memorandum of understanding with Norway, which will be helpful in developing the industry.
I am pleased to take part in the debate, and I welcome the publication of "A Fresh Start: The renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture". I echo members when I say that the industry is hugely important to the Scottish economy, particularly in some of our most fragile communities in the Highlands and Islands.
At the Glasgow fishing expo 2009, which took place last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment urged the nation to eat more fish. I think that I am right in saying that the consumption of salmon has grown annually by some 8 per cent in recent years, but I agree with the cabinet secretary that more needs to be done to promote the consumption of fish, not least for its health benefits. Consumers in Spain, Portugal and Norway eat twice as much fish as Scots eat. We need to grow the internal market for fish products and capture a greater share of the huge market for fish in Europe and further afield.
I attended the European seafood expo in Brussels and was captivated by the great optimism that Scottish exhibitors showed at their slick promotional stand, which had been co-ordinated by Scottish Enterprise and Seafood Scotland. I think that many people were drawn to the Scottish stand by the wonderful Cullen skink that was served throughout the day.
We need to do everything that we can do to help our successful exporters to expand existing markets and develop others. The salmon industry in Scotland is the third largest in the world, after the industries in Norway and Chile, and the opportunities for expansion are substantial, not least because of the unfortunate outbreaks of ISA in those two countries.
We must ensure that aquaculture in Scotland comes to be known as the greenest and cleanest in quality. I welcome the Government's strategic objectives of promoting
"high standards of husbandry and biosecurity"
and
"Continual development of control strategies and making best use of available medicines as well as research and development into emerging diseases".
There has been a reduction in escapes, but the number remains unacceptably high. The reduction of escapes is of economic benefit not only to the fish farms concerned but to businesses that rely on wild fish stocks, which can be threatened by parasites that are carried by the farmed variety.
The objective of improved systems for licensing aquaculture developments is also welcome but trickier, and it will obviously exercise the minds of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee members as we take evidence around coastal areas on the Marine (Scotland) Bill. We are already being made well aware of the competing demands on our coastal waters, but the opportunities for expansion in other shellfish and fish farm species, such as mussels, halibut, cod and haddock, must be encouraged. There are opportunities for the taking not just in increased fish production but in developing and retaining a skilled and knowledgeable workforce, not to mention the opportunities for scientists, given the large number of scientists supporting and pioneering new efforts in this field, as we saw during our committee's visit to Marine Scotland earlier this week.
Like Peter Peacock, I want to raise with the minister the issue of finance, as well as the concerns on trade credit insurance that were raised by exhibitors at the Brussels seafood exhibition, given that companies in the middle east and elsewhere default on their payments for products that are sent to them. Our exporters simply cannot bear such non-payment.
The opportunities for the aquaculture industry are there to be harnessed. I am confident that, with the renewed framework, the Scottish Government is providing the right climate for growth.
Like others, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I share the concern expressed by members across the chamber, but particularly by those in the Opposition parties, that the strategy has arrived so late and has not allowed a detailed debate with input from stakeholders. In that regard, perhaps Dave Thompson thinks that his role is to follow blindly. I did not accept that role when I was a member of a Government party, and I certainly will not accept it as a member of an Opposition party.
It is heartening, however, to see a minister recognise the role of aquaculture and its importance, particularly alongside sea fishing. The statistics that the minister outlined earlier about the sector are quite staggering. Perhaps it is time to spend a bit more time than we have spent in the past on considering the importance of aquaculture.
Aquaculture is the backbone that supports many rural and island communities the length and breadth of Scotland, from the northern isles, through the coastline of the Highlands and Islands to the south of Argyll and, indeed, even in my own constituency. The industry has seen great development over the past 30 years, and it is undoubtedly the lifeblood of many of the communities where it operates.
Perhaps the most obvious impact of aquaculture on rural conditions is the employment that it brings, which can amount to as much as a third of employment in the communities in which it is present. There are a great number of active freshwater and shellfish farms across Scotland. The salmon and shellfish industry employs around 6,000 people, which makes it a significant employer. It is true, too, that, across processing and in supporting other rural businesses, aquaculture is a key sector for our economic development.
We assume that fish farms only produce food for consumption, but they also provide fish for restocking our rivers and lochs to cater for recreational fishermen and to support the angling industry, which is another key sector that we want to be supported and developed, particularly in relation to tourism in our more rural areas.
Aquaculture helps to support public services in rural communities. Back in November, Peter Peacock spoke of schools that would have closed had it not been for the presence of children whose parents worked in local aquaculture. The aquaculture industry supports education in that way, but it is equally important that aquaculture education is encouraged at the other end with training programmes. In that regard, I am happy to support the amendment in the name of the Liberal Democrats. I will welcome further details from the minister on how such programmes are to be developed and expanded in the months to come.
The University of Stirling has one of the largest aquaculture departments in the world. I have seen how it supports aquaculture work both here and in Malawi, helping colleagues at the University of Mzuzu to work on the issues that they face regarding fish in Lake Malawi. How will we ensure that we work closely with the aquaculture industry to develop aquaculture work-based learning programmes in order to take the industry forward and ensure that distance learning can be better developed as it continues to play an important role, particularly in rural Scotland?
An issue of continuing debate is whether aquaculture opportunities are hindered by the planning regime. We all, I think, want to see further expansion of the industry, but that must happen only in appropriate and sympathetic sites. The Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers estimates that Scotland is capable of supporting about 100,000 tonnes per annum, which compares with the 5,000 to 7,000 tonnes that are currently produced each year. However, as I said, any expansion must happen sympathetically.
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. There is a role for the Crown Estate in that, but there is also a monitoring role for the Government. I am sorry that the strategic framework that the Government has published today does not take that issue further forward in a definite way. Although the document makes general references to the issue of leases, it suggests no concrete action.
The document also makes no reference to 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.
I regret that the document makes no mention of the regime for measuring E coli. As Peter Peacock said in November, shellfish growers have highlighted real difficulties in the way in which the measurement of E coli in shellfish is used to assess water quality. That can lead to perverse results. He gave the example of the clean waters of Applecross being regarded as less healthy than those of the River Clyde, which he thought was hard to imagine. Spikes in E coli levels in shellfish that are caused by natural stock and not linked to human pathogen presence can result in area closures. Although that point is not picked up in the document, I hope that the issue will be considered in one of the work streams under the new ministerial working group arrangements.
I believe that the document moves us forward, but it is lacking in detail. I hope that, at least in the work ahead, the issues that we have raised today can be given the attention that they deserve. Perhaps the minister can address some of the issues when she sums up.
We now move to wind-up speeches.
Maureen Watt mentioned that she would like our fish farming and aquaculture industry to be the cleanest and the greenest in the world. I absolutely agree with that as an aspiration for the industry. Of course, that means that we should arrange that, within reasonable limits, the industry should have the minimum adverse effect on the marine environment.
I ended my opening speech on a paean of praise for the idea of enclosed fish farm cases. If we sat down and costed them, I believe that we would see that, in the long term, they are the most profitable—and certainly the safest—way of moving the industry forward. That must be the long-term solution to many, if not most, of the problems that are faced by the aquaculture industry.
Some changes could be made instantly, such as designating fish farm-free zones in Scottish waters. The siting of fish farms has a crucial impact on the wider aquaculture environment. We must take the opportunities that are provided to us through Marine Scotland and the Marine (Scotland) Bill to ensure that inappropriately sited farms are moved or cease to exist and that new fish farms are sited only in the most appropriate places.
In that regard, Norway has led the way with its designation of national salmon fjords, which are areas where fish farming is simply not allowed. Of course, the Norwegians have a little more room to do that than we have, but the idea deserves serious attention. Scotland should follow by designating farm-free sea lochs. Perhaps—I do not know—Loch Broom or Little Loch Broom could be the first of many such lochs. Although fish farms have already been sited there, I know that at least one of them is extremely well managed. There should be no siting of fish farms where there are runs of wild salmon and sea trout. All smolt cages should be removed from freshwater lochs that contain native migratory fish. Aquaculture is clearly going to continue to be an important industry for Scotland, so it is critical that we get the regulation right.
I am pleased that, in her opening speech, the minister talked about the establishment of the five groups. The Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers will be particularly pleased that it is to be included as a separate group within the first group that she mentioned.
We simply do not have enough suitable sites to increase production beyond its present level in a way that will not cause catastrophic and irreparable environmental harm. We must look for new solutions if we are going to expand the industry. The solution that I have mentioned is part of that and is staring us in the face. We have a superb opportunity to lead the world by working with companies that have developed closed containment systems of fish farming. We need to start focusing on quality as well as on quantity and we must stop trying to beat nature at her own game.
I am glad to say that I will support all the other amendments. As soon as I saw the motion, I was disposed to support it.
I explain to Liam McArthur that the detail in my amendment was included because it is essential that we keep our minds focused on the real problems that exist and will continue to exist. Sea lice and ISA are not going to go away—they are part of the marine environment. We must continue to concentrate on how best we can control infestations and fish diseases.
A raft of solutions have been proposed in the past, many of which the industry has resisted, such as giving fish more space in their cages. One can understand that reaction if they want to expand the industry and there is a limited number of sites that they can use, but if they are not going to go down that route they must find another route. People might gently smile at the idea of full containment, but it is being considered in other countries and it will work.
The only way in which we can avoid a firefighting scenario on an endless loop is by placing farm stocks where they do not come into contact with wild fish—not just wild salmon and sea trout, as the Calligus parasite is carried by many other species. We must also ensure that they do not come into contact with the open marine environment, where they are subject to damage from seals, algal blooms, jellyfish swarms and so on. I repeat myself advisedly: as far as we can see, the only way to achieve that is to place some sort of physical barrier between the farm stock and the marine environment—either that or we kill all the wild fish and produce sterile fjords for the farms. Even then, the jellyfish will come and the farmed fish will still die.
The minister seemed at first to be cool on the idea of providing extra protection for our wild salmon stocks, but I am certain that I will be disabused of that notion before the end of the debate.
I hope that members will support my amendment, and I thank Labour members for indicating that they will do so.
I have the advantage over my colleagues, Ross Finnie and Liam McArthur, in that I have heard volume 2 of Robin Harper's thesis.
It has been an interesting debate, and one that has been relevant, to say the least, to my constituency and to others. I felt that the minister pushed all the right buttons in her opening speech in reminding us of the contribution that aquaculture makes to the Scottish economy: as well as the jobs, the £350 million per annum—a figure that equals the value of our fishing catch. That is something that we should remember at all times. We have the biggest fish farming industry in the European Union.
As Robin Harper mentioned, the minister talked about containment and mentioned access to finance, as did other members. In doing so, she set the right tone for the debate. Before I make some points of my own, I will comment on other members' speeches.
Dr Elaine Murray spoke about the industry's importance to workers in remote communities—an issue that is relevant in my constituency, Liam McArthur's constituency and many other constituencies in far-flung bits of Scotland.
John Scott rightly made play of the issue of seals attacking cages. That is an issue that all of us have come across on our visits to fish farms. It has to be tackled and there must be greater cage protection. John Scott also mentioned the image of our seafood industry, which is a great advantage that we enjoy, as it is a good image that is associated with a high-quality product and good flavour. That is a strength.
Liam McArthur spoke about the importance of developing new market opportunities. Chile is in great trouble as a result of ISA, and we also have opportunities with regard to the USA.
The Liberal Democrats' amendment is about skills, training and, in particular, the future funding for that training. We must not neglect that because, as has been said, the people who are working in this industry are getting older and it is important that we have new entrants with new skills.
Robin Harper made a most interesting contribution about pumping water up high into a totally contained, land-based fish farm. That might well work, although it might be something that we do a little further in the future. If it did work, I would like some of the farms to be situated in my constituency.
The tanks could also be floating.
Absolutely.
Dave Thompson reminded us that local spend in the local economy is the beauty of the industry. The fact that Loch Duart fish farm operates where it does, in Scourie in west Sutherland in my constituency, assisted us in our campaign not only to maintain a filling station but to have it upgraded.
Peter Peacock mentioned that the industry has the scope to grow. We heard from Karen Gillon that the shellfish industry said that a capacity of 100,000 tonnes a year is not impossible in the future, and I echo that.
I think that Maureen Watt was the only member who mentioned the role of scientists. In that regard, I would like to take an advertising break in my speech and tell members about the Ardtoe marine laboratory, which does fascinating and groundbreaking work. Its developments in relation to the rearing of halibut and cod are worthy of examination. Of course, halibut may well become an important part of the industry.
Loch Duart, a salmon farming company in my constituency to which I have already referred, is run by the redoubtable Dr Jean Balfour, a former county councillor in Fife and, although she is a lady of some years, not a foe to be taken on lightly. I see members nodding in agreement—she really does lead from the front. Loch Duart was one of the first companies to develop site management and site rotation, and it has reaped the benefits in its turnover, which has increased, and its recent acquisition of Salar in the Western Isles.
Ardtoe marine laboratory is an example of the very best in research and Loch Duart is an example of the very best in fish farming.
No contribution from me would be complete if it did not include a mention of something extremely local. In the Dornoch Firth, as Peter Peacock knows, we have the Dornoch Firth mussel fishery. I take this opportunity to cordially invite the minister to come and see how we run the fishery. It was given to the royal burgh of Tain by King James VI of Scotland and I of England, much to the irritation of Dornoch. The charter stood well, even in the Court of Session, and the money that comes from the fishery goes to the common good fund in Tain. It is one of the largest natural shellfisheries in the British isles, if not Europe, and I think that it is worthy of study. Because it is a natural fishery, it requires no chemicals or any other form of management apart from harvesting, which means that it is completely sustainable. There is something to be learnt from that.
I am glad that members mentioned the dumping by the Norwegians. I hope that the minister will be able to comment on that in her closing speech. I know that she has got a lot to comment on, but it is a matter that has been brought to the attention of many MSPs for as long as they have been members of the Scottish Parliament, and it was an important issue long before that. It is one of the greatest unfairnesses in the industry.
I urge members to support Liam McArthur's amendment, which is about training people so that they have the skills that the industry will need in the future.
I thank the minister for expressing the Parliament's sympathy over the tragic deaths of Robert MacDonald and Maarten Pieter den Heijer while they were working on Loch Creran. It is indeed a dreadful loss for their families and for the whole fish farming community in Argyll.
I welcome today's debate, which has been largely constructive and useful. As a Highlands and Islands MSP and a one-time trout farmer in Argyll, I am hugely conscious of the importance of aquaculture to the region's economy, especially in the more remote and rural parts. However, wild river fisheries, too, are significant and important, so we must strive for successful co-existence between the sectors.
The minister mentioned the crucial issues of sea lice and ISA, which are even more crucial in the light of yesterday's sad news of a further outbreak in Shetland. The Scottish Government has correctly recognised that an integrated sea lice control strategy is essential for the health and welfare of farmed fish, and to limit the spread of infection to our valuable wild fish populations of salmon and sea trout.
However, I gather that some fish farms are still rotten with sea lice—those fish are heavily stressed, and are therefore more likely to get ISA, which many believe is endemic in the water. The code of good practice that is set out by the SSPO for Scottish fin fish aquaculture is excellent if it is adhered to, but a small minority of fish farmers are still able to drive a coach and horses through the regulations. That is unfair on the rule-abiding majority, and I urge the Government to use the new powers under the Agriculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 to ensure 100 per cent compliance with the rules of the code. The rules are on parasites, containment and record keeping, and they must be enforced. Site fallowing plans are also vital for a clean industry.
Tripartite working groups have generally been successful in the areas in which they operate on the west coast, but they do not apply in Orkney and Shetland, where river boards do not exist. Could that be significant, given that the recent outbreaks of ISA have all been in Shetland? Does the minister agree that the tripartite umbrella could cover Orkney and Shetland as a guard against bad practice?
Norway seems to be ahead of Scotland with regard to the publication of data on sea lice. Will our Scottish Government publish data about farm sites in Scotland in the way that Norway does on the Lusedata website? It is unfortunate that 90 per cent of the Scottish industry is owned by its main competitor. That is perhaps one reason why our native Scottish industry has waned in recent years.
The most important priority is to find out why ISA has struck particular farms in Shetland because, until we have the answer to that, the threat of ISA will continue to hang over the industry like the sword of Damocles, and confidence in the future of fish farming may falter. We all want anything that is possible to be done to prevent ISA from taking hold in Scotland—it is an obvious priority—but do ministers accept that huge losses have already been incurred by independent Scottish smolt and egg producers?
The Government says that there can be no compensation for the sector, while at the same time vaccines against ISA cannot be used. What is the Scottish Government doing to promote confidence? Does it accept that the Faroe Islands has already used vaccination as part of its eradication programme and that, among our major competitors, Chile is using vaccines and Norway is likely to follow suit?
Does the Government accept, furthermore, that the use of vaccines in carefully restricted areas and circumstances need not necessarily change our ISA status within the European Union? Will ministers continue to engage with the independent smolt and egg producers on the issue? Unfortunately, some of those producers have already been forced to leave the industry.
In the previous debate on aquaculture in the Parliament, my colleague John Scott—on my behalf—raised the issue of halibut farming, which is being pioneered by three farms in Argyll, including Kames Fish Farming Ltd near Oban. Will the minister indicate whether any progress has been made in setting up the relevant border control inspection at a Scottish airport to allow young halibut stock to be imported directly into Scotland, rather than into London or Manchester? That would greatly benefit Scottish businesses, and it would improve the welfare of the young fish in transportation and boost survival rates. Although I am aware that Scottish halibut farmers are keen to be able to breed their own stock in hatcheries in a few years—and I wish them every success with that—Scotland might well want to import other species in the future, and a dedicated Scottish airport of entry might therefore be a real boon.
With regard to seals, I agree with other members that we have to approach the issue in an unemotional way. No one here wants to see those beautiful mammals culled unnecessarily, but we need to respond to the fact that each year approximately 20,000 to 30,000 seal attacks take place on Scottish salmon farms. Last year, the industry was forced to shoot 489 seals. Although the industry makes it very clear that it wants to bring down that number by making significant investment in more sophisticated acoustic deterrents, trialling different nets, working with the sea mammal research unit at St Andrews and supporting research through the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum, it maintains that, from time to time and as an act of last resort, it needs to shoot any persistent rogue seals that attack its nets. I remember that, in the first parliamentary session, Ross Finnie proposed the establishment of a seal commission that would be similar to the Red Deer Commission. What happened to that idea and what does the Scottish National Party think of it?
Time prevents me from talking on some of the other subjects that have been raised, but the mussel industry—
I am afraid that time prevents you from talking on any other subject, Mr McGrigor. Your time is up.
Right. I just want to say that the mussel industry is also extremely important to Scotland.
There is clear cross-party agreement on the importance of the aquaculture industry in many parts of rural Scotland, including my constituency. For example, the seafood company that earlier this year took over Pinneys of Scotland is probably Annan's largest employer, and I am pleased to say that it continues to process 100 per cent Scottish farmed salmon.
St James Smokehouse, at the other end of the scale, is also situated in Annan. Several members have mentioned the European seafood exposition, which took place last month in Brussels. I hope that they have not given the impression that we have been on some monumental jolly, because the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee spent a fairly action-packed couple of days learning about the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. However, on our whistle-stop visit to the exposition, I was very pleased to find St James Smokehouse advertising its wares on such a huge international stage. It was very gratifying to see such small companies, some of which were from Galloway, promoting their products internationally.
As in many other rural constituencies, the economy of my constituency is reliant on the contribution of wild fish. Indeed, the area is well known for its angling and netting, which not only are valued leisure pursuits for local people but attract tourists to the region. We need to reconcile the difference between the two industries and find a sustainable way forward. Indeed, that is important right across the board.
As I said in my opening remarks, I would have appreciated more time to study and consider the Government's renewed strategic framework for Scottish aquaculture, for the very reason that aquaculture is so important to the Scottish economy and the availability of quality local food. I was not, as Dave Thompson implied, just being grumpy; I admit, though, that I might have been slightly grumpy, given that I had leapt out of my bed early this morning and, without even so much as a cup of tea, rushed into Parliament to attempt to get a copy of the document only to be advised that it would not be available until the afternoon. However, Robin Harper fared even worse; I understand that he did not receive a copy at all.
Many stakeholders, producers, consumers, processors and environmentalists have a keen interest in the strategy, and we should have been able to find out whether it adequately addresses their concerns. As I say, I would have appreciated more time to hear the views of those stakeholders and to construct a more considered response. It might have been more useful had the minister launched the strategy in a statement and, perhaps a month later, when we had a fuller picture of the composition of the ministerial group and the task forces, how the forum would be set up and how the strategy was going to be taken forward, we could have had a more productive debate.
I do not intend just to be negative, because we support the document's intentions. After all, who can disagree that the way forward lies in having healthier fish and shellfish, improved licensing systems, aquaculture developments, improved containment, better marketing and an improved image and better access to finance? As ministers in the current Government have acknowledged in previous debates, all that builds on the previous Executive's good work.
Of course, what really counts is whether objectives are achieved, and we should not congratulate ourselves on achieving a good strategy until we know whether that is the case. We all know that words are reasonably easy; what matters is whether they translate into effective action. We will be judged on that.
Many members, including Karen Gillon, Peter Peacock, Ross Finnie, Liam McArthur and Maureen Watt, have spoken about the importance of the aquaculture industry to the Scottish economy. The fact that Scotland is the second largest producer of farmed salmon in Europe bears repeating. It was the third largest producer of farmed salmon in the world, but I am not sure whether it is not now the second largest, given the problems that there have been in Chile. Salmon farming is worth £324 million per annum, trout farming is worth £15 million per annum, and shellfish farming is worth £5 million per annum. As members have said, there is considerable room for expansion of the latter. The Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers believes that a shellfish output of 100,000 tonnes per annum is possible. That would mean a 20-fold increase in current production. Does the Government agree that an increase of that magnitude is possible? How long would it take to develop the strategy that would be required to deliver that? The matter is significant to the Solway, for example, which has, it has been estimated, the capacity to produce 13,000 tonnes of farmed oysters or 19,000 tonnes of farmed mussels.
Liam McArthur mentioned discussions with the industry on the opportunities that arise from the collapse of the Chilean industry. Robin Harper and Ross Finnie made the point that we also need to know what lessons should be learned about the risks to the Scottish industry.
It is not surprising that many members have mentioned sea lice and health and welfare issues. I was interested in Robin Harper's description—volumes 1 and 2—of possible technological solutions to sea lice and seal attacks. I would be interested in the industry's response to some of the proposals that have been made. From what Robin Harper said, it seems that technologies have been rejected. I would like to hear more from the industry about why it is not prepared to consider them further.
Peter Peacock talked about the need for more details on timescales, the funding that is available to tackle the problem, and how progress will be reported to Parliament.
Ross Finnie rightly reminded us of the vulnerability of the industry to disease and said that we should not be complacent, as something that has happened to somebody else could equally happen to us.
Seals have been mentioned. Obviously, seals are one of the components of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. I was pleased that the Government proposes to repeal the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in that bill, as that act is very out of date and does not conserve seals in the slightest. As thoughts develop, I would be interested to hear more about how the Government thinks that the concerns of the welfare sector will be met. I am not one of those people who believe that no seal should ever lose its life. Seals, which are intelligent animals, sometimes predate on fish farms. They learn how to swim up rivers to attack them. I think that sometimes there is no option other than to kill an animal because it has become fixated on the predation of fish farms. We should not lose sight of the fact that there are fish welfare issues if fish are being stressed and frightened by continual seal attacks. The issue is not as easy as some might think.
Karen Gillon mentioned the important issue of the planning and identification of leases and sites. The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation has expressed reservations about the capability of local authorities to provide aquaculture framework plans with a sufficient level of detail or the presumption of development guidance that is contained in Scottish planning policy 22. Will the minister expand on the relationship between SPP 22 and the proposed robust and appropriate planning and licensing schemes, which are one of the strategy's desired outcomes?
I support the development of a strategy, but it is a bit thin and a wee bit late, and perhaps it has not been presented to Parliament in the right way. However, I think that we all agree that the industry is extremely important and that it needs to proceed using a sustainable economic development approach.
I would need at least three or four times the minutes that have been allocated to me to answer every question that members have asked. I fear that some members will therefore be disappointed. If the document dealt with things in the detail that has been suggested, there would be little point in any of the working groups, in which some of the details will be worked through.
I ought to say at the outset that I am happy to accept the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Tory amendments. I will not accept the Green party amendment, for a specific reason that I will outline later.
I am glad that everyone has acknowledged the value of the industry and its ambition and optimism, which is one of the most striking features of the industry right now. It is extremely important that we continue to say whenever we can that the industry is hugely optimistic and that it is of enormous economic value to Scotland. That value is not often recognised, perhaps because people see things through the prism of sea fisheries, rather than the aquaculture industry.
I hope that I will be able to deal with some of the bigger issues that have been raised by several members. Many members mentioned sea lice. We are committed to producing a proposal this year to establish a national system for the collection of sea lice data. I know that people scoff at that a little, but if we do not have the information in the first place, it is difficult to move on. That system will be a big step forward, as it will inform the industry's treatment strategies and guide the Scottish Government's research and action. Action must be based on sound science, hence the need for an expert working group, so that policy is informed by science. I will make more comments about sea lice later if I have time.
Several members talked about freshwater aquaculture. I acknowledge the issues that surround that. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is confident that its licensing approach under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005—which are known as CAR—provides protection from the risk of eutrophication. However, we know that that is not an effective legislative means of dealing with escapes. Recently commenced provisions provide the fish health inspectorate with powers to regulate and improve the containment of farm stock, thereby reducing the potential for interaction with wild salmonid populations. We hope that that work will bear fruit.
Several members mentioned the siting of fish farms. As I have said, marine Scotland will establish a marine spatial planning system that will consider those issues. In the interim, we are establishing a process to allow agreements to be reached between the aquaculture industry, wild fisheries interests and regulators on areas in which expansion could be expected and areas where development might not be appropriate—we acknowledge that that might be the case.
Several members, including John Scott and Elaine Murray, talked about seals. I salute Elaine Murray for her courage in saying that it is not the case that no seal should ever be shot. We are aware of the concerns about the issue and we are looking at it very carefully. In fact, I am looking very carefully at the moment to try to find the information that I have on the issue. I might have to come back to that shortly. No—I can give a quick comment. We will consider a licence system that is based on the model that has been developed in the Moray Firth seal management plan pilot. That will centre around an annual application process to cover activity during the whole year and will include provision for reporting and monitoring. The system will involve the use of the permitted potential biological removal method, which provides a maximum figure for the number of individuals that can be removed without affecting the wider population. We are trying to find the right balance, which is important.
John Scott and many other members talked about the impact of ISA. The recent outbreak has been an enormous disappointment. As members might imagine, since coming into my ministerial post, that has been the focus of my interaction with the industry for very obvious reasons. I am only too aware of the difficulties that the outbreak raises. The recent new case is in the same area as the previous cases, so there is no evidence of spread outside the area. It is within the currently contained area and the biosecurity controls remain in place.
Liam McArthur and others talked about support to expand export markets. We are in constant discussions with the industry. The member will not be surprised to know that my initial focus has been on ISA, which is understandable, but officials are aware of the need for such support. Finance is available through the EFF to make common-interest bids that will help the export market. For example, there was a recent award of about £215,000 to Scottish Quality Salmon for a targeted promotional campaign in France for its label rouge Scottish farmed salmon, and for developing the product in other countries, too. There is a mechanism there that can be used to help, and I hope that people will take advantage of it.
The marketing and image sub-group provides a forum for discussions with the industry on opportunities for further export. I have been told in discussion with the industry that Scotland can best support the sector by providing space to expand. It comes back to the provision of developmental space.
I have a point to make about expansion. The minister has not so far mentioned the new species in this regard, such as halibut. One of the advantages of halibut is that they do not get, and are not hosts for, sea lice.
There are many things that I simply do not have time to mention. I will have to mop up some of them outside the confines of the debate.
EFF awards are available if the right bids are put in, but we should not forget that they are application led.
Robin Harper raised a number of points. The part of his amendment that causes the difficulty is nothing to do with the science or the issues that he raises; it is to do, I am afraid, with his specific comments about the expectation of confidentiality, the tripartite working group and the area management agreements. Given that the group is a voluntary organisation, we fear that any expectation that all the information is to be made public would end up undermining the voluntary approach, and that it would achieve precisely the opposite effect of what Robin Harper wants to achieve.
I wonder whether Robin Harper would be prepared to withdraw the amendment in his name if I agreed to meet him about the other issues that he has discussed, on which we have no great concern, as we recognise their importance. Our difficulty is to do with the very specific issue of confidentiality and not undermining the voluntary arrangement in that respect. If we say that everything is going to be in public, we are afraid that producers simply will not come. We want to ensure that they engage.
If the minister will allow me to take full advantage of that generous offer, I am prepared to be equally generous and to withdraw my amendment.
Peter Peacock asked how we will keep people informed of various aspects of work. I can tell him that the sea lice group will report to the ministerial group on aquaculture, under the healthier fish and shellfish theme, and we will publish all the minutes online. I am happy to provide an update to MSPs when the group reports. I personally hope that debates on aquaculture are not confined to just one per year—perhaps there will be opportunities to come back to the chamber on the subject. On action plans, the ministerial group will meet this summer, with a chair being appointed in June. Each group will have to develop a time-bound action plan, to be made available online. Relevant interests will be represented by groups.
I am afraid that I will have to jump to the end of my speech now. I will deal briefly with export credits and finance. On 8 May 2009, the Export Credits Guarantee Department launched a public consultation on a proposal to offer a scheme to confirm letters of credit for British exports. I encourage all Scottish companies to participate in the consultation, which closes on 3 July. I hope that members will encourage any companies in their areas with significant concerns on the matter to participate.
I should come to a close now. There are many issues that I have been unable to deal with, and I am sorry about that—I would like to go on a great deal longer. This is an extraordinarily important industry for Scotland, and I am hugely enthusiastic about it and supportive of it. I knew very little about the industry before but, in the short space of time for which I have had an interaction with it, I have been incredibly impressed by all the companies that I have seen, as I hope are members in the chamber. I very much commend to members further interaction with companies in their areas so that they can learn more and see more of that enthusiasm and ambition. I commend the strategy to the Parliament.