Chamber
Plenary, 01 Mar 2007
01 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
During stage 2, I raised the question of the way in which the approved code of conduct would act in terms of fish farms. That is a core element of part 1 of the bill. There is a need for clarity about the tenure of fish farm leases and about fish farm planning permissions that will follow.
Through a freedom of information request, I found out that, of the 252 salmon leases that were established by the Crown Estate, in 2004 121 reported nil production, in 2005 the figure was 126 and in 2006 it was 140. Indeed, 67 leases reported nil production for the period 2004-06.
The Crown Estate does not seem to have the mechanisms to ensure that sites, once leased, are actually used. Because many of the sites are owned by large organisations, such as Pan Fish, which has a huge range of locations and leases, amendment 14 would not be a form of overregulation or micromanagement. The bill should take account of the need to underpin access for small companies and new players in the business.
Yesterday, we debated organic food. We know that demand exists for organic salmon and that we could do with more of it. Small firms in that market are very different from the near-monopoly, mass-market producers such as Pan Fish. I contend that amendment 14 would make it possible for more small firms to get involved.
The only way to ensure that Crown Estate leases are subject to effective planning permissions under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 is to impose time limits on the use of sites in the planning permissions. It should not just be that people have to start using sites within five years; there should be a more detailed time imposition. That would have to be underpinned by the code of practice, which the bill will allow the Executive to alter. The issue that I have outlined is major.
The minister might have discussed with Alasdair Morrison the mechanisms for individuals to challenge competition breaches through the Competition Commission, but I do not recall viewing the timetable for taking big companies to task or the bureaucracy that is involved in that. I cannot fail to note that such companies keep applying for more sites. In the debate about the Clyde fishery, the planning application that has been mentioned most recently is the one from Marine Harvest for a site off South Corriegills in Arran, which has the potential to interfere with an agreement between the Community of Arran Seabed Trust and the Clyde Fishermen's Association to create a scallop seeding area there.
If large firms such as Marine Harvest are not using all their sites—and there is lots of evidence that they have plenty to choose from—controlling whether they could get more sites would not be micromanagement by the Executive; it would be proper management. Given the ministerial commitment to a statutory underpinning for the historic agreement between Clyde Fishermen's Association and COAST, it is surely obvious that the Executive should augment the approved code of practice with amendment 14, which would limit the length of time that a fish farm operator could have a site if it was not in use.
I move amendment 14.
Through a freedom of information request, I found out that, of the 252 salmon leases that were established by the Crown Estate, in 2004 121 reported nil production, in 2005 the figure was 126 and in 2006 it was 140. Indeed, 67 leases reported nil production for the period 2004-06.
The Crown Estate does not seem to have the mechanisms to ensure that sites, once leased, are actually used. Because many of the sites are owned by large organisations, such as Pan Fish, which has a huge range of locations and leases, amendment 14 would not be a form of overregulation or micromanagement. The bill should take account of the need to underpin access for small companies and new players in the business.
Yesterday, we debated organic food. We know that demand exists for organic salmon and that we could do with more of it. Small firms in that market are very different from the near-monopoly, mass-market producers such as Pan Fish. I contend that amendment 14 would make it possible for more small firms to get involved.
The only way to ensure that Crown Estate leases are subject to effective planning permissions under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 is to impose time limits on the use of sites in the planning permissions. It should not just be that people have to start using sites within five years; there should be a more detailed time imposition. That would have to be underpinned by the code of practice, which the bill will allow the Executive to alter. The issue that I have outlined is major.
The minister might have discussed with Alasdair Morrison the mechanisms for individuals to challenge competition breaches through the Competition Commission, but I do not recall viewing the timetable for taking big companies to task or the bureaucracy that is involved in that. I cannot fail to note that such companies keep applying for more sites. In the debate about the Clyde fishery, the planning application that has been mentioned most recently is the one from Marine Harvest for a site off South Corriegills in Arran, which has the potential to interfere with an agreement between the Community of Arran Seabed Trust and the Clyde Fishermen's Association to create a scallop seeding area there.
If large firms such as Marine Harvest are not using all their sites—and there is lots of evidence that they have plenty to choose from—controlling whether they could get more sites would not be micromanagement by the Executive; it would be proper management. Given the ministerial commitment to a statutory underpinning for the historic agreement between Clyde Fishermen's Association and COAST, it is surely obvious that the Executive should augment the approved code of practice with amendment 14, which would limit the length of time that a fish farm operator could have a site if it was not in use.
I move amendment 14.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. Members will be aware that they require the bill as amende...
Section 7—Code of practice
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The first group of amendments is on the code of practice: unused fish farm sites. Amendment 14, in the name of Rob Gibson, is the only amendment in the group.
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
During stage 2, I raised the question of the way in which the approved code of conduct would act in terms of fish farms. That is a core element of part 1 of ...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
Amendment 14 is the same as a probing amendment that Rob Gibson lodged at stage 2. I said then that the Executive's intention was to strike a balance in the ...
Rob Gibson:
SNP
As the Environment and Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report suggested,"the long-term retention of sites which are left inactive is unacceptable."I ha...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
We will proceed with the division.
ForAdam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The result of the division is: For 32, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
After section 17
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Group 2 is on the prevention of entry into Scotland of Gyrodactylus salaris. Amendment 1, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendments 1A and 15.
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
This Parliament passes laws on all sorts of things, but only rarely can we honestly say that it is faced with an issue as important as that of Gyrodactylus s...
Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member give way?
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Presiding Officer, may I give way?
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
That is entirely at your discretion.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
I will happily give way.
Alasdair Morgan:
SNP
For the sake of other members, will Mr McGrigor explain precisely how proposed new section 5DA(1) of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 is intended to work? How w...
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Presumably, if someone came to a Scottish airport, they would declare the items there. We would not have the power to make them declare the items at a UK air...
Richard Lochhead (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
I will speak to amendments 1A and 15. I agree with Jamie McGrigor, not only with regard to the fact that the Parliament makes lots of laws but on some of his...
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie):
LD
I do not disagree with Jamie McGrigor's point that Gyrodactylus salaris is an extremely important disease to deal with, and the Executive has no difficulty i...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I appreciate the fact that the minister has strong views on Ted Brocklebank's amendment. However, the SNP's amendment 1A simply asks ministers to report back...
Ross Finnie:
LD
I am addressing the amendments in the order in which they were spoken to. I know that Richard Lochhead is anxious for me to respond to his amendments, but he...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Because the lead amendment is subject to amendment, we will have two winding-up speeches. Mr McGrigor will wind up the debate on amendment 1 and Mr Lochhead ...
Mr McGrigor:
Con
I listened closely to what Mr Finnie said, but I still think that we should take further measures to strengthen prevention of the parasite ever reaching Scot...