Hansard

I will try my best, Presiding Officer.

I thank all members for their contributions to today’s debate. One thing that I did not mention earlier but which I would like to mention is that I came to the post late in the pre-legislative stage of the bill, and I thank Stewart Stevenson for all his early work in his ministerial capacity. The road that we have travelled since then has not been without its challenges. There have been occasions on which the debate has been less constructive, as the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee noted in its stage 1 report.

The bill provides us with the legislative tools to ensure that farmed and wild fisheries and their interactions with each other continue to be managed effectively, maximising their combined contribution to supporting economic growth but, crucially, with due regard to the wider marine environment. The bill also provides a foundation on which to move forward and better manage our relationships and build trust.

The refreshed ministerial group on sustainable aquaculture has engaged the minds of our stakeholders, and there is a tide of optimism that proactive activity will take place over the coming months and years. Members of the MGSA helped to inform many of the provisions that we have debated in the past few months. The group met for the first time a couple of weeks ago, as I said earlier, and everyone is keen to look forward and not back. They recognise the need to address any negative perceptions that may have emerged, and there is also genuine acceptance that the debate has often excluded the many positive activities that take place. It is important that we do not lose sight of the many good examples of local engagement that already exist.

Improved governance arrangements for our fisheries boards and enhanced salmon management through the bill, coupled with the planned fisheries management review, will bring many opportunities. I encourage all our stakeholders to reflect on how they might better promote those and other positive examples of their work. As I speak here today, I am confident in saying that the bill is proportionate and strikes the right balance.

Time forbids me from saying too much, but I would like to turn to a few points that were made in the debate. Important points were made on carcass tagging by both Angus MacDonald and Alex Fergusson, who sought clarity about the timescales that are involved. The consultation will run for the standard 12-week period, and we will look to run it in parallel with the notification to the EU. The EU approval timetable is for the EU to determine, of course. It can be up to 18 months, but only if the EU has issues with what is proposed. I hope that it will be faster than that.

Rob Gibson made an important point about the potential for GM feed to get into the food chain. The Government intends to bring forward a debate as soon as possible after the summer recess to assess food authenticity and food labelling in recognition of the issue that the member has raised. I welcome his support for the management review that we propose as phase 2 of this important development of the wild fisheries and aquaculture sector.

Jamie McGrigor asked what evidence we have to demonstrate why transparency is a risk. I recognise that the point that Graeme Dey made is open to challenge from others because more than one factor is involved, but it indicated that publication of sea lice data damaged the Irish aquaculture sector. However, I will certainly look more closely at that.

On the measures that we have discussed today, I recognise that some people have reservations about the approach that we have taken to the voluntary reporting of data. Those reservations were evident in the earlier debate. However, I sincerely believe that encouraging the voluntary sharing of information—not just in the context of sea lice—along with appropriate explanatory text, is the right way forward. To repeat what I said previously, we will not seek to legislate where we do not need to, and I believe that this is an example of that. It is clearly for others to demonstrate that the Government’s support for voluntary measures has been well placed—I think that we all know who I mean. Equally clear is our existing ability to progress through secondary legislation if the voluntary approach does not work as expected.

Claire Baker raised the issue of how we will test whether the approach has worked. The publication of data will show us that, because if there is a persistent pattern of sea lice infestations in fish farms across Scotland, we will know that the approach is not working to drive down the numbers. I will certainly keep her informed on what we are doing in that regard.

I was pleased to support the amendments that Jim Hume lodged in relation to training on equipment that is used in fish farming. I thank him for his willingness to engage on the drafting and for the opportunity to explore what might best deliver a result on which we could all agree.

I want to end the debate on a really positive note. Everyone here recognises the enormous benefits to Scotland and the people of Scotland of successful and thriving aquaculture and wild fisheries sectors that can develop. The improved governance arrangements for our fishery boards and enhanced salmon management through the bill, coupled with the planned fisheries management group, will bring many opportunities. I therefore encourage all stakeholders to reflect on how they might better promote those. Now is the time to look forward, to be positive and to begin to build relationships that allow us to prosper in future. We have a clear implementation plan. There is much to do and the bill provides the foundations for that. I ask the Parliament to agree that the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill be passed.