Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Environment and Rural Development Committee, 24 Jan 2007

24 Jan 2007 · S2 · Environment and Rural Development Committee

Item of business

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Boyack, Sarah Lab Edinburgh Central Watch on SPTV

I accept Rob Gibson's desire to probe on the issue, so I will take slightly longer over amendment 24 than I did over amendment 1. Amendment 24 is basically a use-it-or-lose-it provision and would undermine investor confidence in the industry. The Executive is concerned that it could represent overregulation and would be seen as the Government trying to micromanage business decisions. The bill strikes a balance that we are keen to retain. I acknowledge that, at stage 1, the committee considered the underuse of sites to be an issue, but it also recognised the need for some flexibility.The aquaculture industry in Scotland must remain competitive in a highly competitive international market. Large multinational and smaller indigenous companies need to be able to access suitable sites that can be used routinely or at short notice in an emergency to respond to changes in the disease status of other sites—for example, to retain production levels if other sites need prolonged fallowing for disease control—or market conditions. Therefore, there could be sound commercial reasons for deciding not to commence production on a site. If anyone—particularly another fish farm operator—were to think that a particular operator was abusing its market position, they should take that up with the competition authorities.Given the committee's previous interest in the issue, I will make a brief comment on planning issues and the Crown Estate, which was mentioned in the committee's stage 1 report. To be clear, site availability is not governed by planning legislation or the Crown Estate lease conditions because neither can be used to force an operator to give up a site for underusing it. Under planning legislation, the deployment of minimal plant at a site would constitute use. The Crown Estate considers that its lease conditions do not permit it to force a leaseholder to use a site but it has changed its rental provisions to increase payments for sites that are in long-term fallow.Rob Gibson has raised an important issue and I recognise the committee's general concerns about it. I know that many people hold strong views on the issue. We are taking an interest in work that the Crown Estate, the Fisheries Research Services, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation are undertaking on site use and availability and efficient site sharing among key players. We will keep an eye on that research.I urge committee members to reject amendment 24 and I hope that, after listening to my comments, Rob Gibson might be persuaded to withdraw it.