Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Environment and Rural Development Committee, 31 Jan 2007

31 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

Several issues have been raised, which I will try to deal with one at a time. In opposing amendment 9, neither Rob Gibson nor Ted Brocklebank engaged on the issue of biodiversity, which is the key reason why we introduced the proposal. I welcome Eleanor Scott's support for the ban, but our proposal is not about animal welfare; instead, it is driven by biodiversity issues. Members will recall that, through other measures in the bill, we are taking action to promote biodiversity. For example, section 28 contains provisions that will enable us to tackle indiscriminate stocking of inappropriate fish. We are trying to tighten up the legislation so that inappropriate fish are not introduced. Therefore, amendment 9 is consistent with other measures in the bill.The issue of how pike anglers currently fish is a separate one. Like Ted Brocklebank, I am not a member of the fishing fraternity, but I know that pike anglers can use other fishing methods. One or two members have mentioned that pike fishermen already use alternative methods—a briefing that the committee received mentions that pike anglers do on occasion use fish that are not alive. We encourage that practice and other alternatives.All sorts of difficulties arise to do with monitoring and dealing with non-native species, none of which is easy to resolve. Once an alien species has been introduced into the natural environment, it is difficult to rope it back in. The classic example of that is the introduction of the ruff into Loch Lomond. It is simply not possible to deal with the effects once a new species has been introduced. We therefore need to take a much more precautionary approach, which is the reason for amendment 9.The proposed ban would be implemented by bailiffs, who have local knowledge, and partly by anglers. We must get out the message that the ban is being introduced for a good reason. Any exemption that was introduced under amendment 9A would be much harder to implement, because it would be hard to know whether somebody was doing what they said they were doing—we could not get proof of that.Although no consultation on a ban has been proposed down south, byelaws are in place in certain areas to try to tackle the issue. The best example of that is the lake district, where there is a ban on the introduction of live fish through angling. Therefore, the measure is not unheard of down south. Our view is that the ban will not lead to a significant loss of tourism, nor to a reduction in the number of anglers coming up from down south. A particular issue arises for the pike angling community, but it is disappointing that the issue of a code, which is mentioned in a briefing that was issued to the committee, has not been raised at all with my officials, given that the issues have been discussed for a long time, since 2001, and that the specific proposal was produced in 2005.My officials and I are happy to talk about the issue with the pike angling community, but we do not think that the ban is a big issue. We absolutely do not intend to stop pike angling and we do not think that the ban will do that. The overriding issue is to do with biodiversity, which we cannot ignore and which we have not ignored in other parts of the bill. For those reasons, I hope that members will support amendment 9 and that, now that Rob Gibson has listened to the arguments, he will not press amendment 9A, although I understand the passion that is behind it. I can think of other similar issues that relate to non-native species in water and on land. Such issues excite great passions and they are difficult, but there are times when we have to take a tough decision, and this is one of them.