Hansard

I, too, welcome the committee's report and the debate, in which I speak both as the spokesperson for the Scottish National Party and as a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee who has been involved in the production of the report.

The debate and the bill are about two vital sectors in Scotland: the aquaculture sector and the freshwater fisheries sector. Our natural environment plays host to both sectors. The debate is not only about the jobs in those two sectors and their importance to the economy; the impact of the sectors on the environment and on biodiversity is of equal importance.

All the sectors that use our natural environment for commercial, economic or recreational purposes must do so responsibly. The purpose of the Parliament is to ensure that the necessary regulation is in place.

As the minister outlined, aquaculture is an enormously valuable industry in many rural and remote parts of Scotland. It is not only about salmon but about the wider sector, which brings £700 million of value to the Scottish economy and sustains more than 10,000 jobs. As I found out during my visit last week to the Spey District Salmon Fishery Board in my constituency, the freshwater sector continues to be of enormous importance to many of our constituencies. The great salmon rivers that many of us are lucky to have in our constituencies also continue to play an important role. Last week, I met staff and anglers at the fishery board and spoke to them about their livelihoods and their hobbies. The discussions were informative and interesting. The Spey is worth £11.8 million and sustains 370 jobs in Moray. Such a scenario is replicated on our other salmon rivers throughout Scotland.

The aquaculture sector in Scotland has taken enormous strides in recent years, and the Parliament has played a valuable role in ensuring that that has happened. As the minister says, the voluntary code of practice is in place. However, only 97 per cent of operators have signed up to it, so the SNP supports the minister's view that it is important to have a legislative backstop to the voluntary code of practice. It will also give more meaning to the code of practice and send out the right message from the Parliament about the code's importance.

The bill aims to achieve two goals in the aquaculture sector: first, to prevent escapes; and, secondly, to control parasites and, in particular, the infamous sea louse, which can also impact on a freshwater fisheries environment. In that context, the SNP welcomes the creation of the new inspection regime. We take into account the commitment that the minister recently gave to the committee that she will do her best to rationalise the number of inspections that will take place at salmon farms, because a common theme throughout the aquaculture debates in the Parliament has been the level of bureaucracy foisted on salmon farms. We must do what we can to streamline the bureaucracy. There have been calls in the past for a one-stop shop. The bill creates a new inspection and we must recognise that it is in the interests of the sector and the Parliament that we streamline the process. The committee calls for the "intelligent rationalisation" of the inspections and the minister has given a commitment to address the matter; it is very important that that is done. We must ensure that regulation is in place, but it must be proportionate and necessary. It should not lead to significant increases in expenses for salmon farm operators in Scotland.

To stick with the aquaculture sector, we note that the minister did not include in the bill introduced to Parliament the concept of strict liability in respect of escapes from salmon farms, despite the fact that that concept was included in the consultation process. The committee report expresses concern about the matter, which the SNP shares. I think that I am right in saying that the minister has agreed to reconsider the issue at stage 2, but perhaps she will verify that when she sums up.

The reason for our concern is that although we welcome the enforcement regime that will be put in place by the new inspectors' use of enforcement notices and we welcome the fact that there will now be an appeals process for salmon farmers in that context, that is taking action after the event and after escapes have occurred. Having a strict liability offence in the bill would perhaps create an incentive for salmon farmers to ensure that they take all possible steps to ensure that such escapes do not happen in the first place.

The threat that GS poses to Scotland's rivers overshadowed most of the committee's consideration of the bill. The seriousness of that particular fish disease is explained by the Government's economic impact assessment statement on GS. It states:

"The prevalence of Gs throughout Scotland would destroy salmon angling."

That is how serious the issue is. If GS occurs in Scotland, it will destroy many jobs, it will be a huge economic blow and it will be bad for Scotland's main salmon rivers and for the rest of our freshwater fisheries. We must take every step to ensure that if GS occurs, the impact is minimised.

It is difficult to argue against the minister acquiring powers to eradicate GS if it occurs in Scotland, but we must ensure that we take into account the serious concerns expressed to the committee. It was put to the committee that the cost of eradication could outweigh the benefits. That point must be at the heart of the Government's strategy in this context. Very serious concerns were expressed to the committee by the malt whisky sector. It said that, given that the only chemical that is available at the moment to treat GS would kill all life in and close down all activities related to a river, eradication would have dire consequences for local economies, including the malt whisky industry. If to treat this fish disease chemicals were inserted into some of the rivers from which water is taken for distilleries, distilleries would have to stop operating and the image of malt whisky distilling in Scotland would be affected. We must take into account the wider ramifications of treatment for GS. Other sectors such as the renewable energy sector also expressed concern about the issue.

One common theme of the debate on GS throughout the committee's deliberations was that prevention, rather than cure, is the answer. We must prevent GS from occurring in Scotland in the first place, as that is the key to safeguarding many jobs and the biodiversity of our rivers. The minister gave a lukewarm response to the committee's suggestion that we introduce stringent measures at ports of entry not just throughout Scotland, but throughout the UK, for people returning to Scotland from GS hot spots in Scandinavia, especially Norway, who have been involved in water-based sports or angling. We must ensure that disinfection takes place at ports of entry, so that we minimise the risk of GS coming into the country. The committee took a strong line on that issue.

The SNP shares the view that we must speak to HM Revenue and Customs and the port authorities about ensuring that the best-possible steps are taken to encourage disinfection of people involved in angling or water-based sports when they come into the country. It is also essential that there is a big education campaign among the angling population in Scotland and other users of our rivers. The minister says that our Achilles' heel in that regard is the Scotland-England border, but the Republic of Ireland was not put off from combating foot-and-mouth disease by its border with Northern Ireland. In the same way, it is important that we should not be put off from establishing the most stringent safeguards at ports of entry in Scotland.

The economic study says that the cost of running a major information campaign and putting in place disinfecting facilities at ports of entry would be £6 million. Perhaps when the minister sums up she will indicate whether that money will be provided by the Government, from where it will be provided and what progress has been made on putting together the information campaign that the minister says she supports.

The SNP supports the general principles of the bill and will vote for it. We await the return to the chamber in May—when the minister may no longer be the person responsible for the matter—of the issue of freshwater fisheries management, which is the missing part of the jigsaw and is not addressed in the bill. The SNP supports the modernisation of freshwater fisheries management by updating the fisheries boards that govern Scotland's freshwater fisheries.