Hansard

Conservative members, too, welcome the debate and the committee's report. Although this week much attention has rightly been focused on Brussels, where ministers are wrestling with the problems of managing deep-sea fish stocks, we in Scotland must never forget that we have a vibrant and growing aquaculture and recreational angling sector. The bill that we are debating today is relatively uncontentious, but it is hugely important for controlling and avoiding disease in farmed stocks, and in addressing the problem of escapes from fish farms. Rightly, the bill seeks to penalise those who misbehave but, equally important, it proposes compensation for those affected by disease or the measures that are taken to eradicate it. It also includes important new provisions relating to recreational angling and the preservation of freshwater fish stocks, virtually all of which we support. My colleague Jamie McGrigor will deal with that part of the bill.

Despite occasional misdirected scares, no one should underestimate the importance to Scotland of the farmed salmon industry. We are the third-largest global producer of Atlantic salmon, after Norway and Chile. As we heard from the minister, the industry is directly worth £350 million, with an added value of about £400 million. It supports about 10,000 jobs in some of the most remote parts of Scotland. As we have heard, at present it is regulated by a code of good practice that is supported by 97 per cent of the industry. The Executive considers part 1 of the bill to be a legislative backdrop to the code.

Infestation by sea lice is a major problem for the fish farming industry. Two main species are present in Scotland, and fish farms appear to provide the conditions in which the lice can thrive and subsequently affect wild fish. However, it is also true to say that wild fish are the carriers that bring the lice into waters where fish farms are located.

As we have heard, the bill attempts to underpin the voluntary management agreements that are currently in place by giving statutory force to the control of lice. We support the committee's view that inspection is vital but that

"an intelligent rationalisation of the various inspection regimes should be attempted so that the number of visits is not necessarily increased".

We certainly do not want an increase in costs for the industry, which is already operating on very slim profit margins.

On escapes, we broadly support the dropping of the strict liability offence. We fully understand the fears of anglers that farmed fish might get into wild stocks, with disastrous effects on the genetic pool, but we believe that containment is now much more successful than it has ever been. We agree with the committee that the key issues are effective inspection and the standards that the inspectors apply in assessing the adequacy of containment measures. However, we are also concerned that Fisheries Research Services should have sufficient funds to take on those inspection duties.

The one parasitical name that I will attempt to pronounce in full is the dreaded Gyrodactylus salaris, which is probably the most pernicious salmon parasite that we know. GS has decimated fish populations across the continent. Thus far, GS has not been found in this country, although it is fairly widespread in Norwegian rivers. Although some witnesses claimed that it is simply a matter of time before GS arrives in the UK, we must take every step possible to prevent that from happening. Action is required because the arrival of GS would not only cause devastation to our wild salmon but affect other river users such as—perhaps most significantly—the whisky producers that Richard Lochhead mentioned. The only way to get rid of GS in a river is by massive flushing with chemicals. One can imagine what that would do to famous whisky rivers such as the Spey.

We totally support the committee's view that at airports and other ports of entry we should take more robust measures, such as requiring people to declare fishing gear or other water-sports equipment. Every possible step should be taken to prevent the scourge of GS from ever coming into Scotland. We also believe that smolts and eggs from GS-infected countries should be banned from the UK. That might sound drastic, but we have far too much to lose.

On a connected issue, we are not convinced by the Executive's proposals for compensation, which ought to be available both for fish farmers who are forced to slaughter stocks because of disease and for whisky producers whose rivers are polluted by chemicals to eradicate the disease. We question why there is not parity between the compensation payments that can be made for the destruction of livestock and those that are proposed for the slaughter of fish. Although producers may, at the Executive's discretion, be compensated for fish that have been destroyed, the bill makes no reference to compensation for wider consequential losses, such as those that might be incurred by fish farmers who are prevented from moving or harvesting their stock even though they are not the primary target of the disease control measures.

Given that the Executive has admitted that it forgot about compensation for shellfish farmers, a clearer line on compensation will be essential at stage 2. As we have heard, representatives of the whisky industry expressed concern about the Executive's confusion on whether whisky producers might receive compensation.

On fish movements, we recognise the serious problems of non-native fish species and the spread of disease due to unauthorised introductions into this country. We agree with the committee that the preventive measures that are outlined in the bill might not go far enough.

We are wholly supportive of the general principles of the bill and we will vote for it.