Hansard

It gives me great satisfaction to speak in support of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, which is the culmination of years of hard work by all those with an interest in the industry, including members and clerks of two parliamentary committees—the Transport and the Environment Committee in the first session, and the Environment and Rural Development Committee.

In 2000, petition PE96 reached the Transport and the Environment Committee, asking for an independent public inquiry into the adverse environmental effects of sea cage fish farming. We found ourselves caught between the aspirations of a young industry that employed 5,000 to 6,000 people in remote areas of the Highlands and Islands and the industry's perceived impact—I say "perceived" because the research was patchy—on wild salmon in west Highland rivers, the numbers of which were in decline.

Uniquely, the committee and the Executive jointly commissioned an assessment of the research. That was in no small measure thanks to Rhona Brankin—who then, as now, was responsible for aquaculture—and Allan Wilson, who followed her. The committee's involvement was crucial because it reassured parties that the research was independent. The research, which was conducted by Dr Kenny Black of the Dunstaffnage marine laboratory, found that the two major environmental impacts of aquaculture were the impacts on wild salmon of sea lice and escapes from fish cages.

A tripartite working group had already been established between the Executive, wild salmon interests and the industry, and area management agreements were being encouraged. The Executive then set up a ministerial working group whose task was to find the right environmental, social and economic balance for the industry. The group's membership involved representatives of all stakeholders and—again, uniquely—a committee member. That had never been done before. I hope that other committees and Executive departments will note that approach and consider it as a way of getting consensus on particularly contentious issues.

The parts of the bill on aquaculture, then, are the result of a huge amount of work. That is not to say that equal work has not gone into the other parts, about which other members have spoken. The bill is finely balanced between the industry's need to be economically viable and the need to control the environment for the sake of biodiversity and the sustainability of the wild salmon fishery, which is also of economic benefit to remote, rural communities. Good environmental status is, of course, also of crucial importance to our aspiration for a high-quality farmed salmon product.

The industry has had input as well as the Executive. The industry set itself a high standard in its code of practice and almost 100 per cent of fish farmers have signed up to it. The fact that the bill underpins the code of practice is crucial to retaining the confidence of the other sectors that I mentioned.

A great deal of work has been done to minimise the occurrence of sea lice and treat fish effectively and safely using medicines or synchronised fallowing. That includes the relocation of farms from river estuaries. I do not share Eleanor Scott's concern about permanent planning permission, because the bill is the carrot that will move operators from unsuitable sites. We must balance environmental responsibility, fish health and welfare, and the industry's need to remain competitive.

Escapes might seriously damage the genetic make-up of our wild salmon, which is specific to those in each river, and weaken their ability to survive in the wild. The Executive believes that we cannot make every escape incident a statutory offence, although that seems to have been its original intention. I agree that fish farmers cannot be held accountable for misguided animal rights activists or extreme weather events, but they should keep their cages fit for purpose, as their code of practice requires. The committee is seeking further information on the matter.

I would like more detail on the robustness of the specification of fish cages; on whether an inspection every five years is sufficient to monitor good practice; and on whether there will be sanctions for negligence such as careless handling when fish are being transferred. I accept that no salmon farmer wants to lose his stock—which should be incentive enough to ensure good practice—and that draconian measures could result in escapes not being reported. However, I urge the Executive to give us a clearer idea of the point of balance.

On the GS threat, suffice it to say that we need a robust education campaign to make anglers and game fishermen aware of the risks to our rivers. The risks may be perceived to be small, but the consequences would be catastrophic.

The committee heard evidence on affordable access to angling. Although it seems that more access is available than is taken up by the public, a perception still exists that, on some rivers, the riparian proprietors have protection orders in place but are denying the quid pro quo of allowing access. Each protection order area has a liaison committee. We were impressed by the liaison committee for the River Tay and I am pleased that the minister will explore the possibility of issuing guidance to all such committees. I am sure that other members will expand on that matter.

The bill is a good one. As with other bills, there will be some tweaking at stage 2, but I have no hesitation in endorsing its principles.