Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 20 Dec 2006

20 Dec 2006 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Gibson, Rob SNP Highlands and Islands Watch on SPTV

This has been an interesting debate—reasoned for the most part—in which there has been a strong degree of consensus.

It is interesting to note the background to the bill. The shellfish industry already has its own voluntary code of practice that works in many parts of the country, but we need an approved code of practice for salmon farming, which has a much greater impact on other industries than does the shellfish industry. In so saying, I think that everyone agrees that the development of the approved code is one thing that the committee has in mind.

Members have raised issues about fallowing fish farms, the use of existing sites and the fact that more than half the existing Crown Estate licences were not used in the past year. Indeed, 67 of the 252 licences have not been used at all in the past four years. The idea that planning permission should be sought for more and more sites must be questioned, particularly given the Marine Harvest—or Pan Fish, as it now is—application for a site off the coast of Arran. We do not need more sites; we need to sort out the ones that we have and use them better. That point answers the question raised by Nora Radcliffe.

Escapes, parasites and enforcement are all serious issues. The FRS has a job to do, and it will be interesting to hear what the minister has to say about the research and regulatory parts of that job. We would like to consider that in more detail.

I do not have the huge amount of time to go into the bill that the committee had, but I am glad that the evidence that we received often gave us insights into the difficulty of applying the science and the question whether the science is fit for purpose. It is obvious that our understanding of the effects of Gyrodactylus salaris has not yet been tested. It is of considerable concern that we are making a law before the exercise in January and February takes place and can be evaluated. It is up to us to ensure that the Government keeps a close watch on how that is carried out. The import of GS would be devastating.

Ted Brocklebank commented on compensation for people who would be affected by such an outbreak. It is inconceivable to think about future compensation for Diageo or the whisky industry now. The costs would be so high that they cannot possibly be taken on board at this stage. We must be careful about defining how compensation should be stated.

The question of live imports is the most crucial in preventing GS from getting here, but the situation in ports of entry is not yet clear. The GS task force called for stricter control, as has the committee. Education is one thing, but if members peruse the current leaflet on GS, they can see that it is not just Norway that has the disease: Sweden, Finland, Russia, Germany, France, Denmark, Spain and Portugal also all have sources. People travelling on angling trips to this country will be part of a problem that has to be solved at the port of entry.

Live fish imports are the biggest problem, and the question of how they will be policed gives us the greatest problem. Norway imported GS through smolts from Sweden, and we must clamp down on live fish imports. I hope that we will be able to agree that they are virtually a no-no.

A great deal could be said about the bill. I thank the members who made reasoned remarks, but I must comment, once again, that the Alasdair Morrison rant serves no purpose in helping us to make the best of what is a consensus. Echoing Sarah Boyack, I think that the European Union must decide how quickly to identify areas that are affected by GS. The British Prime Minister and others must act on our behalf.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 20 Dec 2006

In the same item of business