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

Brankin, Rhona Lab Midlothian Watch on SPTV

I thank the members who have spoken in today's debate. The vast majority have been thoughtful and constructive and have brought a degree of consensus to our deliberations. I am glad that there has been widespread support for the broad sweep of our proposals from across the chamber. I believe that that reflects our stakeholders' views about the bill. There have been relatively minor disagreements, and some points of detail for us to consider further at stage 2 have been raised.

I will address one or two points at least, but I hope, if I speak quickly, to address as many as possible. If I do not cover them all, I apologise, but there will be time to cover them at stage 2. I repeat my commitment to provide the committee with information about amendments as early as possible. I continue to be willing to listen to any constructive arguments that will help us to improve the bill as it proceeds through its parliamentary stages.

I reassure members who are concerned about action that might have to be taken by the Scotch whisky industry and the hydro industry—I do not know whether anybody mentioned that—in what I hope is the unlikely event of GS coming to Scotland. I emphasise that stakeholders have of course been involved. All the key stakeholders, including the Scotch Whisky Association and the hydro industry, were represented on the GS task force. The whisky industry was briefed separately on the possible implications of an outbreak of GS in a whisky-producing area and the association has been assured that it will be directly involved in the dry-run exercise in the new year that will test the contingency plan.

Many members talked about the risks that are involved in GS coming to this country. The Executive and I do not underestimate the risks, but they should be put in context. I provided the Environment and Rural Development Committee with a scientific paper by Dr Ed Peeler on the risk of introducing GS into the United Kingdom. In that paper, Dr Peeler says that the risk that is presented by canoes and angling is

"extremely low because the volume of water transported is minimal (therefore unlikely to contain a parasite) and the parasite is likely to be desiccated during transit … canoes, boats and angling equipment have not been implicated in the transmission of the parasite between rivers in Norway".

That is not to say that we underestimate the risk, about which my officials have had several discussions with colleagues in Whitehall and the customs authorities.

Our position is that mandatory controls are not appropriate at this stage. It would be impossible to confirm the veracity of any declaration of disinfection and, in any event, points of entry are not always manned by customs officials, so checking equipment would be something of a lottery. It is hugely important to educate people to disinfect their gear before they travel. That is more effective than hoping to find damp gear as it enters the country.

The evidence that was given to the committee supports the view that preventive measures at ports of entry do not lend themselves to legislation and that education is likely to be more effective in keeping GS out of Scotland. We are moving up a gear in the development of our communication plans for GS and are actively considering strategies for what needs to be a high-profile education campaign. I will of course keep the committee up to date on those developments.

Eleanor Scott talked about using live fish as bait. The Executive will lodge a stage 2 amendment to introduce explicit provision in the bill that will prohibit the use of live vertebrates as bait. That is in response to the committee's recommendations and stakeholders' wishes.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 20 Dec 2006

In the same item of business