Chamber
Plenary, 01 Mar 2007
01 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
This Parliament passes laws on all sorts of things, but only rarely can we honestly say that it is faced with an issue as important as that of Gyrodactylus salaris, the infamous salmon parasite that has devastated fish stocks and river systems on the continent. Although GS has not yet appeared in Scotland, it might be only a matter of time until it does unless we take action to combat the threat. At present, if anglers take a fishing trip to Norway, there is nothing to stop them, upon their return to Scotland, continuing to fish with equipment that might be contaminated. The threat is obvious, but what should we do about it?
Let me quote directly from the Executive's document on GS, which was produced for ministers by experts at the institute of aquaculture at the University of Stirling and Glasgow Caledonian University business school. According to that document, which I have with me, the cost to the economy if GS became widespread would be £34.5 million per year in lost household income, £44.8 million in lost expenditure, and a staggering £633 million in net economic value lost. The document also estimates that almost 2,000 full-time equivalent jobs would be lost annually.
What does the excellent document suggest that we should do to prevent such an economic and ecological catastrophe? I quote:
"The probability of GS entering the UK could be reduced considerably by the provision of disinfection stations at ports".
It also says:
"The total estimated cost of these measures … is £6m".
That cost is small in comparison with the net economic value of £633 million.
Furthermore, the measures that are outlined in amendment 1 were enthusiastically endorsed by every member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee in its stage 1 report. At that time, the deputy minister was convener of the committee. Paragraph 99 of the report states:
"The Committee does not see why more robust measures should not also be developed at ports of entry—such as a requirement to make a declaration at customs points if carrying fishing gear or other water-sports equipment".
We know who the convener of the committee was, so why, when Ted Brocklebank heeded the committee's recommendation and duly lodged an amendment at stage 2, did the deputy minister reject it and her Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues on the committee vote it down?
The measures that are outlined in amendment 1 may not be enough to stop GS, not least because it could arrive via England or Wales, but they would send a signal to the United Kingdom Government that we are deadly serious in combating that parasite and that similar measures must be implemented across the country.
Let me quote directly from the Executive's document on GS, which was produced for ministers by experts at the institute of aquaculture at the University of Stirling and Glasgow Caledonian University business school. According to that document, which I have with me, the cost to the economy if GS became widespread would be £34.5 million per year in lost household income, £44.8 million in lost expenditure, and a staggering £633 million in net economic value lost. The document also estimates that almost 2,000 full-time equivalent jobs would be lost annually.
What does the excellent document suggest that we should do to prevent such an economic and ecological catastrophe? I quote:
"The probability of GS entering the UK could be reduced considerably by the provision of disinfection stations at ports".
It also says:
"The total estimated cost of these measures … is £6m".
That cost is small in comparison with the net economic value of £633 million.
Furthermore, the measures that are outlined in amendment 1 were enthusiastically endorsed by every member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee in its stage 1 report. At that time, the deputy minister was convener of the committee. Paragraph 99 of the report states:
"The Committee does not see why more robust measures should not also be developed at ports of entry—such as a requirement to make a declaration at customs points if carrying fishing gear or other water-sports equipment".
We know who the convener of the committee was, so why, when Ted Brocklebank heeded the committee's recommendation and duly lodged an amendment at stage 2, did the deputy minister reject it and her Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues on the committee vote it down?
The measures that are outlined in amendment 1 may not be enough to stop GS, not least because it could arrive via England or Wales, but they would send a signal to the United Kingdom Government that we are deadly serious in combating that parasite and that similar measures must be implemented across the country.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. Members will be aware that they require the bill as amende...
Section 7—Code of practice
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The first group of amendments is on the code of practice: unused fish farm sites. Amendment 14, in the name of Rob Gibson, is the only amendment in the group.
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
During stage 2, I raised the question of the way in which the approved code of conduct would act in terms of fish farms. That is a core element of part 1 of ...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
Amendment 14 is the same as a probing amendment that Rob Gibson lodged at stage 2. I said then that the Executive's intention was to strike a balance in the ...
Rob Gibson:
SNP
As the Environment and Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report suggested,"the long-term retention of sites which are left inactive is unacceptable."I ha...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
We will proceed with the division.
ForAdam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The result of the division is: For 32, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
After section 17
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Group 2 is on the prevention of entry into Scotland of Gyrodactylus salaris. Amendment 1, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendments 1A and 15.
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
This Parliament passes laws on all sorts of things, but only rarely can we honestly say that it is faced with an issue as important as that of Gyrodactylus s...
Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member give way?
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Presiding Officer, may I give way?
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
That is entirely at your discretion.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
I will happily give way.
Alasdair Morgan:
SNP
For the sake of other members, will Mr McGrigor explain precisely how proposed new section 5DA(1) of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 is intended to work? How w...
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Presumably, if someone came to a Scottish airport, they would declare the items there. We would not have the power to make them declare the items at a UK air...
Richard Lochhead (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
I will speak to amendments 1A and 15. I agree with Jamie McGrigor, not only with regard to the fact that the Parliament makes lots of laws but on some of his...
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie):
LD
I do not disagree with Jamie McGrigor's point that Gyrodactylus salaris is an extremely important disease to deal with, and the Executive has no difficulty i...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I appreciate the fact that the minister has strong views on Ted Brocklebank's amendment. However, the SNP's amendment 1A simply asks ministers to report back...
Ross Finnie:
LD
I am addressing the amendments in the order in which they were spoken to. I know that Richard Lochhead is anxious for me to respond to his amendments, but he...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Because the lead amendment is subject to amendment, we will have two winding-up speeches. Mr McGrigor will wind up the debate on amendment 1 and Mr Lochhead ...
Mr McGrigor:
Con
I listened closely to what Mr Finnie said, but I still think that we should take further measures to strengthen prevention of the parasite ever reaching Scot...