Hansard

The bill already includes an enabling provision, which was introduced in section 25, to allow for a prohibition of the use of live vertebrates as bait to be made through subordinate legislation. That would allow for the use of specific baits and lures, such as live vertebrates, to be prohibited in fishing for freshwater fish.

Following concerns that were raised by many stakeholders about the risk of adverse effects on biodiversity in our inland waters from the use of unused live bait, we decided that putting the provision on the face of the bill would make the policy absolutely clear. The Environment and Rural Development Committee endorsed that position in its stage 1 report and the bill was amended at stage 2 to include such a provision. Ted Brocklebank's amendment 2 would remove that provision.

I want to refute some of the myths that have been flying around about this issue during the past few weeks. First, it has been suggested that the provision that was inserted at stage 2 was some kind of late amendment aimed at getting through a new policy at the end of the process. It was not. The prohibition on the use of live vertebrates was first proposed in the Executive's green paper "Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries: Securing their future", which was published in August 2001. It was subsequently debated thoroughly in the freshwater fisheries forum and included in the consultation document that was issued in December 2005. The response to the question in that consultation was four to one in favour of a ban.

I acknowledge that the strongly held views for and against the use of live vertebrates as bait tend to split along the lines that are associated with different branches of the sport. Those who wish to fish for predatory fish such as pike want no ban, whereas those who fish for other fish want a ban. It has been argued that introducing the ban simply supports the views of the latter group, but those on both sides of the argument share the same environment, and the fact remains that the use of live vertebrates by one group could compromise the environment and the fishing of another group.

The second point has been raised by several people; Eleanor Scott mentioned it today. The ban is not about welfare, and the Executive's next step will not be to prohibit the use of worms and maggots, if not fishing itself. I emphasise that the Executive has been consistent on that issue from day one. The issue is one of biodiversity, and I welcome Richard Lochhead's acknowledgement that biodiversity must be the central issue.

There is also a myth that live vertebrates are not a problem. That is not so. The use of live vertebrates as bait has resulted in the translocation of live fish from one body of water to another. We need only look at Loch Lomond to see what has happened. The loch now supports a number of fish species that are new to the loch. One of those species, the ruffe, is now the most numerous fish in the loch and it is thought to pose a major threat to the loch's indigenous powan, which is an internationally important species of freshwater fish found in Loch Lomond and Lock Eck and which is listed in the habitats directive.

The use of lures and dead fish—often marine species such as sprat or mackerel—gives anglers an ample range of methods and there is no need to put biodiversity at risk. We do not want to suggest that pike anglers should not come to Scotland; they will still be very welcome.

Although the use of live vertebrates is supported by a minority, support for a ban was, and remains, widespread. The case for prohibition is compelling. That was also the view of the majority of members on the Environment and Rural Development Committee.

I ask Jamie McGrigor to consider withdrawing amendment 2 for the reasons that I have outlined. I listened carefully to Richard Lochhead's arguments in favour of amendment 12. We have to focus on the issue of our native biodiversity. The fact that it has been compromised in some places does not mean that we should allow that to continue in others. The Executive's view is that the risk is just too great. I ask Richard Lochhead not to press his amendment. The Executive's position is clear and is supported by the majority: the provision should stay in the bill.

Taken together, the effect of Dennis Canavan's amendments 10 and 11 would be that Scottish ministers would not be able to make conservation regulations that would completely prohibit the use of lures or live invertebrates as bait either directly or as a result of the cumulative effects of sets of regulations. Some stakeholders are concerned that banning the use of live vertebrates as bait will also mean a ban on the use of live invertebrates, or that it would be followed by such a ban. That is not the case, and I am happy to repeat the commitment that I gave at stage 2: the Executive supports angling and does not intend to ban the use of live invertebrates as bait.

I met Dennis Canavan and I fully understand that the use of worms and maggots as bait and certain spinners as lures is central to the introduction of many young people to the sport of angling. I assure him that it is certainly not our intention to put any obstacles in the way of potential new entrants to the sport; quite the contrary.

By introducing new section 51A into the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003, section 25 of the bill addresses the need that was identified by stakeholders for a set of appropriate tools that may be used when there are conservation concerns about freshwater fish. If the appropriate response to an identified problem includes prohibiting specified lures or baits, the appropriate regulation can be made.

Scottish ministers can make regulations only if they are satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so for the conservation of freshwater fish. That power is not available to be used for any other reason. For example, it could not be used to ban the use of live invertebrates as bait solely on supposed welfare grounds.

Before any regulations are made, a system of checks and balances will apply. There is a requirement that ministers must consult and take advice from a range of bodies, including the Fisheries Research Services, SEPA and environmental non-governmental organisations; the views of anglers must be sought, too, of course. Ministers must always be proportionate and reasonable in the action that they take. The final check and balance is that they will have to persuade the Parliament of what they want to do.

As I have explained, the Executive has no intention to ban completely the use of any lure or of live invertebrates as bait, and we can see no circumstances in which section 25 would be used to introduce such a complete ban. Dennis Canavan's amendments 10 and 11 are unnecessary and, on the basis of the reassurance that I have provided, I ask him not to move them.