Chamber
Plenary, 20 Dec 2006
20 Dec 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Although the bill has some interesting content, it has not been hugely controversial, with the exception of a few sections that previous speakers have mentioned and to which I will get shortly. In general, there has been a great deal of consensus on the bill, which, as we made clear in the committee's report, reflects the way in which the Executive has gone about matters, by involving stakeholders and the committee's predecessor committee in the first session of the Parliament from the beginning. I do not want to break the consensus, but I still believe that the plethora of legislation that impacts on our marine environment needs to be consolidated into a single marine act for Scotland.
That said, I broadly welcome the provisions in the part of the bill that deals with aquaculture. Since the beginnings of the aquaculture industry in Scotland, it has been a concern that farmed salmon have been a cause of increased infestation of wild salmonids by sea lice. Although some people might dispute that there is a direct relationship, there is agreement that lice need to be controlled, both to conserve wild stocks and to protect the welfare of farmed fish, so I very much welcome the provisions on inspections for the control of parasites. I do not believe that that need be a burden on the industry, particularly if inspections can be rationalised and multiple inspections avoided, as our report suggests.
Some witnesses expressed disappointment with the bill's provisions on escapes of farmed fish. There is a great deal of concern about the effect of such escapes on the indigenous fish and some witnesses felt that allowing escapes to occur should be a strict liability offence; I tend to agree with that position. Others felt that because escapes might not occur as a result of neglect on the part of the firm concerned—for example, they might be caused by storm damage—it would be unreasonable to make allowing them to happen a strict liability offence, which has a specific meaning in law.
My feeling is that when any operation is carried out in our marine and coastal environment, the company concerned should be obliged to ensure that its equipment is proof against severe weather events. I would be interested to hear from the minister how the Executive would distinguish between escapes that were the result of cages that were simply not fit for purpose and those that were caused by extreme weather. I certainly concur with the committee's view that the Executive should consider whether there should be an offence of negligently permitting escapes of fish. I would also like the minister to tell us about criteria that could be used during inspections of fish farms to assess the adequacy of cages. On the subject of inspections, I draw attention to the need for the FRS to be adequately resourced to carry them out, which other members have mentioned.
Section 7 allows the Executive to approve by order a code of practice for fish farms. We heard that the vast majority of companies—I think that someone used the figure of 97 per cent—are already signed up to a voluntary code and some witnesses felt that that was sufficient. However, others, with whom I agree, felt that legislative underpinning would be a good thing, provided—as Stewart Stevenson said—that any code that the Executive adopts is a code of best practice rather than one that represents the lowest common denominator.
I turn to an issue that is not dealt with in the bill. Like some people from whom the committee heard, I was disappointed that the provision to give the Executive powers to relocate, or even to close, poorly sited fish farms, which was in the consultation that led up to the introduction of the bill, was omitted from the bill itself. I am aware of the relocation working group, but I understand that so far only two farms have been relocated with the group's support. I feel that the issue is particularly relevant, given that permission for the siting of a fish farm will become a local authority planning issue and that the granting of planning permission will be permanent, which is not the case with the existing system, under which fish farms are licensed for a limited period—usually about 15 years. The fact that planning permission will be permanent means that it is more crucial than ever to have a system that allows farms to be relocated if they turn out to be poorly sited.
I turn to part 2. Until the committee started considering the bill, I was—like many members, I suspect—blissfully unaware of Gyrodactylus salaris. Now I know about it and about how devastating it would be to our wild salmon if it ever got into our rivers—the mortality rate is higher than 90 per cent—and what a devastating effect any attempt to eradicate it would have. As other members have spoken about that, I will not go into detail, but simply endorse the view that we must consider every possible measure to keep GS out of Scotland.
I will deal briefly with an angling issue—that of live bait. There are two problems with using live fish as bait. First, if they escape the potential exists for them to establish themselves in areas where they do not belong—which, it has been argued, has already happened—with consequent effects on the ecosystem. The second problem is fish welfare. Some angling groups have suggested using as bait fish that were caught in the same waters on the same day. That would solve one problem, but it would not solve the fish welfare problem. Fish are sentient beings. That is acknowledged by the aquaculture industry, which has taken steps over the years progressively to safeguard fish welfare. I do not believe that any live vertebrates should be used as bait and I endorse the committee's request that the Executive lodges an amendment to prohibit the practice.
Having said that, I support the principles of the bill and I ask all members to do likewise.
That said, I broadly welcome the provisions in the part of the bill that deals with aquaculture. Since the beginnings of the aquaculture industry in Scotland, it has been a concern that farmed salmon have been a cause of increased infestation of wild salmonids by sea lice. Although some people might dispute that there is a direct relationship, there is agreement that lice need to be controlled, both to conserve wild stocks and to protect the welfare of farmed fish, so I very much welcome the provisions on inspections for the control of parasites. I do not believe that that need be a burden on the industry, particularly if inspections can be rationalised and multiple inspections avoided, as our report suggests.
Some witnesses expressed disappointment with the bill's provisions on escapes of farmed fish. There is a great deal of concern about the effect of such escapes on the indigenous fish and some witnesses felt that allowing escapes to occur should be a strict liability offence; I tend to agree with that position. Others felt that because escapes might not occur as a result of neglect on the part of the firm concerned—for example, they might be caused by storm damage—it would be unreasonable to make allowing them to happen a strict liability offence, which has a specific meaning in law.
My feeling is that when any operation is carried out in our marine and coastal environment, the company concerned should be obliged to ensure that its equipment is proof against severe weather events. I would be interested to hear from the minister how the Executive would distinguish between escapes that were the result of cages that were simply not fit for purpose and those that were caused by extreme weather. I certainly concur with the committee's view that the Executive should consider whether there should be an offence of negligently permitting escapes of fish. I would also like the minister to tell us about criteria that could be used during inspections of fish farms to assess the adequacy of cages. On the subject of inspections, I draw attention to the need for the FRS to be adequately resourced to carry them out, which other members have mentioned.
Section 7 allows the Executive to approve by order a code of practice for fish farms. We heard that the vast majority of companies—I think that someone used the figure of 97 per cent—are already signed up to a voluntary code and some witnesses felt that that was sufficient. However, others, with whom I agree, felt that legislative underpinning would be a good thing, provided—as Stewart Stevenson said—that any code that the Executive adopts is a code of best practice rather than one that represents the lowest common denominator.
I turn to an issue that is not dealt with in the bill. Like some people from whom the committee heard, I was disappointed that the provision to give the Executive powers to relocate, or even to close, poorly sited fish farms, which was in the consultation that led up to the introduction of the bill, was omitted from the bill itself. I am aware of the relocation working group, but I understand that so far only two farms have been relocated with the group's support. I feel that the issue is particularly relevant, given that permission for the siting of a fish farm will become a local authority planning issue and that the granting of planning permission will be permanent, which is not the case with the existing system, under which fish farms are licensed for a limited period—usually about 15 years. The fact that planning permission will be permanent means that it is more crucial than ever to have a system that allows farms to be relocated if they turn out to be poorly sited.
I turn to part 2. Until the committee started considering the bill, I was—like many members, I suspect—blissfully unaware of Gyrodactylus salaris. Now I know about it and about how devastating it would be to our wild salmon if it ever got into our rivers—the mortality rate is higher than 90 per cent—and what a devastating effect any attempt to eradicate it would have. As other members have spoken about that, I will not go into detail, but simply endorse the view that we must consider every possible measure to keep GS out of Scotland.
I will deal briefly with an angling issue—that of live bait. There are two problems with using live fish as bait. First, if they escape the potential exists for them to establish themselves in areas where they do not belong—which, it has been argued, has already happened—with consequent effects on the ecosystem. The second problem is fish welfare. Some angling groups have suggested using as bait fish that were caught in the same waters on the same day. That would solve one problem, but it would not solve the fish welfare problem. Fish are sentient beings. That is acknowledged by the aquaculture industry, which has taken steps over the years progressively to safeguard fish welfare. I do not believe that any live vertebrates should be used as bait and I endorse the committee's request that the Executive lodges an amendment to prohibit the practice.
Having said that, I support the principles of the bill and I ask all members to do likewise.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5224, in the name of Ross Finnie, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Aquaculture...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Rhona Brankin):
Lab
I thank all those who were involved in the preparation and scrutiny of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. In particular, I record my gratitude to...
Richard Lochhead (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
I, too, welcome the committee's report and the debate, in which I speak both as the spokesperson for the Scottish National Party and as a member of the Envir...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
Conservative members, too, welcome the debate and the committee's report. Although this week much attention has rightly been focused on Brussels, where minis...
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD):
LD
It is fair to say that the bill was introduced after a lot of good work had already been done to bring together the different interests of fish farming, shel...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
I speak on behalf of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, so I thank the committee clerks for all their work in helping to arrange our scrutiny o...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I remind members that mobile phones should be switched off.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Members have talked about how the process helped us to have a fairly consensual debate at stage 1.I will focus on parts 1 and 2 of the bill. All speakers in ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I say again to members that someone still has their phone on. Please put it off.
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
I have checked that my phones are off.I have constituents who are closely tied to the success of our distant water fishing fleet, but I also have many consti...
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
How big?
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
This big?
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Yes, I thought they were waiting for that, and very enjoyable it was too. As I was saying, I also worked for the Tay Salmon Fisheries Board.The world has cha...
Eleanor Scott (Highlands and Islands) (Green):
Green
Although the bill has some interesting content, it has not been hugely controversial, with the exception of a few sections that previous speakers have mentio...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
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 th...
Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West) (Ind):
Ind
Thirty years ago, I voted in the House of Commons against the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976, which introduced protection orders. The Go...
Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this stage 1 debate on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. During their contributions, Sarah Boyack, Mau...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr Morrison:
Lab
I do not have enough time. It is amazing that when one mentions dreary, Mr Lochhead gets on his feet.The Prime Minister is and was interested in fish farming...
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I am sure that there is consensus all round about what should happen to the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill....
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
This has been a good debate about a bill that I hope will prove to be a good piece of legislation. As my colleague Ted Brocklebank said, the Scottish Conserv...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
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 ...
Rhona Brankin:
Lab
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 ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I take the minister back to stopping GS coming into the country in the first place. She has not addressed the widespread concern that the Scottish National P...
Rhona Brankin:
Lab
The member will be aware that the importation of live fish is regulated at European Union level, so no scope exists to do anything unilaterally. However, cur...
Dennis Canavan:
Ind
Will the minister take an intervention?
Rhona Brankin:
Lab
My time is restricted.
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
I am sorry, but the minister is in her final minute.
Rhona Brankin:
Lab
Alasdair Morrison and other members mentioned minimum import prices. It is hugely important that we have a floor price that is aimed at promoting market stab...