Last week in Parliament I also closed the stage 1 debate of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill for Scottish Labour.
Aquaculture production and salmon and freshwater fisheries are worth an estimated £650m to Scotland and the importance of this piece of legislation can be seen with the consultation drawing over 1,000 responses. The responses show that opinions are divided on the issue raised within the consultation.
The Government has since produced a bill and alongside that a documents outlining what issue from the consultation it wasn’t taken forward till a later date – these issues coincidently seem to be the matters that cause the greatest dispute.
There is a need for both the aquaculture and the wild fisheries sector to coexist and as this bill moves forward it is important that there is trust and transparency as we work towards a balance.
The bill was agreed in principle and now moves on to stage 2 where amendments can be made from all parties.
Many issues were raised throughout the debate, from sea lice to illegal cockle fishing and commercially damaging species and it is important that as we move into stage 2 that we produce an aquaculture and fisheries sector that is fit for the 21st centuary.
You can find below a video of the second half of the debate including my closing speech and a full transcript of my speech from the Official Report.
Taken from the Scottish Parliament Official Report:
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): This has been a wide-ranging debate with many interesting speeches.
I wish the minister all the best in taking forward his first piece of Government legislation. He might get through this afternoon quite comfortably, but stage 2 might be a bit bumpier.
I thank members of the committee for the time that they took to prepare the stage 1 report. They not only considered the proposals in the bill but took the time to consider the broader issues and discuss issues that are outwith the bill’s scope. I know that that involved more than taking evidence in cosy committee rooms. The committee also travelled to salmon rivers, wild fishery hatcheries, coastal netting stations, fish farms and processing plants—we have heard about some of those experiences this afternoon—all in the deepest, darkest Scottish winter. I am sure that that is the kind of team building that companies cannot pay for these days.
The breadth of the issues that have been discussed this afternoon perhaps demonstrated the bill’s limitations. The committee has stressed the need for the legislation to be fit for purpose for many years to come. There are exceptions—the area is complex—but, having introduced legislation as a first step, the Government needs to be careful that subsequent reviews and discussions do not weaken the bill. For example, in her opening speech, Claudia Beamish spoke about the importance of how the bill connects to the marine plan.
In the pre-legislative consultation document that explored the possible content of the bill, the Scottish Government said:
“aquaculture production and salmon and freshwater fisheries are estimated to be worth over £650m … to Scotland … It is important that both sectors—and their interactions—are managed effectively, as part of the wider marine and freshwater environment and to maximise their combined contribution to our aim of sustainable economic growth in Scotland.”
The bill aims to address those issues.
The consultation generated more than 1,000 responses. There is no denying that opinions were strongly divided. It would certainly be difficult to make easy progress on some of the issues that were raised.
However, the Government’s solution to that was to produce a bill that was accompanied by a further document outlining where future action was planned for the matters that were not addressed in the bill—which, coincidentally, also seemed to be the matters that caused the greatest dispute.
Unlike James Isbister, who caught a 6ft ling this week, the Government seems to have cast a line, got plenty of bite but failed to land the big fish.
Although the bill seeks to improve the regulatory framework, it has increasingly been seen as the start of a process, with much work being left to the refreshed ministerial group on aquaculture and a forthcoming review of wild fisheries management.
The committee talks about the need for a
“coherent wild fisheries management structure”.
It is a point well made. The minister must be mindful of the need for continuity and coherence.
Many members referred to the tensions between stakeholders and to the sometimes contradictory evidence that was received—a point that was strongly emphasised in the stage 1 report.
Scotland has a growing aquaculture sector. The Scottish Government recognises its importance to the economy. Scottish farmed salmon is viewed as a high-value, high-quality product throughout the world. It is Scotland’s top food export and is marketed in more than 65 countries, with particular growth in the far east. It employs more than 6,000 people often in rural areas, and there is a target of increasing the production of all farmed fish by 50 per cent by 2020.
Alongside that industry is a wild fisheries sector, which is also highly valued in Scotland and throughout the world. One of Scotland’s most iconic images is of a wild salmon leaping up a river. That fish must be protected, as well as pursued, in its native environment.
In its briefing for the debate, the Scottish Wildlife Trust highlighted the fact that there has been a decline in Atlantic salmon in European waters over the past three decades. It identifies the complex reasons—food availability, water temperature changes, pollution, barriers in rivers, overfishing and the effects of aquaculture—and recognises that probably a combination of all of them has contributed to decline.
Claudia Beamish: I want to stress something about being a sea trout champion that I did not get time to say in my speech. The serious point is the concern that the sea trout is under even greater threat than the salmon. Jamie McGrigor highlighted that as well. I would like the minister to be aware of that issue.
Claire Baker: I thank Claudia Beamish for her intervention.
Although the two sectors need to coexist, an appropriate balance needs to be struck, and there needs to be greater trust and transparency. The level of regulation is crucial. No one wants us to have regulation that would damage an important Scottish industry, but calls have been made for proportionate regulation, in recognition of the fact that across our food chain there is a need—perhaps now more than ever—for transparency and, as my colleague Jayne Baxter highlighted, robust governance.
As many members identified, how we report sea lice is the most contentious issue and, in some ways, it is one that encapsulates the tensions that exist across the sector. It raises issues of proportionate regulation, of transparency, of trust, of consumer confidence and of the importance of a science-led approach. Both sides of the debate make persuasive arguments, of which Graeme Dey gave a good description as he outlined the nature of the debate that has taken place in the committee. I welcome the recent moves by the SSPO to increase its accountability, but I recognise the strong arguments in favour of a more robust reporting system. Although the minister has ruled out a Government amendment on the matter at this stage, the importance that the committee has attached to the issue suggests that we will return to it at stage 2.
In the time that I have left, I will pick up on a few issues that members have highlighted. Graeme Pearson and Alex Fergusson discussed illegal cockle fishing. Thankfully, cases of illegal activity and exploitation in the sector are few and far between, and it is important that we do not allow the activities of a minority to tarnish the reputation of the rest of the sector. I am pleased that the Government has recognised the need to strengthen the legislation in this area. It is important that the Government works with the Scottish police service, the industry and other relevant agencies to ensure that robust further progress is made.
It is interesting that many members have talked about areas that were discussed in the consultation, but which were not included in the bill. That indicates that there is much more work to do.
I will touch briefly on the issue of commercially damaging species. In its report, the committee suggested that the Scottish Government should take the opportunity to re-examine the issue and to consider lodging amendments, but at the moment the minister continues to argue that the current proposals are proportionate. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on the committee’s comments as the bill moves forward.
Angus MacDonald and Richard Lyle talked about the potential for the bill to contribute to tackling climate change challenges, as well as the challenges that the sector faces. Rob Gibson and Margaret McDougall spoke about the contentious issue of seals and reflected the committee’s support for greater use of alternative predator controls. Jim Hume discussed escapes and promoted a solution; we await the minister’s reply. The committee recognised that escapes from fish farms are undesirable and stressed the importance of all sectors working together to minimise them.
The report also raised concerns about biomass. Last year in the chamber, I highlighted to the minister the concern that the aim of increasing the production of all farmed fish by 50 per cent by the year 2020 could result in a subsequent increase in the use of chemical treatments. I reiterate that point and ask for assurances that the Government is actively looking into the issue. It is important that the regulatory framework that the bill contains is robust enough to ensure that any increases in aquaculture will be suitably managed and regulated.
It has been an interesting debate, in which there has been as much discussion of what is not in the bill as there has been of what is in it. We might be moving towards stage 2, but wider issues need to be addressed before we can be confident that we have an aquaculture and fisheries sector that is fit for the 21st century, and which will meet the needs of the industry and the wider environment. Those will need to be resolved through the bill or through future work by the Parliament.