Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con) on Marine and Coastal Access Bill

: I refer members to my fishery interests in the members' register of interests.

As my friend John Scott indicated in his opening speech, we strongly welcome the Scottish Government's intention to consolidate current marine legislation. We believe that the Scottish Government's legislation must be complementary to the Marine and Coastal Access Bill that is going through Westminster. That is a crucial requirement, which ministers must recognise.

Scotland's marine environment is of huge importance to our country, especially my region of the Highlands and Islands. It is right that we take every possible step to protect and enhance our marine biosphere while recognising that people's livelihoods—and, thus, the future of many of our coastal communities—depend on sustainable utilisation of the marine resources. It is crucial that at all stages we involve key stakeholders, such as fishermen's associations and the representatives not only of conservation bodies but of the aquaculture and marine tourism sectors. They must all work together.

Given that many members have mentioned marine protected areas, I want to raise a connected issue that relates to a proposed special area of conservation that is of huge concern to my constituents. I refer to the proposal to establish a marine SAC around east Mingulay and the Sound of Barra, which has been mentioned already. After I secured a members' business debate on a similarly controversial proposal in a nearby area during the first session of the Parliament, the idea was dropped at that time. I seem to remember standing shoulder to shoulder with the well-known SNP councillor from Barra, Donald Manford, in opposition to that proposal. Local people had enormous—and, I think, genuine—fears that the SAC could remove their ability to make a living from what they and other independent organisations believed to be a sustainable fishery. Ministers rightly want decisions to be taken on the basis of science, but what happens when the constituents who have direct experience of conditions at sea question the accuracy of the science? What options are open to hard-pressed constituents who face the loss of income and livelihood?

I agree with the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report, which recommends
"that provision be inserted into the Bill requiring the Scottish Ministers, when drawing up a marine conservation order for an MPA ... to have regard ... to social and economic factors",

which are the factors that affect people. That is a crucial point. I would also be interested to hear what lessons ministers believe they have learned from their experience of SACs that will improve the consultation on, and implementation of, MPAs.

On the issue of seals, which other members have mentioned, let me repeat the comments that I made in the aquaculture debate. No one wants to see such beautiful mammals culled unnecessarily, but we need to respond to the fact that each year approximately 20,000 to 30,000 seal attacks take place on Scottish salmon farms. Last year, the industry admits that it was forced to shoot 489 seals—the estimated figure from some lobbying groups has perhaps been exaggerated. Although the industry makes it clear that it wants to bring down that number by making significant investment in more sophisticated acoustic deterrents, it maintains that, from time to time, as a last resort, it needs to shoot persistent rogue seals that attack the nets.

Of course, there are also seal attacks on our valuable wild salmon. The welfare of the salmon must surely be considered as well as that of the seal, and we should also consider the welfare of the people whose jobs depend on the fish farms and the wild fisheries. I support the fact that the bill will allow the culling of seals but only in particular circumstances and under strict licensing.

On an issue of detail, aquaculture representatives have identified a small but, they believe, important technical omission from section 98(f) of the bill, where there is a need to insert a phrase that allows the humane killing of seals to protect the health and welfare of farmed fish, because that protection is a requirement on farmers under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

The minister will know that 58,000 young salmon escaped recently from a farm in Loch Striven in Argyll. That single escape, which was apparently caused by a hole in the net, is larger than all the escapes of last year, and it could be an ecological disaster for wild fish. The chief executive of the fish farm is quoted as saying:

"As the fish are very small and young, it is unlikely they would survive in the wild."
However, what will happen if some of them do survive and they breed with the wild fish? They will surely introduce a weaker strain to our wild stock, which is already under pressure, as we have seen from the poor runs this year. Roger Brook of Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland said:

"This is yet more proof that escapes, both major and minor, will persist until such time as the companies put the necessary resources into robust equipment and training ... If the cages are located in open waters to which the natural wildlife ... has access, then they must be capable of withstanding any attack."

Jon Gibb of the Lochaber district salmon fishery board, said:
"After 20 years of serial escapes, the industry has proven that it is incapable of containing its fish."
I know that fish farming is important to Scotland, but it is also important that a proper code of good practice is law and that lessons are learned from the infectious salmon anaemia crisis in Shetland, which almost wiped out our indigenous salmon and smolt production industry. That industry is equally important to many of my constituents. It is vital that a code of good practice is followed and there should be severe penalties for any fish farmer who breaks it. Why should a few spoil the reputation of a good industry?

On the subject of aquaculture, one other concern that industry representatives have put to me is that the bill proposes to introduce a universal licensing system for all marine activities except aquaculture. Why? There are worries that the proposal will result in additional complexit and inconsistency. Thank you, Presiding Officer.