Chamber and committees

We have heard about the importance of ecosystems, which include people as well as nature, and we have heard about declining stocks and loss of vessels. Given the impact that climate change is having on inshore fisheries, I am interested in hearing from the panel—perhaps Charles Millar could kick us off—about any tangible things that we can do to support and promote low-impact fishing methods, to ensure that we have a just transition away from the high-impact methods.

The reclassification of blueberry rust from the list of quarantine pests in the list of regulated non-quarantine pests suggests to me that controls on that pest have been ineffective as it has moved from being a pest that is largely absent from a territory to being one that is already present in the territory with measures in place to minimise its spread. I am interested in receiving any data on the rising prevalence of the pest and any analysis of what has led to its spread, and in hearing what steps the relevant ministers and Governments are taking to control and eradicate it.

Good morning. I am Mercedes Villalba and I represent the North East Scotland region.

Following on from the discussion about the difficulties of developing a skilled worker visa—and thinking about the comments about local workforce challenges—I wonder whether there is the potential to develop for the local workforce a skills pathway for aspiring fishers in Scotland. What would be required to do that, and has the Government engaged with any of your organisations on developing that kind of vocational pathway?

I think that it is fair to say that debates about inshore fisheries management and conservation have become quite polarised. Part of the purpose of this round-table session was to bring together different groups and find some common ground. I think that we have been able to do that in some areas.

We have heard suggestions that those with a stake in areas should be brought in as statutory consultees on marine planning applications. How can affected communities input their voices into inshore fisheries decision making?

Perhaps Bally Philp could start on that.

It is not brief, convener.

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing this important debate. His motion rightly stresses the importance of affording the highest possible protection to our natural environment. However, that is not currently the case for Scotland’s waters. As we have already heard, The Ferret reported that untreated human waste was discharged into Scotland’s waters more than 10,000 times last year. That suggests that current regulation of Scotland’s waters is failing: it is failing to ensure that water is clean, that it poses no risk to public health, and that it is protected as part of our natural environment.

That failure can be seen in the case of the River Almond, in which there were 500 occasions in 2019 in which sewage was released through combined sewer overflows, or CSOs. CSOs release not only sewage and floodwater, but sanitary waste that has been flushed down toilets. Campaigners have previously highlighted the risk that that poses to public health, because the River Almond is regularly used for swimming and fishing by the public. They have called for public warnings to be issued when CSOs are in operation. I hope that the minister will reflect on that point.

It is clear that steps must be taken to improve regulation of Scotland’s waters. By the admission of the Scottish Government’s own water environment policy manager, monitoring of sewage overflows in Scotland is not as comprehensive as that which is undertaken in England. A Scottish Government briefing that was acquired by The Ferret highlighted that just 10 per cent of CSOs were monitored in Scotland, compared with 80 per cent in England. An FOI request by The Ferret also revealed that more than 12,000 sewage overflows were recorded by Scottish Water in 2020. However, given that the scale of monitoring lags behind that in England, I am concerned that the figures are likely to understate the problem. I hope that, in her response, the minister will outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve monitoring of sewage overflows.

Monitoring of overflows must improve, but there is also a need for Scottish Water to upgrade its network to ensure that that happens. SEPA has previously asked Scottish Water to install, by the end 2024, spill monitors on all the sewer overflows that discharge to designated bathing waters. Scottish Water has confirmed that it has installed monitors at just 354 of its 3,600 overflows, with another 1,000 planned installations by the end of 2024. I expect that the minister will cite Covid for the slow progress that is being made, so I am not going to ask her to explain why so little progress has been made, but I would like to know what she is doing to get things back on track.

Improving monitoring and upgrading the network are both necessary steps, but we have to reflect on what we want regulation of Scotland’s waters to achieve. Scottish Labour is clear that Scottish Water should remain in public ownership and that the creeping privatisation of waste water services must be ended.

Regulation of Scotland’s waters must be driven by four core principles: keeping Scotland’s water in public hands, ensuring access to clean water for local communities, protecting public health and protecting Scotland’s natural environment.

As a member of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, I begin by thanking the committee’s convener and deputy convener for their facilitation of a robust series of scrutiny sessions on the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill, and the committee clerks for their detailed and thorough work throughout. It is fair to say that we knew from the outset that the bill would stimulate lively debate. I believe that the committee’s stage 1 report reflects the diversity of views that we heard.

Representing, as I do, a large rural area in the north-east, I recognise that there are differing views about whether the measures in the bill are proportionate in respect of their impact on the rural sector, and whether they go far enough in strengthening wildlife protection. Nevertheless, the principles of the bill at stage 1 are to be welcomed, which is why Scottish Labour will be backing it today. As a party, we have long been committed to strengthening wildlife protection law and truly ending the practice of fox hunting in Scotland. The bill marks a welcome step forward in that regard and is a testament to the work of animal welfare campaigning organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports, OneKind and Scottish Badgers, which have helped to secure some of the positive changes included in the bill.

However, there are a number of limitations in the bill that we would hope to see amended at stage 2.

No interventions.

I also agree with animal welfare organisations that question why the bill permits the use of birds as a method of killing. It is not credible for the Scottish Government to suggest that the killing of an animal by a bird of prey rather than by a dog is better from an animal welfare perspective. In its written evidence the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission told the committee that:

“The impact on the welfare of the hunted animal is likely to be similar whether killed by a dog or a bird of prey.”

Although the bill will strengthen fox-hunting laws, it will also introduce a licensing scheme that will allow hunting to continue in some circumstances. Under the proposed scheme, packs of dogs could still be used. As a result, such packs would be exempt from the proposed two-dog limit. That is evidently a loophole that could be exploited by people looking to get around the rules and continue with hunts.

As I have already stated, I welcome the bill’s underpinning principles of strengthening wildlife protection and animal welfare. However, it evidently needs further changes in order to strengthen it, including addressing the ambiguity of some of the language used in it, which could undermine both interpretation and enforcement. As the bill would also fail to end the use of any dogs below ground, there would continue to be welfare risks for both dogs and wild mammals. Further, the bill should not permit use of birds of prey as a method of killing. The proposed licensing scheme also has an inherent loophole that could be exploited by people who seek to continue hunting.

If the Scottish Government is unwilling to make the needed changes to the bill, Scottish Labour will lodge amendments at stage 2. Failure to make such changes would risk wasting the opportunity that the bill provides to deliver real and lasting changes to wildlife protection and animal welfare in Scotland.

I will take no interventions.

The Scottish Government has been clear that the bill seeks to address inconsistencies and ambiguities in the language contained in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. Those inconsistencies and ambiguities often undermined attempts to investigate and prosecute alleged offences. However, as has been highlighted by the Law Society of Scotland, the bill still contains ambiguities. The Law Society identified a lack of clarity around certain definitions and acts described in the bill, and emphasised the importance of clarifying language to improve understanding and enforcement. It makes a number of suggestions, such as clarifying what is meant by “invasive non-native species” by providing a list of common names of such species to be included in the bill. I urge the Scottish Government to address some of the ambiguous language in the bill in order to strengthen understanding, interpretation and enforcement.

The Scottish Government’s stated aim for the bill is to achieve the highest possible animal welfare standards, but it is clear that the proposal to allow even one dog below ground undermines that. Animal welfare organisations highlighted to the committee the difficulties in controlling a dog below ground, which increases the likelihood of conflict between a dog and a wild mammal. Such conflicts pose serious welfare risks to both animals. The Scottish Government has acknowledged the view that such practice is incompatible with the highest standards of animal welfare and has not sought to refute it, yet it has chosen to retain the exception in the bill for the use of one dog underground. The Scottish Government refers to that as “balance”, but the minister cannot have it both ways. She cannot compromise on avoiding cruelty in the same bill that she claims will achieve the highest standards of animal welfare.