Member

I believe this will be helpful to the commissioners. I can imagine being a commissioner on either side of the border faced with the prospect of a—perhaps new—salmon farm, knowing that I will get a percentage of the revenue from that salmon farm, which will in turn mean having more fish in cages and more potential environmental damage, and perhaps being less concerned about escapes. In the case of one salmon farm that I know about, which is covered by this Bill, some 5,000 fish escaped. That is probably as many as the wild population in the area concerned; I do not know the figures, but that is a substantial escape. It seems to me that, if I am a commissioner, I do not want to be in a position where I simply have to think about the revenue; in other words, where my duty is just to maximise the revenue. I would want to have a balancing duty that also looks at the environmental impact. At the moment, no such duty exists; my amendment would provide for that.