Chamber and committees

It is partly about assessing the family’s need.

Referring back to the earlier points about how you support someone once they get to the abstinence stage of treatment, do you think that it is a question of people being rooted in a support network that includes their family and the wider community back at home?

That answer is brilliant, because my next question is about whether there is a risk of impacting the availability of services for people who would wish to access treatment that does not require a formal diagnosis in different settings away from the medical setting. Is that risk a worry to you? I see nodding heads.

I want to explore the impact of the label “addicted”, which is a contested term—some people like it but others do not. I am wondering about the interaction with the Equality Act 2010, because addiction is not a protected characteristic under that act when it comes to things such as employment law. Does anybody have a comment on that?

Thank you for that. My final question is about the fact that, under the bill, a treatment determination should be made “in person”. Would that, in itself, cause any problems? As we know, treatment is, for example, delivered by teleconference in some remote and more rural areas. I do not know whether anybody has a comment to make on that.

Do you think that that reflects the human rights-based model of practice that we are seeking to ensure that we have, so that people can realise their rights and the duty bearers are taken to task, with an independent advocate who is available?

Yes, it is a brief one about the timescales for treatment that Emma Harper has been exploring. I wonder whether we need more detail in the bill SFabout when the clock actually starts and what the starting of that clock actually encompasses. If somebody is seeking access to residential rehab, there is usually quite a lengthy pre-rehab phase, and I wonder whether there is enough detail in the bill to encompass that.

Recently, I have received a worrying increase in casework contacts relating to young people who are experiencing bullying in school, and relating to bullied young people not feeling safe to attend school, which is causing their learning experience to be significantly disrupted. Those young people and their parents or guardians tell me that they do not believe that the young persons’ experiences have been listened to or acted on, while the instigators appear to experience few consequences for their actions and continue to remain in school.

I fully recognise that competing needs of all individuals in the school campus need to be considered and that there are usually underlying issues that lead to such behaviour, but does the cabinet secretary agree that no pupil, teacher or member of staff should have to suffer abuse in our schools? Can she advise on what can be done to ensure that local authorities and, indeed, heads of education are held accountable, in that regard?

Salmon has become synonymous with Scotland, at home and the world over, whether it be through idyllic scenes of fly fishing for wild salmon on our rivers or from enticing restaurant menus that feature farmed salmon as part of our world-famous food and drink offer. During the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s follow-up inquiry, it was important that we kept sight of the significant value of our salmon to our economy and our communities. However, it was also imperative that we took a hard look at where improvements needed to be made, to protect not only the welfare of our fish and our planet but the reputation and longevity of our industry.

I will focus on three areas that are important to me: wrasse and lumpfish cleaner fish, the need for species-specific legal welfare standards for farmed fish and for wild-caught fish that the industry uses as tools in such settings, and the interaction of farmed and wild salmon.

The committee’s report makes several recommendations on wild wrasse fishery, which is closely associated with the salmon aquaculture sector. I fully support the recommendations on data, transparency and a fisheries management plan. Our wrasse fishery is lightly regulated, but those regulations require a closed season between 1 December and 30 April each year. The marine directorate has said that the closed season should align with the spawning season, which is best practice for sensitive fisheries such as wrasse. However, in response to a freedom of information request, the directorate has also pointed to a detailed paper on the subject, which was produced in 2017 by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, or CFAS, which sits within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Entitled “Northern European Wrasse—Summary of commercial use, fisheries and implications for management”, it shows that the Scottish wrasse fishery is almost precisely open when it should be closed and closed when it should be open.

Salmon aquaculture uses five wrasse species, three of which—corkwing, rock cook and cuckoo wrasse, which are easy for me to say—spawn exclusively during the open season. The Scottish fishery also opens for four of the five months when the two other species—goldsinny and ballan wrasse—spawn. However, that is not the case in English waters. For example, in response to that report, the Devon & Severn Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority closed its wrasse fishery between April and mid-July to ensure maximum protection.

There are real risks here. Not only are wrasse economically important to the salmon industry, but, as we have heard, they protect crucial habitats for spawning species, both commercial and non-commercial. There will be economic and ecological consequences if wrasse stocks should crash, so I therefore hope that the minister can confirm that future management of the fishery will respect the closed season indicated by the 2017 CFAS paper.

I encourage the Scottish Government to fully consider the committee report’s recommendations to bring forward additional regulation and official guidance under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 in order to set specific baseline standards for the welfare of farmed fish. Although I appreciate that there is an industry code of practice and an RSPCA Assured scheme that producers can sign up to, farmers raising terrestrial animals must comply with species-specific requirements under law, and additional detailed guidance is published for most species that describes how farmers can not only meet their legal responsibilities but go beyond that minimum to achieve higher welfare.

Farmed fish are offered no such legal protection beyond not having to suffer unnecessarily. I know that there has been significant investment by the industry to grapple with persistent welfare issues of farmed salmon and cleaner fish, but I believe that it is imperative and morally just that those animals are protected in the same way that we protect those that reside on the land.

As someone who resides right beside a river that was once full of wild salmon—Tim Eagle said the same thing—I urge the Government to publish an updated timetable for the implementation of the agreed recommendations from the salmon interactions working group. When asked about the interactions between farmed and wild salmon and the delays in implementing the working group’s recommendation, the cabinet secretary told the committee that she recognises the

“criticism that the progress is not fast enough”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 13 November 2024; c 44.]

Stakeholders such as Open Seas have also stated that the open-net pens used in the marine stage of salmon farming can lead to impacts on the marine environment, with sensitive habitats and species being of particular concern. Open-net pens allow the free exchange of water but also allow discharges from the pens, including waste, chemical treatment and sea lice, and can lead to escaped salmon interacting with our wild and endangered salmon species. We should remember that wild salmon is a red endangered species. We do not want to lose that iconic species, which draws many tourists from around the world.

Closed-pen technology could directly address those concerns by minimising environmental impact and protecting Scotland’s wider marine ecosystems, fisheries and tourism industry. I ask the Government, as other colleagues have asked, to urgently work with the industry to innovate in that area. Companies are ready to start deploying such technology. Given our rapidly warming waters, which we have heard about, it is crucial. Industry can do as much as it can with the technology that it has today, but that does not address the fact that our waters are getting warmer, and industry will have to contend with that. Closed-pen technology could help in that respect.

To ask the Scottish Government what work it is carrying out with local authorities regarding the wellbeing of school pupils and staff. (S6O-04472)