Chamber and committees

Sorry?

I highlight that we are taking the issue seriously. We have already talked about the framework that SEPA introduced in 2019, part of which was about enhanced environmental monitoring of the effects of new discharges of emamectin benzoate on the sea bed. Mandatory quality assurance requirements were also introduced in relation to analysing that.

We take the issue seriously, and we take the advice that we have received seriously, but we have to balance that with other considerations. We consulted on that and—again—we have reached the timeframe that we have reached to ensure that there can be that transition and that it takes place.

As SEPA outlined in its evidence to the committee, the analysis takes so long to get through because of its very nature. If there were any efficiencies to be made in that process, I am sure that SEPA would make them. However, it outlined in its own evidence why the process takes as long as it does.

It is important to recognise, as we have touched on throughout the meeting, that a number of different bodies are involved in the regulation of salmon farming. The fish health inspectorate has a specific role, and SEPA has a role in relation to the marine environment. I have also touched on APHA and its work on welfare issues. Like anything, it is important that there is strong collaboration on this matter. Each organisation has a specific role that it has to undertake and specific laws and regulation that it has to enforce and monitor. It is important that there is close collaboration between the different organisations in this space. The FHI and APHA have been in discussions about how to better collaborate on those issues.

Charles Allan, can you say more about that?

Again, we do not have that information, but we will provide the committee with further information once we receive it.

Again, I do not have that information to hand, and I would have to check that with APHA. As far as I am aware, it has been dealing with a number of cases over the past couple of years, some of which are still on-going.

There is a lot to unpack in that question, so I will try to work through it as best as I possibly can. We touched on that issue at last week’s evidence session on fisheries management plans. A number of pieces of work are going on in the area.

First of all, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed to the committee on the issue, and I am obviously concerned by the evidence that the committee has received. I would point out that we have asked the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to do some work on the welfare of cleaner fish; I am not too sure of the exact timescales for that work, but I am happy to furnish the committee with that information as soon as it becomes available, or when I have an idea of the timescales and what the work will look like. It is appropriate that we handle the matter in that way, and that we get the recommendations from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and then see what improvements can be made in the area.

You touched on recommendation 27 in the report. Since the report was published, a number of different measures have been introduced. First, there were the voluntary measures, which were introduced in 2020 and became mandatory in 2021. What was required under those measures was the collection of additional data on the number of wrasse caught, with a requirement to take part in surveys in order to build the evidence base. We are still working through and reviewing that data from 2023, but I think that we are content with what we have seen through the mandatory measures. However, that does not mean that the work stops, especially given the further evidence that we have been in receipt of since then.

I covered this at last week’s committee meeting, but we are also awaiting advice from NatureScot on the back of the evidence that we have received about the potential impacts on special areas of conservation to enable us to undertake an appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations. I just wanted to highlight the fact that a number of pieces of work are under way so that we can try to get to grips with the issues and address them in the best way possible.

I appreciate that it seems like a long time. However, again, a consultation on the new standard had been held in relation to that. The timescale that was set was believed to be a reasonable timeframe within which to allow the industry to adjust.

As the convener mentioned, other innovations and technologies can be considered as part of that. However, given the impact of the new standard, it was felt that that would be the appropriate timeframe.

I hope that I illustrated in my opening comments just how important the salmon industry is to our economy. I mentioned the GVA figure of more than £300 million, and the around 12,000 jobs that it provides throughout the supply chain. I do not think that there is a constituency across Scotland that does not have some element of either an aquaculture business or its wider supply chain within it. The extent of that is very broad in its impact.

The industry provides well-paid jobs in some of the most rural parts of Scotland, particularly in our island communities. I know that some of those points came through strongly when the committee heard from the industry about the impact of that that it sees locally. The industry provides a huge amount of value through those jobs and the wider supply chain. It is of great economic value and it provides a lot of community benefit for rural and island communities across Scotland.

Again, we support the industry in its efforts to reduce mortality—that is a given—including through the scientific work that we undertake. I have talked already about some of the examples of the funding that we have provided and the work that is under way. Of course we work with industry to do that.