Chamber and committees

What are we learning from other countries that farm salmon, such as Canada, Chile and Norway, when we compare their rates of mortality and its causes with ours? Do they have jellyfish issues as well?

I am looking at Charles Allan. I want to understand whether the rates are acceptable. I assume that we want to see a reduction in the rates of farm salmon mortalities.

I have a final question. In the RECC report, microjellyfish werenae mentioned as a cause of mortality, but algae blooms were.

Charles Allan said that there are emerging causes of mortality that are different now from what they were decades ago. It is almost like we would be chasing our tail on that, but the Government needs to continue to work on it—to collaborate with researchers and scientists and the marine directorate, and to support any action, because it will be difficult to keep ahead of the challenges. That would be my ask: Government obviously recognises that collaboration and support will be required, so will that take place?

Is there a magic number for the amount of biomass in a pen? How many is too many salmon and how many is not enough? We know that they like to swim together, so is there a magic number? Has that been looked at?

Yes.

I was going to ask about the pilot process, but Rhoda Grant just covered that. I note that the consenting task group was established in November 2022 and met nine times in 2023, and it seems to have met only in May this year—that is all that is on the Government website. Is that because the work on the draft consenting pilot process is under way and, until you evaluate that, further meetings are not needed in 2024? What is the plan?

I am aware that, in Edinburgh and Perth, there are dog-friendly library days to help increase footfall without the need for extra money. Does the cabinet secretary consider that such diversification could be done elsewhere?

Like all the other colleagues, I congratulate Douglas Lumsden on securing the debate. As Mr Lumsden’s motion states,

“driving is an essential part of daily life for those living in rural communities”.

The motion continues by saying that the Parliament

“believes that those communities deserve the infrastructure to allow connectivity that is safe and enables access to vital services”.

I absolutely agree with that. I care about rural communities. It might not be a surprise to colleagues that I will focus my contribution on rural road infrastructure in the south-west of Scotland. As many have said previously, we have raised debates on the matter, we have raised questions for the Government and we have talked about the need for improvements to the main arterial routes, the A75 and A77. We have also raised the fact that both routes are crucial arterial routes for the south-west, and we are hearing that again this evening. Fundamentally, it is time to see much needed upgrades on both those main roads and, of course, on the other roads that serve our south-west area—the A711 through the A714 and the A701 and A709.

Safety has been a key concern for me since coming to this place in 2016. I recognise that road safety week is next week, from 17 November to 23 November. There have been too many fatalities, too many families affected and too many loved ones lost. I thank the A75 and A77 action groups, whose continued campaigning efforts cannot be underplayed.

There is consensus from the Scottish and UK Governments that both the A77 and the A75 must be improved. We have commitments from both Governments, but now the focus must be on transforming those commitments into action as quickly as possible.

I thank Finlay Carson for that intervention. I am on my feet here the night—does that not demonstrate that I am concerned about what my constituents in my whole region are thinking about? I understand that there are a lot of frustrations out there.

There is a focus on support and the need to look at what we can do to make improvements. There is a focus right now with the South West Scotland Transport Alliance, which had a summit in Stranraer on 29 January. A fortnight ago, I was in Stranraer at a meeting about the issues on the A77 and A75. At the summit, the South Scotland elected members, as well as representatives from Stena Line, P&O Ferries, the national health service, Dumfries and Galloway Council and business, all agreed on the absolute need for road upgrades.

The Scottish Government published the second strategic transport projects review—STPR2—in 2022. The document states that the A77 and A75 will benefit from improving junctions, enhancing overtaking opportunities and creating climbing lanes at appropriate locations where slow-moving traffic leads to risky overtaking manoeuvres. The Government is also committing to widening and realigning carriageways to alleviate pinchpoints. Those recommendations, once enacted, will bring about real and meaningful change for constituents.

There is a challenge, though, with the funding. The Scottish Government continues to operate within a tight economic situation without the ability to commit to huge infrastructure spending, which means that it is necessary for the UK Government to come forward with funding to ensure that the upgrades that are needed for the roads take place. I know that the cabinet secretary has been working well with the UK Government, and that is welcome. I also welcome the fact that Labour has affirmed that the £8 million commitment to look at feasibility for bypassing Springholm and Crocketford will proceed.

I will finish there. I repeat my ask of the minister that the economic importance of the A75 and the A77 must be acknowledged because of how they support the central belt, given that, as Colin Smyth has said, Cairnryan is the fifth-busiest port for access to Ireland and the rest of Europe.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude at that.

That is interesting. We are not human rights experts; obviously, that is why you are here today to help us. In addition to the other human rights aspects of the bill, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the information collection and review provisions. Are they drafted in such a way that they would ensure effective on-going monitoring of human rights compliance? If not, how should they be strengthened?

I am sure that we will have more questions on that. You also mentioned disability, and concerns have been raised about that.

I would be happy to hear from other panel members if they want to come in.