Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Official Report 691KB pdf

---

Salmon Farming Inquiry (Update)

The cabinet secretary is staying with us for item 9, under which we will take further evidence on progress towards delivering the recommendations in the committee’s 2018 inquiry report “Salmon farming in Scotland”. We have been joined by Alastair Mitchell, deputy director of aquaculture and recreational fisheries, and Mike Palmer, deputy director, marine planning and policy, both from the Scottish Government.

I remind members that I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery in Moray.

Cabinet secretary, would you like to make some brief opening remarks?

Yes. Thank you, convener. Scottish aquaculture is a pivotal provider of approximately 11,700 often highly skilled jobs and livelihoods, many of which are in some of our most remote and fragile communities. In 2019-20, the sector took on 84 modern apprentices. An 18-year-old operative in the sector can expect a starting salary of around £20,000, and after training and gaining experience they can become a farm manager and earn around £40,000. The sector pays an average salary of £38,000, which is significantly higher than salaries in other jobs in remote coastal areas.

We advocate sustainable growth of the sector with due regard for the environment, forby the £880 million that the sector and its wider supply chain contribute to the economy and the £1.4 billion that is spent annually on supplies and capital investments, mostly in Scotland. With that in mind, I will highlight some of the progress that has been made since the committee’s report, and I will talk first about the farmed fish health framework.

Through the framework, we have lowered the thresholds for reporting and intervention to two and six adult female lice per fish, and in 2021 we will go further with a reduction to two and four. We are introducing legislation that will require the reporting of average sea lice weekly in arrears, and the refreshed framework will focus on fish mortality, climate change and the use of treatments.

We are considering our response to the salmon interactions working group report, which will include how implementation will be co-ordinated, and we will ensure that recommendations are prioritised where appropriate. In the new year, we will consult on a risk assessment framework for assessing sea lice interactions with wild salmonids.

We have removed specific grounds for which licences may be granted for fish farmers to take seals, and we are bringing forward mandatory controls relating to wild wrasse harvesting for use as cleaner fish in the salmon farming sector. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency continues to develop its revised fin-fish sector plan, particularly in relation to organic waste discharges.

Sustainability must and will continue to be at the heart of what we do to ensure that future generations can enjoy all the beauty and nature that Scotland has to offer, while safeguarding jobs in local communities. I am pleased that the Scottish salmon sector agrees, as is evident from its blueprint for sustainability, which aligns with, for example, the Scottish Government’s world-leading 2045 net zero targets.

I hope that members agree that there has been much progress since the committee’s report, which demonstrates our commitment to improvement and moving beyond the status quo.

Not surprisingly, the committee has a lot of questions that it would like to pose to you, cabinet secretary. We will start with Angus MacDonald.

The recently announced blue economy action plan, which the committee has welcomed, includes support for the sustainable growth of aquaculture. Will you outline the Scottish Government’s activities in that area to date and anything that is planned?

As Mr MacDonald knows more than most, the seas around Scotland’s shores are an enormous asset to the country. We have a large seascape, and a large number of economic activities are enabled by that, from oil and gas and renewables to aquaculture, the traditional fishing sectors, various recreational occupations and pursuits, tourism and, most recently, cruise lines. The blue economy is extremely important.

In relation to aquaculture, our approach is to develop the fish health framework by focusing on climate change, mortality and the use of medicines, the salmon interactions working group, the regulators technical working group, the removal of licences to lethally remove seals, research on acoustic deterrent devices to protect stations, SEPA’s fin-fish sector plan, innovation through the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre and improving equalities through support for Women in Scottish aquaculture.

In response to Angus MacDonald’s question, I note that there is a whole range of activity that we are taking forward to promote sustainable aquaculture as part of our blue economy.

That sounds like an extensive plan and we look forward to those developments.

You will be aware that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, which I also serve on, considers that an independent assessment is needed of the environmental sustainability of the predicted growth of the sector. Can you advise the committee whether such an assessment has been carried out and, if not, when it will be undertaken?

The aquaculture industry leadership targets are sector-derived targets. They are not owned by the Scottish Government, but we support the sector’s ambition for sustainable growth. Our task is to ensure—through the working groups and other initiatives—that growth is sustainable, and we are working hard to perform all components of that task through the fish health framework, through action on sea lice and interactions with wild fish, through the removal of licences to lethally remove seals and by doing further research on acoustic deterrent devices to protect cetaceans.

In addition, over the past years, the sector has invested enormously in improving sustainability, for example through hatcheries and the ability that they provide to grow salmon beyond the juvenile period so that the fish spend less time at sea. That offers a greater element of sustainability, which is sometimes overlooked.

I am really heartened that the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, under the leadership of the distinguished former MSP and cabinet secretary Tavish Scott, is working closely with the Scottish Government in pursuit of sustainability as well as growth. It is correct that we pay due regard to both aspects as we go forward.

Angus, have you completed your questions?

Yes—I am happy with the responses.

The next questions are ones that Richard Lyle wanted to ask. Unfortunately, he is having problems with his internet connection, so I will pose them for him. I apologise in advance if I do not follow the thread that he wanted to follow.

Will you explain what you believe that applying the precautionary principle in relation to aquaculture means?

Sure. It means that, as we seek to work with the sector to pursue growth, we make sure that we do so in a sustainable way, having regard to the marine environment and other marine users.

I have already alluded to the approach that we are taking, which I believe is in pursuit of the principle to which the convener refers. Examples of that approach are our tightening of the regulation on sea lice, our introduction of mandatory rules in respect of the use of wrasse, our encouragement of the use of hatcheries and our termination of the use of licences in respect of seals. We are also pursuing a spatial framework approach and taking forward the recommendations of the salmon interactions working group. That group is chaired by John Goodlad, who, as members will know, is a distinguished figure in the marine sector in Scotland. My officials can go into the detail of all those things.

Adopting the precautionary principle means applying the correct approach to ensure that growth does not occur at the expense of other users of the marine environment, but instead enables companies to expand and move in a direction that we have seen being taken in Norway, which I had the pleasure of visiting last autumn. In Norway, there is a move away from having a very large number of small pens to having a lesser number of large pens. That move is seen as consistent with sustainability and the precautionary principle, although it brings its own challenges as regards engineering and protection against escapes and so on.

Our approach is determined by the need to be careful and to pursue caution in how we proceed, and I think that it is generally in line with the ask that Parliament made of the Scottish Government following the inquiries that took place a couple of years ago.

My understanding of the precautionary principle is that you do not do something unless you know that there will be no adverse effects as a result of it. I think that there is a court case that defines the precautionary principle—I will have a look at it afterwards. However, as that was Richard Lyle’s question, I will leave it there.

09:30  

Richard’s second question is about how the Scottish Government interprets the precautionary principle in relation to producing planning guidance on fish farm development and expansion. Has anything changed in practice in relation to the committee’s recommendation in the 2018 report that the precautionary principle should be applied?

The principle is a cornerstone of the marine plan and planning policy. Policy has been implemented to enable it to be applied meaningfully and effectively to new developments, including, incidentally, the presumption against further marine fin-fish farm developments on the north and east coasts in order to safeguard migratory fish species. That is one clear example.

New developments are required to undergo planning pre-consultation and consultation with statutory parties, and to produce environmental management plan for managing on-going behaviour. They also require a controlled activities regulations consent for discharge, following extensive modelling, to appropriately manage water quality and benthic impact, and a marine licence, which includes fish health inspectorate involvement to ensure that disease management is acceptable. That is a series of processes that cumulatively implement the principle in practice.

I understand those processes, most of which were in place prior to the committee’s report, although some of them have been expanded. My question is whether the Scottish Government has produced any planning guidance on how the precautionary principle should be applied in relation to fish farm development. That is a yes or no question. What is the answer?

Hang on a second—I am not here as the planning minister. With great respect, I am not sure that those planning matters are susceptible to simple or straightforward answers. I might be missing something, but I thought that I had answered your question by giving lots of examples. You disagree. I would be happy for my officials to give any further information of a factual nature that they think is relevant.

I would be surprised if you did not know what planning guidance had been issued in a sector for which you are responsible. I am happy to hear from any official that you would like to bring in.

I have run through a number of the approaches that planning guidance requires to be taken, all of which have a specific purpose. We will probably come on to the spatial framework, which is another piece of work that is fairly well advanced. However, Mr Mitchell might wish to address the question that you asked, in case there is anything that I have overlooked.

Perfect. Is there new planning guidance, Mr Mitchell?

I echo what the cabinet secretary said about the precautionary principle—we reflect the requirements of the EU in that sense. Those requirements are primarily reflected in our national marine plan, but they are also in the planning guidance that advises local authorities.

At the heart of your question was whether there has been any change on the precautionary principle in the two years since the report. Going forward, we expect to see environmental management plans, in addition to the array of considerations that take place at the time of planning, to ensure that the on-going sustainability of a farm is acceptable. As the cabinet secretary alluded to, beyond those EMPs, we are looking to put in place further guidance through a spatial framework that will allow clearer and more certain advice to be given to planning authorities, in the first instance, on the location of new farms.

It is worth confirming that the approach that we take beyond the national marine plan is very much focused on the individual planning applications that are received, on their sustainability and on the application of a precautionary principle in that regard.

I think that we have moved away from planning guidance. In any case, the next questions are from Mike Rumbles.

I wish to pursue issues around planning. Our report of two years ago recommended that guidance should be produced,

“specifying those areas across Scotland that are suitable or unsuitable for siting of salmon farms.”

The objective was to take a strategic view of planning applications, rather than an individual or piecemeal approach. Mr Mitchell mentioned that only an individual planning application view is being taken so far.

Two weeks ago, our witnesses confirmed to us that not much seems to have been done—not very much at all, I would suggest. Why are we being given the impression that that major recommendation by the committee is simply gathering dust on a shelf?

I thank Mr Rumbles for his question. He will probably not be astonished to hear that I do not quite see things the same way. We have been extremely diligent in pursuing the whole series of issues that we need to address in order to deliver sustainable aquaculture.

There is a certain element of the horse being put before the cart here. I hope that you will agree with this, Mr Rumbles, as I sincerely mean it. We must tackle issues around sea lice, wrasse and interactions with wild salmon. Those are all controversial topics, particularly interaction with other species. We have had to do that work first, before we could then put in place the proper planning framework.

Do you see what I am driving at? There is a whole jigsaw, and we have to get the right bits in the right order. The planning process can be finalised only once the substance of the arguments regarding interactions, for example, is properly considered. In the interim, as Mr Mitchell has described, Marine Scotland expects an environmental management plan to be delivered. That represents a tightening up of and an improvement on the previous system.

We have done an awful lot of work on modelling and the various factors that are at play regarding flushing in the marine environment. The next step will help us to deliver an improved planning framework: an adaptive spatial framework, with a strategic approach. I think that Mr Rumbles is suggesting that we should have such an approach to assessing the potential risk of transferring sea lice from farmed fish to wild salmon, and I agree with him. That spatial framework is fairly close to being completed.

It is important to get these things right, in the sense of getting as much buy-in as we can from industry, as well as from the environmental groups—which take a close interest in all these matters—and the regulators. It is a complex business, but we have been extremely diligent in working hard on all the pieces of the jigsaw. The planning response can be finalised only once the other matters are dealt with. In other words, if we had just put in some planning framework and had done nothing about sea lice, wrasse or interactions, you would be saying, “Hang on a second; surely you should have dealt with the substance first to make sure we have proper environmental protection.”

I am genuinely trying to give a direct answer to Mr Rumbles’s perfectly fair question, but I am also trying to put things in perspective. Because we need to proceed on the basis of evidence, and because evidence is often in scarce supply or is a matter of interpretation, we must proceed with care, and that is what we are doing. I am confident that the spatial framework should be available fairly shortly, which will help to inform us in finalising the planning approach.

Finally, the fourth national planning framework will reflect the Scottish Government’s aim of supporting sustainable growth and it will help to guide new developments to locations that will best suit industry needs, with due regard to the marine environment. The fourth national planning framework will take that forward in a way that I hope members will support.

I have heard everything that the cabinet secretary has said and I agree with him. He is absolutely right, and I am heartened by what he has said about the strategic view. However, I have looked at the evidence from two weeks ago and what we have heard from Mr Mitchell, the deputy director of aquaculture. I wrote these words down when he was speaking just before the minister: he said that the Scottish Government’s approach is

“very much focused on the individual planning applications”.

I hope that I am not taking that out of context, that it dovetails with Mr Ewing’s support for a strategic approach and that we might see that in the fourth national planning framework. I say gently to the cabinet secretary that, although the issues with sea lice, pollution and other things are essential and that it is absolutely right that the Government is on top of them, that does not mean that work cannot be done at the same time towards the production of a strategic view. I see that Mr Ewing is nodding. I hope that he can confirm that that is the approach that we should be taking.

I am happy to confirm broadly that that is the approach that we are pursuing. Mr Rumbles is entirely correct that we should be working on the planning issues. We are doing that in tandem with other matters. We cannot quite finalise that yet, although I do not think that we are that far away. Frankly, Covid has delayed a lot of things, as we know. It has caused a lot of practical issues for everybody involved in aquaculture and it has brought challenges.

Nonetheless, we are quite close to finalising the work for the spatial framework and the national planning framework—that work has been going on. I assure you that John McNairney, the chief planner, has taken a close personal interest in the matter by attending the industry leadership group. I say that to reassure members that the issue has been the subject of a lot of collaborative working with our planning colleagues.

The general public expect—rightly, I would argue—that the industry should exist without damaging the marine environment. As evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of the new regulatory framework becomes available, what action will the Scottish Government take if it is shown that more work is needed?

I agree that the industry must conduct itself to avoid having an adverse impact on the environment, and that is what it is working towards. We are proceeding on the basis of that objective being very much in mind. It is an iterative process: it never entirely stops, not least because technology is changing all the time.

For example, a method of collecting the discharge or waste from salmon in the marine environment to prevent it from falling on to the sea bed is being piloted in Norway. I believe that a Scottish company is in the vanguard of that research. In Scotland, there is also a desire and a proposal to trial similar methods of permanently preventing discharges from getting into the marine environment. Those are two examples of modern technological innovations that are extremely encouraging for the future of aquaculture.

Technology is improving apace and, in Norway, which is really the world leader, we are seeing the trend of moving further out to sea and away from having many small pens close to shore or in sea lochs. That is more sustainable environmentally, although operating further out at sea brings safety challenges, as Mr Chapman will appreciate. The industry is changing all the time, and regulation has to adapt and change with it. I am happy that, in Scotland, we are proceeding apace with improvements, as I have mentioned twice. To answer Mr Chapman’s question directly, that work will need to continue.

09:45  

I appreciate that things move on and that we need to be able to adapt. However, one of the salmon interactions working group’s recommendations was that interactions with wild fish need to be the responsibility of one agency. We heard that there is a proliferation of agencies involved in that work. We have also heard that no change has taken place in that regard. Have you considered any changes to the statutory roles and responsibilities of the various organisations that monitor that industry?

We are working hard to consider a response to the 40 recommendations that I think the salmon interactions working group made, which cover a range of areas. My officials can speak with more authority about the detail of those, but the relationship and the interactions between the farm sector and the wild sector cut across different organisations, by their nature, and that is unavoidable. They cut across my department, Roseanna Cunningham’s department, local authorities, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Marine Scotland. The wider question is possibly whether the whole regulatory approach should be streamlined. Is it a bit too complicated? Many people argue that that is the case. Therefore, the answer to Mr Chapman’s question is that it would be desirable to have one body in charge, but that we should look at the whole sector. If we are going to further reform the regulatory system, we should not do it in a piecemeal fashion, picking out one particular aspect, important though it is. We should look at the whole, and, in that respect, there is a lot to learn from the Norwegian model. Indeed, one feature of that model is an agency that deals with promoting fish health. I am pleased to say that one of the developments is that the chief veterinary officer in Scotland, Sheila Voas, has agreed to chair the fish health framework and to bring her expertise in fish health to the fore. That is a positive development for these issues.

There was a general feeling on the part of the working group that there was confusion of regulation and regulators and that simplification of that was needed.

Finally, is the Scottish Government considering a regulatory regime for interactions with wild fish, specifically?

I can ask my officials to answer that specific question. However, my understanding is that the expert working group that John Goodlad chaired identified 12 factors that might have an influence on the decline of wild fish—salmon and trout, but particularly salmon. Those included climate change, predation by seals and interactions with aquaculture. Therefore, the issue of wild salmon and wild trout and the impacts that have caused a diminution in numbers over several decades are complex.

There is not just one factor; farmed salmon is not the only issue. There is a plethora of factors that cover a very wide range of threats to the mortality of wild salmon, so I do not think that singling out one of the 12 factors would necessarily help to address the problem. However, I do not know whether any of the 40 recommendations specifically covered that. To enable that point to be closed down, I wonder whether there is anything else that Mr Palmer or Mr Mitchell could add.

I am sure that we can bring in Mr Palmer or Mr Mitchell very briefly.

We are doing some positive things on simplification within the existing regime. We have introduced a wellboats order, which essentially takes Marine Scotland licensing out of wellboat consideration for their discharges. That all rests with SEPA now. We are actively looking at other opportunities.

The Norwegians co-ordinate all the regulators’ views through a single consenting regime so that there is a one-stop-shop approach for the developer or the fish farmer. Mr Ewing alluded to that. We are actively looking at what we might do in that space in Scotland.

On the salmon interactions working group’s view on there being a single regulatory body, we recognise that, as far as the interactions question is concerned, there may be the opportunity to consider a single regulator in that space but—again, Mr Ewing alluded to this—we need to get the evidential base and the full range of considerations as part of the evidence to look at who might be right for that role and how that would work. Before all that, getting in place a spatial planning framework that looks beyond the current regime and looks at water body capacity perhaps—that is the direction of travel that we have talked about—is a necessary prerequisite to understanding how that would work and what the right body might be. However, it is fair to reflect that the body remains the planning authority through the environment management plan that it puts in place when planning permission is given.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a question about public bodies that have a duty under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to further the conservation of biodiversity. Has any review of the exercise of public bodies’ statutory duty to further the conservation of biodiversity with respect to salmon farming been carried out, or is any such review in process?

There is a statutory duty on all public bodies, including the Scottish Government, to further the conservation of biodiversity in carrying out their responsibilities, and we have been doing that. For example, the west of Scotland marine protected area represents Europe’s largest marine protected area, and it will safeguard vulnerable marine life that is under threat in deeper waters across the north-east Atlantic. It covers an area of 100,000 square kilometres.

We are carrying out a three-yearly review of conservation and biodiversity in the marine environment. That is in process, and I am told that reports for the period 2018-20 are due to be published in January next year.

I have mentioned some elements; I have got a lot more information in my briefing material. Essentially, a lot of work has been done to conserve biodiversity in the marine environment.

You mentioned the salmon interactions working group. Do you have any thoughts on licensing conditions in relation to interactions with wild fish?

What sort of licences? Are you envisaging a particular kind?

Not really. The salmon interactions working group came up with various recommendations, including a number of robust conditions that should be attached to licences for salmon farms. I am a recent—or not so recent, now—addition to the committee, so salmon farming was all new to me. One of the questions in our briefing paper talks about the licensing conditions that I suppose would be attached to farms of a particular size or position, for example close to land or further out to sea.

Cabinet secretary, I think that you understand the question, which is to do with the conditions that are placed on applications, as well as the licences that are granted by SEPA, and the Crown Estate in relation to the seabed, but maybe you know more than us and can explain it all.

I am tempted to explain bits of it but, given that it is largely a technical matter, it might be better just to ask officials. I mentioned the tightening up of sea lice regulations, which is designed to improve the interaction issue. The spatial framework will take that forward. The EMP requirement that I mentioned will also have regard to all those issues. Mr Mitchell or Mr Palmer might want to provide a more technical answer about the licensing issue.

Alastair Mitchell is ready to come in. Alastair, I ask you to respond briefly. If we do not get all the answers, I am sure that Emma Harper will be happy to get a written response afterwards. She is nodding.

That is fine—I will be brief. The environmental management plan is the current mechanism. We may look to change that over time, but that is where any requirement lies as far as sea lice and interaction with wild fish are concerned. In addition, the fish health inspectorate expects to see appropriate measures in place on the farm. Mr Ewing alluded to reporting and intervention levels where sea lice are thought to be becoming an infestation that may pose a risk to the farmed fish and the broader population of wild fish beyond the farm gate. Those are the primary areas for now that are used to ensure control.

Emma, do you have further questions on that subject?

I have one final question, which is about technical standards for fin-fish aquaculture. Witnesses have told us that we will have to rely on the infrastructure and equipment on farms to prevent escapes in future. What work is going on in relation to those technical standards?

There are two issues there. First, with regard to escapes, a huge amount of work has gone on across a range of areas, including on the type of nets used. Some nets can avoid nudging by seals, which is a big factor behind escapes. In a certain way, the manufacture of the nets is designed to deal with that. There is also the design of pens; the larger ones provide a safe area for fish to retreat when seals are approaching. There is a whole corpus of practical things that the industry is doing to tackle escapes. I am no expert, but I discuss the subject and listen to discussions about it in the industry leadership group.

10:00  

I am advised that we are updating the Scottish fin-fish technical standards, which were published about five years ago, which will include consideration of climate change and higher-energy sites in order to improve containment at fish farm sites. That work has been delayed by Covid, but we hope to complete it early next year. That on-going work should come to a conclusion fairly shortly.

It was suggested to the committee in a previous evidence session that the farmed fish health working group had not achieved a great deal and that its work had stalled. It would be good to hear your thoughts on that. Why did you decide to reformat the working group?

Significant progress was made in the fish health framework’s first year, as we reported to Parliament back in July 2019. As the workstream was new, it was sensible to review the working practices in order to inform how best to move forward.

To answer Mr Smyth’s question, the steering group made recommendations to streamline its governance and focus on the areas that it considered could make the most difference to fish health. The new approach will achieve that. Rather than having multiple workstreams that operated under different sets of leadership, we have introduced a single steering group with a chairperson, which allows us to focus the work more clearly. I mentioned that Sheila Voas—the distinguished chief veterinary officer—is leading the work.

The term “stalled” is unfair to the people who have worked extremely hard on this complex matter. The fish health framework is not a one-off ad hoc response; it is a standing response over 10 years under which we will work closely with the industry, environmental scientists and others to improve fish health in general. The approach is not that of a short-life working group; the framework will be part of our response for several years to focus even more on fish health, as I said in answering an earlier question.

You mentioned the update that was given to the committee in July 2019. What has been achieved since then? What are the priorities for the next few months?

I am sorry, convener—the first part of Mr Smyth’s question was cut off, but I think that he asked about the priorities for fish health. We have several priorities. Since we reported to Parliament, legislation to introduce mandatory reporting of average sea lice numbers has been progressed; that will be laid in Parliament later this month. That is an important matter on which we have made progress.

We remain committed to the work on the analysis of mortality by cause and we have recently reinvigorated discussion with the SSPO, which is taking that forward as a partner of the framework.

We recognise that climate change and ocean acidification have implications for fish health. The previous climate change sub-group considered how best to create real-time monitoring of plankton and provide alerts to the presence of potentially harmful phytoplankton species. As a result of collaboration between Marine Scotland and institutions such as the Scottish Association for Marine Science, a studentship to develop new techniques in phytoplankton monitoring has been advertised.

On treatments and medicines—again, an important practical area—the framework is about collaborative working and providing a scientific practitioners’ forum for discussion. The transfer of wellboat licensing, to which Mr Mitchell referred, to SEPA and the introduction of its sectoral aquaculture plans addresses issues relating to use of medicines. I could go on, but those are some of the important issues. Lots of work has been done and I am grateful to Mr Smyth for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate that the vehicle has not stalled and is moving forward at moderate speeds and doing a lot of work on the practical issues that we all need to grapple with and which I hope members will agree are all extremely important and serious.

Thank you. The next questions are from John Finnie.

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, you have touched on the issue of sea lice three or four times; indeed, you have referred to it as a controversial topic. Can you update the committee on the review of the evidence on the reporting and intervention thresholds for sea lice? You have alluded to legislation that is coming. Can you provide some details about the Scottish Government’s statutory instrument and what precisely it will introduce?

I have given a ministerial overview and indicated that we are moving to tighten up the regulations. I will pass to my officials to answer the technical question about the content of the statutory instrument. They are better placed to comment than I am, as they have dealt with that work more directly than I have. My job is to have an overview and to ensure that we move forward with the measures, but Mr Mitchell can enlighten the committee on the detail of that.

Before we go to Mr Mitchell, John Finnie has a supplementary question.

Can Mr Mitchell touch on the extent to which the review of the evidence on the reporting and intervention thresholds informed the direction that is going to be taken?

The farmed fish health framework working group was the overarching body that looked at the issue. There was a recommendation in the committee’s report that we seized on as important, which related to the fact that, at the time, sea lice reporting by the sector was voluntary and was, I think, done on a three-monthly basis, although it might have moved to being done on a monthly basis by that point. That was thought to be inadequate, so our regulation, which, as Mr Ewing has said, should come to Parliament before the end of December, will put on a statutory footing the requirement to make each farmer or farm report on a weekly basis in arrears on the numbers of female lice that are found on the farmed fish from a sample that is agreed as good practice.

That regulation will come into force in March 2021, at which point, in addition to the fish health inspectorate being aware of all the numbers, there will be a public face to that so that people can interrogate at a farm level what is happening in terms of sea lice performance weekly one week in arrears. We will be looking at a time lag of approximately a fortnight, which will be a significant change and improvement on what happened previously. That will start on the Marine Scotland website, but it will move on to the Scotland’s Aquaculture website in due course, once we have the information technology fixed.

I hope that that answers the question.

Yes—thank you, Mr Mitchell.

Cabinet secretary, there is a lot of interest in the relationship between the Scottish Government and the industry. The SSPO suggested that the reporting and intervention thresholds for sea lice were voluntarily reduced, while in a letter to the committee in July 2019, the Scottish Government stated that the changed thresholds were a result of farmed fish sea lice policy. Which is it? How does the process for reviewing the sea lice threshold work? How were the review’s conclusions reached?

I do not think that there is a contradiction there. The reality is that—quite rightly, I think—the Scottish Government works closely with the SSPO, which is a responsible representative body that is comprised of many people with considerable expertise in the marine science area and in aquaculture matters generally.

Therefore, I do not think that there is a contradiction between the SSPO voluntarily reducing thresholds and how the reduction on reporting and intervention limits was implemented by the Scottish Government. Obviously, those matters were discussed and considered very carefully, and there was a shared sense that we needed to tighten things up, which is what we have done. We did not foist a regime on the industry without discussing it; we discussed how we could work together to tighten things up to address some of the concerns that were expressed to the committee during its inquiry. The industry has largely been supportive of changes in sea lice policy, so although the lowering of thresholds became Government policy, the SSPO contributed to the decision being reached and it accepted it voluntarily.

Therefore, I do not think that there is a contradiction; it is quite the opposite. Things work best when Governments work closely with regulators, industries and environmental bodies, and that is what Marine Scotland, in particular, seeks to do.

If Mr Finnie wants to pursue the issue, I am sure that Mr Palmer could give him more information on the details, but I hope that I have answered his question fairly and directly.

I am content with that—thank you.

Richard Lyle has had to change location to sort out his broadband. Welcome back, Richard. I believe that you have some questions to ask.

Thank you, convener. Unfortunately, the wi-fi in my constituency office went down, so I have come home.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Knowing you, I am sure that the vehicle is moving forward correctly and that things have been done since we last looked at the issue. Has the Scottish Government developed a consistent reporting methodology for the collection of information on the causes of farmed fish mortality? If so, when does the Scottish Government expect that it will be published, and how will it ensure that the methodology is applied?

We take the issue of mortality very seriously, as I have said in previous answers. It is an industry responsibility, so industry is best placed to undertake the work, and the SSPO is committed to doing so.

We are assured by the SSPO that work is under way to create a standardised approach to the recording of on-farm mortality that will allow an annual analysis of the causes of salmon mortality across companies to be produced. That information will be a main source of evidence to inform further work by the farmed fish health framework working group, including its implementation. It will provide an analysis that is measurable and comparable over time. We understand that the SSPO plans to complete the analysis in the early part of next year.

As I said, I know that the work will be being done.

Does the Scottish Government have any plans to improve the presentation and accessibility of fish farm data, which many people would like to see?

10:15  

Yes. As I think that I mentioned earlier, we have already committed to the publication of average sea lice numbers, which will be reported on, on a statutory basis, within one week of receiving the information. We understand the importance of providing such data accessibly, and have committed to the publication of data on SEPA’s aquaculture website. However, that will require additional IT development of the systems that are deployed by Marine Scotland and SEPA. Although work is under way on both systems, it will not be completed in the immediate future; if need be, the sea lice data will therefore be published on Marine Scotland’s website in the interim.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and again apologise for my system going down.

Richard Lyle has remarkable versatility, if I might say so.

Just before we leave that issue, cabinet secretary, if you look at mortality figures on the website, you get a percentage of production; it is not until you interrogate SEPA that you find out how many tonnes have been lost. Which do you think is a more accurate way of reflecting mortality on fish farms?

I am a cabinet secretary, not a statistician, and I am not about to profess expertise in areas in which I do not possess it. I think that I should probably write back to the committee after officials have had a chance to look at that, unless they want to answer now.

Given the time constraints, I am happy for a response to be provided by letter.

The next questions come from the deputy convener, Maureen Watt.

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of research undertaken on behalf of the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust and Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland that suggests that the economic and employment benefits of salmon farming are overstated and that Scottish Government analyses do not adequately consider the costs to other marine users. As a cabinet secretary who is normally out and about a lot, and whose constituency is in the Highlands, do you come across lots of adverse comments in Highland communities about the fish farming industry?

I get emails from some people who have criticisms of the industry, which is fair enough. However, as the constituency MSP for Inverness, I note that one of the largest private sector employers in Inverness is Gael Force Marine, which is a major company in the supply chain. It is, in fact, the UK’s largest chandlery, and it also manufactures—as I understand it—feed barges and pens for the sector. It purchased a company called Fusion and it now manufactures pens. I know several people who work for that very successful company, which operates in many countries. Equally, there are centres of excellence in the salmon sector in places such as Larkhall. There are therefore lots of jobs onshore.

However, we are really talking about an industry of the periphery—an industry that is on the edge—in which there are opportunities for people to earn an average of £37,000, which is probably about twice the average earnings from other opportunities, even if other opportunities exist.

I used to represent Lochaber and places such as Lochaline. At that time, Marine Harvest was a big employer and, incidentally, a big supporter of local communities, such as through its sponsorship of the Camanachd Association over many years. I see the aquaculture sector as providing enormous opportunities for Scotland, especially in more remote locations on the west coast and our islands, but also in the areas of scientific research and engineering. Increasingly, as we move to the use of larger pens, it is an engineering industry.

In addition to that, the salmon itself, as a source of protein, has about the lowest carbon footprint of any foodstuff. Therefore, arguably, it has a big contribution to make to tackling climate change, by producing protein in a way that is congenial to our climate change objectives.

The study on the wider economic impacts of aquaculture reported that the wider supply chain is worth £880 million a year and supports 11,700 jobs across the Scottish economy. That is a fairly substantial number, and I see that as very positive. As we have discussed, we are working hard with the industry to tackle some of the issues that people are—fairly—concerned about so that we make progress, alongside other countries that are doing similar things.

The report that I referred to suggests that the gross value added figure, which has been extensively quoted and relied on by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, might be exaggerated by 124 per cent, and that employment could be overestimated by a massive 251 per cent. Is the Scottish Government considering carrying out an independent cost benefit analysis for the expansion of fish farming to understand whether the industry really provides a net benefit to Scotland and to satisfy itself that such an expansion would, on balance, be beneficial rather than detrimental?

It is not standard practice to assess an entire sector on the framework of a cost benefit analysis.

To give a practical answer to the question, Maureen Watt is correct: ordinarily, I get out and about. I opened the new hatchery at Invergarry, I visited the premises in Oban and I am aware of the investment in Kyleakin. I have mentioned Gael Force Marine, but there are many other companies operating that are not really household names at all. I have seen the investment. In fact, I cannot think of a sector, certainly in the rural economy, where there has been more investment than there has been in aquaculture. That investment has been designed to increase not only the sector’s productivity and profitability but also its sustainability—I have mentioned the development of hatcheries. There are tremendous opportunities ahead in the aquaculture sector in Scotland, provided that we work hard at ensuring sustainability, and there are enormous opportunities to grow the supply chain in Scotland.

Many people say that the industry is mostly owned by Norwegians. On many occasions, I have met and spoken to representatives from Norway of leading companies, and they are absolutely committed to investing in Scotland and in the Scottish supply chain. The dialogue and work with them mean that aquaculture is actually one of the most exciting sectors in Scotland, which uses our natural assets, provides very well-paid jobs and offers the prospect of a significant increase in the use of engineering solutions and the application of marine science to further clean up the discharges, which is an example that I gave earlier.

The sensible approach for the Scottish Government is to continue to do what we are doing for sustainability but also to up our game in identifying opportunities for sustainable expansion and building on the enormous investment that has been made—hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds—in Scotland’s rural economy over the past few years.

Have you come across communities or businesses, such as tourism businesses on the west coast or smaller inshore fishers, that have been adversely affected by salmon farming? Is there any action that is required by the Scottish Government to assist those businesses?

I cannot think of any individual example where a company has said that its business has suffered significant financial losses directly as a result of salmon farming.

I mentioned right at the beginning that we have the inshore, the shellfish and the wild salmon sectors in the blue economy, and we need to find a way of accommodating all those interests. I think that we largely do that. In my work in the Highlands, which is where most of the activity is, I have found that the people who work in the industry are friends of, and part of, the community, alongside the people who go out with the creels, the crofters and the tenant farmers. They are all part of the fabric of rural Scottish society.

The advent of aquaculture has prevented the slow death of many rural communities in the west coast of Scotland. Had the industry not existed, what would have taken its place? With the Nancy Glen, it was people who were working on a feed barge who rang for the rescue. If they had not been there, would the young chap who survived have got out and been rescued? That is personal to me, because I was very much involved with that case, but it illustrates that the guys in the fish farming industry are part of the community, along with everybody else.

I hope that people can focus on and accentuate the positive as we go forward in future, while trying to eliminate the negative.

That sounds like a song.

I will park that comment, deputy convener.

We will move on to the next questions, which are from John Finnie.

Before I move to the agreed questions, I will follow up on something that the deputy convener raised with the cabinet secretary in relation to the information that the committee was sent by the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust.

My question is about the absence of an independent cost benefit analysis and the trust’s assertion that

“we understand that the absence of a relevant CBA breaches Scottish Government guidelines on providing financial and other support for a particular industry, as detailed in the Green Book and the Scottish Public Finance Manual.”

Could you comment on that?

I am not an expert on the green book, but I have already given quite a lot of practical evidence about the demonstrable benefits that the industry provides. I have said that it is not standard practice to assess an entire sector in the framework of a cost benefit analysis. That is typically undertaken in line with green book guidance when considering specific policy interventions. However, we are engaged with a number of research projects and working groups to improve the sustainability of Scottish aquaculture to mitigate potential environmental impacts and further support blue economy developments.

I have absolutely no doubt at all, from 20 years as a member of the Scottish Parliament, where I have worked in and about aquaculture, representing a Highland seat, and from campaigning in the Highlands for 10 years before that, that aquaculture is an integral part of our economy. The value that it brings to Scotland is enormous and immense. Attempts to suggest that that is not the case are confounded by the facts, some of which I have mentioned. No doubt there will be an on-going debate by those who wish to pursue it.

In the meantime, we will carry on working on further improving sustainability, and we will continue to work very closely with the industry in order to ensure that Scotland gets the most out of aquaculture. I see those as my twin roles, and I hope that members will agree that that is a fair approach.

10:30  

The debate is very polarised. People ask, “Are you for or agin it?” For the avoidance of doubt, I am for salmon farming, and I want salmon farms to operate as good neighbours in an environmentally strong way. Our job as a committee is to scrutinise information that is put in front of us. If you are not able to confirm that the funding is entirely in line with the green book and the Scottish public finance manual just now, perhaps you could write to the committee about that, and I will move on to other questions.

I do not think that it helps to polarise the debate and the scrutiny of an important industry in those terms.

Hold on, John. I am sorry, but I could not quite hear the cabinet secretary. Is the cabinet secretary offering to write?

I would be happy to write to Mr Finnie, because I have not studied the document that he referred to. To be fair to Mr Finnie, I should have a further look at that, so I will write to him.

With respect, I do not think that I am projecting things in a polarised way. However, I am very pleased to hear that Mr Finnie supports the sustainable growth of aquaculture. Maybe there is not as much between us as might be thought.

I remind the cabinet secretary that the letter should go to the committee rather than to Mr Finnie, because the issue was raised in the committee.

Okay.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that. That would be helpful. Our job is to scrutinise.

I want to move on to regulation and enforcement, and the need for further change. Last week, we heard Mr Charles Allan speaking about mortalities. He said:

“The legal process that the fish health inspectorate could put in place with regard to mortality is limited.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 18 November 2020; c 12.]

There is understandable public concern about the levels of mortality. Salmon & Trout Conservation has talked about conditions in environmental management plans not being enforceable, and the salmon interactions working group has raised concerns about enforceability in relation to licensing conditions, sea lice and escapes. Do the regulators have adequate enforcement powers? Would you consider strengthening things in that area?

We are improving the regulatory processes, including the consideration of the enforcement powers, based on the application of available evidence and continued enhancements in the scientific base. A recurring ask from industry representatives is better regulation to enable investment. Developers have a willingness to pay more if those conditions exist, which mean that developments can be brought on stream quicker and with more certainty while appropriate environmental safeguards are maintained. We are taking that approach.

There has been much improvement since the committee’s report in 2018 through, for example, the farmed fish health framework and the positive steps in focusing on climate change, mortalities, the use of medicines and wrasse. I hope that I have gone through all of that to the committee’s satisfaction. We have not been sitting back with the car stalled; rather, we have been doing our best to tackle serious and quite complex issues. Almost by definition, capturing data for anything that happens in the marine environment is more difficult than it is on land, where things are visible and able to be physically inspected, counted and analysed. Regard should be given to that.

As I have said, I think that we all want to move forward in a way that eliminates the negatives. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I was referring to factors, not people. The negatives are the problems that the industry has had with escapes, mortalities, disease and impacts. We are taking matters very seriously, as is the industry—members will see that if they look at its blueprint document, which was published very recently. That is the correct approach.

I would have to bring in officials to give the letter of the law on the precise details of the enforcement powers, but I could write to the committee with a more factual answer if Mr Finnie would prefer that. I appreciate that he has a fair interest in the area and that the point is legitimate. However, we are making lots of progress on all those issues.

I assume that John Finnie is going to accept the offer of a written response to the committee.

On the committee’s behalf, I think that it would be very helpful to hear from the cabinet secretary, particularly if he could touch on the issue of the fish health inspectorate regime being limited, which Mr Allan raised. I will leave things there.

We are quite close to the time limit for this evidence session. I thank members very much for all the questions, and the cabinet secretary for the answers. As the cabinet secretary will remember, there were 65 recommendations in the committee’s report, 54 of which required direct action by the Scottish Government. Given the two evidence sessions, it is appropriate that the committee has the chance to reflect on how the recommendations have been achieved. The cabinet secretary has helped us in that process, so I thank him.

We will have a nine-minute break to allow the committee to prepare for the next evidence session, which will start at 10.45.

10:36 Meeting suspended.  

10:45 On resuming—