Seòmar agus comataidhean

The fish health inspectorate undertakes risk-based inspections and ensures that the information that is provided is accurate and correct.

We do that through some of the pieces of work that we are taking forward. A key strand of work that is being taken forward through the farmed fish health framework is on mortalities. That has been divided into 10 broad categories. In some years, we see higher rates than in others because of different pressures. Over the past year, we have seen more gill damage from micro jellyfish, but it is too early to say whether that is a trend.

We work with the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre through the farmed fish health framework. It has been doing work in relation to harmful algal blooms as well. A big step forward has been the standardising of the data that we can publish in relation to mortalities. For some issues, however, there is no quick or easy fix, so more work must be undertaken. It is about identifying what needs to be done and where the challenges might be in the future.

I thank the committee for inviting me to provide an update on the progress of our aquaculture commitments as well as to outline our ambitions for Scottish aquaculture. In advance of today’s meeting, I was happy to provide a written update on the 2017-18 parliamentary inquiry recommendations. I hope that committee members found that helpful alongside the broader update that was provided. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions today.

Aquaculture is, of course, a key component of Scotland’s blue economy, with farmed salmon being Scotland’s—and, indeed, the United Kingdom’s—leading food export. The sector is vital to many of our rural and coastal communities and has much to offer through the provision of, for example, healthy food, food security, skilled jobs, apprenticeships and training programmes. In recognition of the sector’s importance, we have a broad agenda, on which we are really trying to create momentum.

We continue to make progress to deliver on sea lice interactions, which is a programme for government and Bute house agreement commitment and a key component of our response to the inquiry. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is also preparing to launch a second consultation on its more detailed proposals for a new sea lice risk assessment framework, and that consultation provides a further opportunity for stakeholders to input their views on that really important matter.

We are making good progress on reviewing and reforming aquaculture regulation following the independent review of aquaculture consenting that was delivered by Professor Russel Griggs. The Scottish Aquaculture Council, which I set up last year in response to the review, is advising on the delivery of all our commitments to ensure that the sector is supported and innovative and that it operates within environmental limits and with social licence. The council has met three times so far. Its most recent meeting was just last week, when we heard from Professor Maggie Gill, the chair of the Scottish Science Advisory Council, following its independent review, “Use of Science and Evidence in Aquaculture Consenting and the Sustainable Development of Scottish Aquaculture”. The review was carried out at my request in response to the issues of science that Professor Griggs raised, and I am pleased to say that the council’s report has been published. I record my thanks to Professor Gill and her team for their detailed consideration.

In parallel, a collaborative consenting task group has been established to take forward and pilot key recommendations from last year’s independent review of aquaculture consenting. A key element of that work will be improving and streamlining the administration of the consenting process while maintaining those high environmental standards. The working group is to begin trials of a new process later this summer. I take this opportunity to thank the organisations that have committed to that group for their enthusiasm for exploring new processes and for providing the resource for it. We all have the shared objective of ensuring that the consenting system is as effective as possible.

However, the sector can be a truly sustainable success story only if economic growth goes hand in hand with positive outcomes for Scotland’s communities and natural environment. Our vision for sustainable aquaculture is being developed to align with and contribute to the outcomes in the blue economy vision, and it will have an enhanced emphasis on environmental protection and community benefit. I am pleased that the Scottish Government’s vision for sustainable aquaculture is in its final stages of development, and I look forward to being able to share a copy of that with the committee.

That is it for my opening statement. I look forward to hearing the committee’s questions.

The implementation plan sets out where that work needs to be taken forward. That means looking at pressures on wild salmon in the round. A delivery group has been set up to oversee that work and the delivery of the recommendations. It will produce an annual report to highlight the progress against each recommendation.

This is not about just one piece of work in tackling one pressure. We have to make sure that we do what we can to tackle the other factors that we know affect wild salmon populations. You mentioned some of those. They include water temperature, disease, sea lice and predation—there is a whole host of things that we need to get to grips with and ensure that we act on.

Innovation is a really important part of addressing some of the issues that relate to sea lice. We know that we need to undertake research. We have to identify the gaps in our information. The implementation plan highlights some of that work and where we can better work with other organisations to try to address some of those evidence gaps and undertake the necessary research.

Our piece of work on sea lice will, I think, help to address some of the issues that we have seen. It will take a holistic view and help to tackle one of the pressures that has been identified.

It is a really important role. I affirm that I absolutely agree with the points that you and Jim Fairlie made about the sector’s importance. It is widely recognised that we have a world-class product, but we have to make sure that the industry operates within environmental limits. We want to see that greater social licence as well, which is why the work that will be taken forward in our vision is critical.

That is where some of the recommendations that came out through the Scottish Science Advisory Council report are important. It talks about the communication of some of the work that is happening and the potential improvements to be made. We want to give our full consideration to the recommendations and we take that work very seriously. The issues include how the science is communicated and how we can work better with communities, but it is about how all those different strands of work come together.

The consenting task group has a key role in that regard, because it is about involving communities and not just the industry and the regulators. The work that we are taking forward through the Scottish Aquaculture Council also plays a role. It is important to bring all the different voices round the table so that we can really start to talk about and find a way through some of the difficult issues that we know we might face.

That is one area in which we are looking at strengthening the regulatory regime. I do not know whether the officials can give you more of an update on where that work is at at the moment. We have the code of practice that was published in 2021 and introduced essentially for the prevention of escapes. That is work that we need to do and that we will be taking forward. As I said, I do not know whether the officials have any further information.

The industry publishes the mortality rates by percentage and cause. That is not mandatory, but the industry has a mandatory requirement to record the information on mortality.

Of course, we take all recommendations from committee inquiries seriously. We have made significant progress against a lot of the recommendations that have been set out. As I outlined in my response to Christine Grahame, there are a variety of reasons that can lead to the rise in the figures. We are not content with the figures, and I do not think that the industry is content with them either, which is why the work that we are undertaking to try to tackle some of the issues is important.

I have already responded to that in answer to Christine Grahame’s point. I am not content with the figure. We want to see mortalities at their lowest possible level, as I think I have made clear to the committee today. That is why this work is important.

You talked about a jump in the figures. The average number has stayed relatively constant over the past five years. I mentioned a specific example that we believe may have led to an increase in mortalities over the past year, which is why that needs to be investigated. The pieces of work that we are doing are critical in trying to address that. To be crystal clear, we want mortality to be at the absolute lowest possible level. We are not content with the current position, and I do not think that industry will be either. That is why we have to tackle those challenges.

On your initial point about the status quo not being an option, I know that that came out clearly from the committees’ inquiries, and it is something that we agree with, as do industry and others. That also came out clearly in Professor Russel Griggs’s report on aquaculture. From the information that I set out against the 65 recommendations from those inquiries, which I have provided to the committee, you can see that, although some actions are still under way—I am not saying that we have solved all the problems or issues that were raised—we have made significant progress.

Part of that work has been in relation to SEPA’s implementation of its fin-fish framework, which has been taken forward in stages. That work has consolidated SEPA as the key regulator for the environment. Throughout that period, and since SEPA established its framework, we have seen the transfer of responsibility for some of the issues that you were talking about to SEPA—