Seòmar agus comataidhean

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—

A few pieces of work have been undertaken that are relevant. We have talked a bit this morning about the development of the sea lice framework and how that work has been progressing. We have had the salmon interactions working group report, which we responded to. That response is a key part of addressing some of the recommendations that were made in that report.

On wild salmon, we had our wild salmon strategy, and a wild salmon implementation plan was announced earlier this year. Across five themes, that made 60 recommendations on how we can address the different pressures that affect wild salmon. One pressure is sea lice but, broadly, 12 pressures that affect wild salmon populations have been identified.

The development and delivery of the sea lice framework is a critical piece of work. We had a consultation on the framework last year, and another consultation, on its impacts and what those might be, is due to be issued soon. It is a risk-based framework that will look at the cumulative impact of a number of pressures through the modelling that it uses. That will be a big step forward in addressing some of the issues that we face.

I am sorry, but I do not know whether there is more detail that Jill Barber wants to add to that.

I hope that I made my reasons for that clear in my response to the committee. By no means have we said that we will not proceed with that at all, but it is more pragmatic to let some of the work that I have outlined today bed in before we look to potential implementation.

One of the key pieces of work is SEPA’s sea lice framework, and there is due to be another consultation on the impact of that on the back of a consultation that was held last year. That framework will potentially have an impact on the average sea lice numbers that could be permitted. It is important that we work through and complete that piece of work before we look at revisiting the decision. I hope that it is clear from my report that the industry’s levels are, largely, far below our minimum thresholds anyway.

For those reasons, as well as the one that you set out, we decided not to proceed with the decision at this point. We will, of course, continue to keep it under consideration as the new framework beds in and we see how it is operating. I am sorry that I cannot give you a more definitive timescale at the moment. We are due to have the consultation, so I cannot give a precise date for when the framework will be in place. We need to go through the processes first.

That feeds into the work that I mentioned in my opening comments—the consenting task group and the pilot projects that it will take forward. You are right: numerous processes and bodies are involved, from Marine Scotland, the Crown Estate and local authorities to SEPA. We know that improvements can be made to the process. When Griggs gave evidence to the committee, he talked about how, in Norway, there is perhaps a one-stop shop, or one person who takes the application and goes to the other bodies.

Through the consenting task group, we are looking to pilot multilateral engagement at the start of the process. That will involve engaging with the community as well as all the bodies that are involved. The group is keen to take that work forward and pilot it with an application at some point. Malcolm Pentland can give a more detailed update on the work that the group is taking forward.

Yes—absolutely. Those are exactly the issues that we are looking at through the sea lice framework and the work that is being taken forward from that.

I do not have that information on the inspection rate to hand. I do not know whether it is information that officials have, but I will be happy to provide it to you and the committee.

On community involvement and engagement through that process, are you talking particularly about the—