Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, it is.

No, and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation did not raise any issues with us, and I think that it was approached for comment about the SSI.

I am sorry, but it is not as straightforward as that. Again, that is why the modelling work that has been done is so important. If problems were identified, the hope is that the work that had been done would point to recommendations about what the next steps should be. However, again, the modelling has found that persistent high mortality is not a systemic issue because, wherever mortality events were identified, action was taken swiftly by the producers to try to address them. As we know, there are a wide variety of causes that lead to the problem, which, again, is why this piece of work is important. However, as I said, it is still to go through the full process of peer review and so on. There could well be changes on the back of it, and, of course, we will keep the committee updated on that work as it progresses.

There are many points there that it is important for me to address.

I would not hesitate to come back here to say, depending on the outcome of the modelling, that we are going to look at potentially introducing regulation in this space or implementing other measures to collect information. However, it is important to note that, in our response to the committee last year, we said that we need to do the work to see how we determine whether there is an issue. Again, that is why the modelling work that we have presented to you was done. It is still to be peer reviewed, and we will work through that process. However, the initial outcomes of that model found that there was not a systemic issue that we needed regulation to address.

We have not said that the whole data picture is complete. As I outlined in my previous response, from the work that was commissioned, as well as the work that the committee and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission have done, we know that there are gaps in relation to the issue of cleaner fish in particular. One focus for the coming year would be to consider what other information we need to publish in that regard.

I understand that, since its appearance before you a couple of weeks ago, Salmon Scotland has written to the committee to outline the information that it would be looking to publish, and we want to enter into further discussions with it, too.

On the recommendation that was made on the fish health report, there is a lot of information out there. Ultimately, some resources would be required to pull that together. I think that a comparison was made with Norway, but we are not comparing like with like in terms of the information that is already published and publicly available. If we were to compile a fish health report, we would just be reformatting the information that is already publicly available. Again, that information is there, but if the committee recommends that we should think about putting in the resources to reformat that information in a different way, we would consider that. However, I would question the value of doing that, given the pressures that we are under in terms of the resources that we have to ensure that we are delivering on all the commitments that we made to the committee, and how we would prioritise that work.

I am sorry to interrupt, but there is another important point to raise in relation to that.

There are a few issues there. If there was a significant mortality event over a specific threshold, the fish health inspectorate would interrogate that to identify whether there was an issue. It is not the case that events happen, things are just left and we are satisfied with that.

As I said, we have been undertaking work in an attempt to get to grips with whether there is an issue that we need to fix. However, there are issues, such as algal blooms and micro jellyfish, that are not within the control of the fish farmer. In such circumstances, should we close down the farm simply because it had a significant event that could not have been predicted?

Charles Allan will be able to give more information about that. When there are any significant events, that has to be reported, particularly if they are over a certain threshold, and the FHI will look at that and report on whether any welfare concerns should be highlighted as a result.

On the animal welfare element, I responded to the committee that we would be looking at bringing forward guidance under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and we have been working with APHA on increasing the number of on-site inspections by 10 per cent and increasing inspections to marine sites, as well as looking at additional training for vets. That work is under way. I will hand over to Charles Allan, who will be able to say a bit more about the work of the FHI, because it is really important to highlight some of that.

I updated the committee on that during my most recent briefing in September. We considered options for the best way to proceed and determined that providing official guidance under the 2006 act was the way to do so. We are at the stage of engaging with stakeholders to discuss how to take that work forward.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, we are looking to engage with a wide range of stakeholders—such as producers, fish vets and animal welfare organisations—who have an interest in that work. Developing that guidance will be the focus of work in the year ahead. It is important that we get it right and for stakeholders to consider it in detail.

First, we welcome the report that was published by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. As I have touched on, there is more information, data and transparency in that area to consider. We are looking to engage with Salmon Scotland on some of the recent commitments that it has made to the committee.

The commission’s report contained quite a lot of recommendations that largely related to research that it felt needed to be done, and it also mentioned, among a variety of other recommendations, welfare assessment protocols for cleaner fish and research on treatments for disease. We received that report towards the tail end of last year, and we are giving active consideration to how we can progress some of those recommendations.

However, I should also say that the guidance that we are looking to publish, which I have already touched on—that is, the official guidance under the 2006 act—will cover cleaner fish, too. Again, when it comes to cleaner fish, the wider guidance will be a focus of work in the year ahead.

I do not think that every operator is using cleaner fish at the moment. I think that the commission would like it to be phased out, but it did not necessarily recommend any change in practice in the use of cleaner fish, because of the benefits for fish health and salmon farming. Our work on the commission’s recommendations will help to inform any next steps that we might take or any further work that we would like to do in that regard.