Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry—do you mean that 10 per cent would be an acceptable level of mortality?

We have not set a threshold, and we are not considering doing so, because there are many different causes that can lead to mortality events. For me, the key focus is on how we are addressing those issues, whether action is being taken to prevent them from happening in the first place and whether action is being taken following those events to ensure that they do not happen again. That is where the focus of the work is, and we are trying to drive them to the lowest possible levels.

It was really just to say that this will be my last time appearing before the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, although it will not be my final appearance before a parliamentary committee. I want to thank you, convener, and the members around the table. I cannot say that it has always been a pleasure sitting at this end of the table, being on the receiving end of the various topics that we have discussed—it is, as committee members aware, a very broad‑reaching portfolio. I have always welcomed the scrutiny that the committee has undertaken.

I wish all the best to those of you who are stepping down, and all the best to those who are standing for re‑election in May. Thank you all so much for working alongside me. We have completed some significant pieces of work during that time.

First, I want to respond to your point about there not being trust in the information that is there. Charles Allan might want to come in on this in a minute, but, under the powers that the FHI has, it has access to that information. We would not publish information that was not accurate or that we had concerns about. Of course, mistakes can occasionally be made, but they would be swiftly corrected. We have trust in the information that is made publicly available, and more of those records are available for inspection by the FHI.

I will make a few points in relation to the modelling work that was sent to the committee. First, based on the recommendations that the committee made last year, we had to establish what persistent high mortality was, what it looked like and how we could assess it. That is what the model that has been presented to the committee is about. In addition, last year, I provided an update on some of the terms that we were considering, in order to get the committee’s thoughts on those. I note that the modelling work that has been presented to the committee has not yet been peer reviewed—it is still going through that process. However, extensive work has gone into that modelling.

I will ask Charles Allan and Hazel Bartels to provide a bit more detail on that, if that would be helpful.

The main focus in that regard is Scotland’s aquaculture website, which is largely where such information can be found. As I touched on in a previous response, and as we have discussed in previous committee meetings, part of the problem is not being able to access information in an intuitive way. There is a lot of information out there, and work has been done to determine how accessible it is to the public. Improvements to Scotland’s aquaculture website have been made so that accessing information is more intuitive.

Jill Barber might want to give some specific details about what has been done to the website. I hope that, if any committee members have used it recently, they will have found it easier to navigate and to reach the information that they have been trying to find.

First, in relation to what is being published, I disagree that we are seeing only one small part of a bigger picture. The FHI and SEPA collect data in a number of different ways, and Salmon Scotland publishes monthly survival information. A lot of information is published in order to meet our regulatory needs.

In relation to the other areas that you mentioned, as I said in a previous response, we recognise that there is a broader issue relating to cleaner fish. We want to engage with Salmon Scotland on the commitment that it made in its recent correspondence with the committee on more cleaner fish data. The fish health inspectorate already has access to some of that information, but the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has highlighted some of the gaps and has recommended that more research needs to be done. Our focus in the coming year will be on making the information more transparent and considering the research areas that the commission has suggested.

In relation to culling, the overall picture is captured in our production survey, which covers survival to harvest. We would have to consider why we should collect that specific information, given that we do not collect it for any other sector.

I do not know whether Charles Allan wants to add anything in relation to data.

The sector publishes site-specific information.

Yes.

I believe that we are. We publish that information and it is easily accessible. That is what Scotland’s aquaculture website is about: it is about pulling that information together and ensuring that it is more accessible to people and that they can navigate it. On transparency, more information is requested about and published by this sector than any other sector. On the broader point about whether people can easily understand and interrogate the data, that is what we are really trying to get at with what we set out in our response to the committee’s recommendations. I have said that there are improvements to be made; we know that there are evidence gaps in some areas. Work is also being undertaken by SEPA that will help to complete the overall picture of farm performance. However, I believe that we publish an awful lot of that information, so it is already in the public domain. I put the question back to the committee on that specific recommendation. In essence, some of the recommendations are about repackaging information that already exists, because we publish everything that we need to.

I have said that we believe that mortality is too high. You could set a threshold, as other countries have done, but what would that be driving at? What change would that effect or what work would that encourage that is not already happening? Mortality needs to be driven to the absolute lowest levels. That is what we expect, and that is what all businesses are working to achieve. The modelling was a really important piece of work. It has not reached its full conclusion, because, as I highlighted in previous responses, it is still being peer reviewed. We were trying to identify whether there is a systemic issue that we need to address on the back of the committee’s previous recommendations. The modelling suggests that there is not a systemic issue in Scotland, because, wherever a problem was identified, an attempt was made to address it or to try to fix whatever led to the specific event occurring. However, had the report said something different, we would have taken whatever action was needed on the back of that. The initial work was important, because we needed to identify what persistent high mortality is and whether it is a problem in Scotland that we need to fix.