Seòmar agus comataidhean

We touched on that when I previously appeared in front of the committee. I will simply reiterate the response that I made then: we want to drive down mortality to the lowest possible levels. Are any of those levels acceptable? No. I want to see them driven down to the absolute lowest levels that they can be. That is what our work to identify whether there are persistent issues and how best to address them has been about.

In using that scenario, you are not comparing like with like. It is about driving down mortality to the lowest possible levels. That is where the focus of our work has been. Ultimately, that aims to identify whether there are persistent issues that we need to address. However, there is significant investment and on-going work to try to get ahead of problems where they exist and to drive down mortality.

You have raised a few issues, which I will try to address. However, it is not a case of our saying that avoiding a burden for the industry is more important than ensuring transparency and public confidence.

In previous committee appearances, as well as in response to the recommendations in the committee’s report and the previous inquiry, I have tried to highlight the level of data that is already published. When it comes to mortality data, the salmon farming sector is very transparent with regard to the volume and quantity of information that is published, especially in comparison with other sectors.

Along with the letter that we recently sent to the committee, we sent over a topic sheet. Part of the issue is about how some of that data can be communicated and how easy it is to navigate. We collect data for different purposes, and different organisations collect it, which adds to the wider landscape. A number of different pieces of work have been done. For example, work has been done on the Scotland’s Aquaculture website—which the committee previously raised as an issue—to make it a bit more intuitive and user-friendly and to make the information that is there easier to navigate. We continue to collect that information for different purposes, as I set out in my response to the committee’s letter.

If we are looking to regulate for more information to be provided, it is important that we ask ourselves, “Why do we need it?” As the committee has heard in previous evidence, particularly from the regulators and other bodies, we collect the information that we need for the purposes of satisfying the regulations that we have at the moment, and we do not feel that there is a need to collect further information beyond what is already there.

You also touched on the comments that were made about data and information on cleaner fish. A lot of work has been undertaken over the past year. We have had the report from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which talks about various pieces of work that need to be done. I also know that Ben Hadfield from Salmon Scotland said in his evidence to the committee on 25 February that it would look to furnish more information. Cleaner fish is one area where it would be helpful to have more information and data.

However, again, I believe that we have the data for the purposes for which we need it. Over and above that, an awful lot of information is already published and available.

I am sorry. Do you mean in relation to the model that was sent to the committee on persistent high mortality?

No. I would say that we have rejected the mandating of it, because that information is available and we have it. Before introducing regulation, there are other steps that must be taken—that goes for this area and others. When we are working through our big business and regulatory impact assessments and all the various pieces of work that have to be done when developing regulation, among the first questions that we ask are what other means have we tried and what other options have we considered.

If we had a problem in accessing information from the reporting that is currently there, we would consider regulation. That is what the work on persistent high mortality was about. We needed to see whether there was an issue and whether we needed to consider what the next steps might be. However, again, we feel that we do not need to mandate the collection of that data, because the data is already there. It is published and we do not have a problem with its collection.

Not at all. That is a scientific piece of work that we have presented to the committee. I am sure that Charles Allan and Hazel Bartels can talk a bit more about the modelling that is behind that and the information that was interrogated.

There is no question but that mortality levels have been too high. We have talked about that in the committee previously. It is in everyone’s interests for them to be driven to the lowest level possible, and that is what I would absolutely expect to happen. High mortality rates are not good for fish health and welfare or for the businesses themselves. However, it is important to remember that a variety of factors and causes can lead to high mortality, not all of which are necessarily always within the control of the fish farmer. We are seeing changing climatic conditions and various other events that can contribute to some of the mortalities that we have seen. That is why the work was important, because it involved looking at the causes and the action that was taken by fish farmers to address the situation.

Of course, the work and investment that we are putting into innovation is about trying to get ahead of those challenges, predict what challenges could be coming further down the line and think about how we can prevent them. That is the key focus of the collaboration between the industry and ourselves on the science around that issue.

There are a few points in there. On the cleaner fish, we want to see what information is there and there is a difference between what is voluntarily published by the sector and information that then becomes a burden on us to collect, validate, and look to publish ourselves.

I would come back to the point that we receive all the data that we need for the purposes that we need it for, and we have absolute confidence in that data. However, we know that there are areas where we need to look at more information and get more transparency, and cleaner fish are identified as one of those areas.

It is collected for different reasons, which is why we have that explainer on how the data is collected and published.

Again, I can say only that you are not comparing like with like, because there are very different farming conditions and different salmon farming producers—

That comes back to the issue of persistence, which involves looking at whether there are related causes and whether there is a systemic problem that we need to fix. The modelling has not found that there is a systemic problem that requires a regulatory fix. All that I can do is present the information that has been gathered.

I will bring in Charles Allan.