Seòmar agus comataidhean

Of course, we want to stop that happening. From my perspective, it is a question of ensuring that work has been done to try to prevent fish from dying and that action is being taken to try to prevent it from happening again in the future. It is not a case of us saying, “Everything’s fine—people are tackling it.”

I come back to the evidence and the data that we see. We have interrogated such incidents through the various stages of the model’s development, using the publicly available data and the data that the FHI has seen. We have also gone to the site operators to see what action has been taken on the ground. We look at all of that to ensure that everything that can be done is being done. We want to ensure that we address those problems, because mortality levels have been too high.

The point that I am trying to make is that events are not always predictable. I come back to the work that we are doing, through wider innovation and investment, to prevent or address such disease and climate events, where we possibly can.

I would not say that that is the case at all, because we are trying to address and challenge the issue. We had very poor survival figures from the 2022 year class, which was a very bad year, but some of the most recent monthly mortality data has shown improvements in mortality figures.

On the innovations that have gone into that, Hazel talked about the work by SAIC on harmful algal blooms, and there are all sorts of different developments—whether that is vaccines to prevent diseases, the use of well boats or the many innovations that are happening at site level—to improve mortality figures. It is important that we highlight that we are taking action. Nobody is satisfied with the mortality figures, because we all recognise that they are high.

Yes, monthly figures are published by Salmon Scotland.

From the model, we found that, where there were sites that could be reaching that definition, action was taken in relation to each of the events. The modelling that was done found that there was not a systemic issue and that sites that were identified as having persistently high mortality rates were acting on that information and doing something to tackle mortality where that occurred.

Yes. Sea lice are managed in a couple of different ways in terms of how they relate to the health of farmed fish and the risk that they pose to wild salmon. SEPA developed work on that for the sea lice framework, which has been put in place.

An awful lot of work has taken place in each area to identify what challenges are leading to some of these mortality events and to try to get ahead of them. Work is also going on in various partnerships that we are engaged in, and various scientific bodies are collaborating to try to address and get ahead of some of the challenges that we know fish farms are facing.

It might be helpful to discuss a bit of the background of how the framework was approached and how we have reached those definitions. I will hand over to Charles Allan, who will be able to talk about that in a bit more detail.

There are a few points that I would like to pick up there. I feel as though the impression is being given that there is significant non-compliance and that nothing was being done in the background while the model was being developed. That could not be further from the truth and it does not relate to what happens on the ground and the work that the agencies undertake. I will hand over to Charles Allan in a minute, and he can talk a bit more about the FHI and the work that it undertakes as part of its inspections and visits. I believe that it undertakes around 250 inspections each year.

Yes, absolutely, but I would not say that mortality is falling through the cracks at all. Everybody has a different regulatory role. It is about how bodies work together. As I have said, the FHI could see a welfare issue when it is out on inspections, but it is not responsible for animal welfare. That falls to APHA. It is important that issues are referred to the relevant body that is responsible for the area. The FHI is, of course, responsible for fish health and disease surveillance. It is important to remember the defined regulatory roles of each body and why they are undertaken in that way.

A lot of information about mortality is published and it is published for different regulatory purposes, but nothing is falling through the cracks here. As I have highlighted, the FHI is able to inspect further records at site in detail if it has any significant concerns. Charles Allan can provide more information on the work of the FHI.

That is an idea that we have been interested to tease out and look at. First, though, we are keen for the latest iteration of the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre to be in place, because it will be best placed to lead on that work and engage with the sector on what the expectations are and how we can look to move things forward. Therefore, our focus has been on establishing the new body and getting it up and running, and I hope in a few weeks’ time to be in a position to provide more of an update and an announcement on that. We think that that will be the best vehicle for taking that forward—we have just been waiting for it to happen.

Hazel, is there anything else that you want to add?

That specific work relates to what I touched on regarding escapes. That work had been our priority for the coming year. We did not expect to have resource available earlier last year, which is why that work commenced earlier. We started it as soon as that resource became available, which was earlier than planned. We do not have that resource in place at the moment, but that work will be a priority for the coming year, as I set out in my initial response to the committee.

The focus will then be on the technical standard. We have discussed that prioritisation with stakeholders as well, because we know how important those pieces of work are. The wider collaborative work on escapes is important, too. I hope that the sector and Fisheries Management Scotland are engaging in that work and are continuing those discussions, so that we can make progress and drive that work forward.

10:45