Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will make a few points in response to that. Escapes must be reported, and the FHI would then investigate and consider whether any containment measures or other actions were needed as a result. Obviously, we do not want there to be any escapes. I know that some of the incidents were mentioned in the previous session, and work to tackle escapes was committed to. One of the significant incidents was at a Mowi farm, and the company subsequently funded work to examine the wider impact of that escape.

We want to address that by looking at the penalties and how we can utilise any funding from those for the benefit of wild salmon conservation. After that piece of work is completed, we will look at the technical standard. We are also conscious that things can change quite quickly, and that will feed into that broader bit of work on how we can build a technical standard that can be adapted for the future.

In that specific instance, the escape was reported—the problem related to the publishing of the information, which was highlighted to us. I want to reassure the committee that we had picked up the issue. We know how to prevent that from happening in the future and what to look out for. Such escapes are rare. We know what the problem was in that case, and we will be able to fix that for the future, so that it does not happen again and the information is transparent.

There is broader work being done in relation to wild salmon. We were focusing on the key priority areas that came out of the salmon interactions working group, which was about establishing the sea lice risk assessment framework as well as focusing on penalties, escapes and technical standards. On wild salmon, the key focus has been the implementation of the strategy. We published the strategy in 2022 and the implementation plan in 2023, focusing on the broad range of pressures that are impacting wild salmon populations. An awful lot of work has been developed on that, and I am happy to write to the committee with more information about the specifics of the work, if that would be helpful.

There have also been projects—whether supported through the marine fund Scotland, the nature restoration fund or the water environment fund—all of which have been looking at addressing the challenges that wild salmon face.

There are several points in that. One step in what has been a significant piece of development work is the sea lice risk assessment framework that we are looking to implement. As I have said and as Jill Barber has outlined, that has been about guiding the developments to the right place initially—we need to wait for the outcome of the appeals. It is a risk-based, adaptive framework that, we hope, will be able to address some of the risks that have been identified. That work has been a key focus and has involved a lot of intensive engagement with the sector and with wild fisheries interests. Ultimately, we want to be able to address and deal with those overall issues.

As I set out, in our prioritisation we have also done work on a new technical standard for finfish and have dealt with penalties for escapes. We are taking action on all those fronts.

Again, we will need to wait for the outcome of the appeals. We worked with SEPA, the industry and Fisheries Management Scotland to develop a framework that we believed would address the interactions. We are still looking to implement that, but we have to wait for the outcome of the appeals and for whatever recommendations arise as a result.

Ultimately, the regulatory processes that we have in place, including the sea lice risk assessment framework, are about ensuring that we guide development to the right places.

We have touched on the environmental management plans. They are not being imposed on new developments because they were an interim measure. New developments are part of the sea lice risk assessment framework, and, as Jill Barber has outlined, the new farm that has come forward is part of the new framework. SEPA would undertake the monitoring for that, whereas existing monitoring would take place under the existing EMPs while the appeals are worked out.

We have robust regulation in place that is about addressing the issues before determining whether an application can go forward in the first place, and a number of considerations are factored into that.

I am, of course, happy to engage, but it is about prioritising and the committee’s ask in relation to that. I have set out the list of commitments that we were looking to implement and the prioritisation of that work. Doing such work would only detract from other important pieces of work that we are set to do. However, if the committee has specific recommendations that it would like the Government to consider, we will, of course, consider those.

I would just say that nothing is ever that straightforward—

I think that we are looking for simple solutions to complex problems that it has taken us years to grapple with and address. We are talking about an ever-changing environment and regulatory landscape. You are right to suggest that there has not been progress in some cases. We have spoken about a lot of different areas this morning, which shows the sheer volume and significance of some of the massive pieces of work that we have undertaken. The work has been on-going for years. When we look at the overall progress that we have made on sea lice, on transparency and on the data that we collect, as well as all the commitments that we have still to take forward, I recognise that there is more to do.

However, there is no single, simple solution when we are dealing with such complex matters. We are always looking at other models and at what is working elsewhere. As Jill Barber mentioned, a comparison is being made with a model that had a completely different genesis. I am trying to demonstrate that, through the work that we have taken forward, we are delivering on our commitments.

There will always be a call for us to go further and faster on particular pieces of work. We have finite resource and must prioritise as best we can—addressing the key issues as we see them while trying to identify whether those key issues exist in the first place, which was the reason behind the work on persistent high mortality levels.

Good morning. I thank the committee for the opportunity to update it on the progress that we have made just over one year on from its report on salmon farming in Scotland. We took seriously the recommendations in the committee’s report, and, following careful consideration, I set out a targeted programme in response, including how best to make progress on the issues that were raised, supported by evidence, and in what order.

I am grateful to the committee for its insights, as well as to stakeholders more broadly for their input, in helping us to make effective prioritisation decisions and in advancing the conversation on a sustainable future for salmon farming in Scotland, to which the Government remains fully committed.

On fish health and welfare—and, in particular, given the concerns that some sites were experiencing persistent high mortality—Scottish Government scientists, fish health experts and policy officials have worked at pace to deliver a robust analytical framework to determine whether such sites exist, what actions are being taken by producers to tackle such mortality and, ultimately, to evidence whether further Government intervention is required beyond our existing regulation.

The preliminary conclusion is that persistent elevated mortality is not a systemic issue for Scottish marine salmon sites. Only a small fraction of sites were identified as having such mortality, and the work showed that all producers already take a considerable range of responsible and prompt actions to tackle and reduce persistent mortality where it occurs. As a result, I do not believe that further regulatory action is warranted at this time. It is still the Scottish Government’s position, which is shared by the industry, that mortality should be managed to the lowest possible levels. We continue to support the sector through different workstreams, including by facilitating the science, innovation and strategic approaches that are necessary to address those challenges.

On fish welfare, I have already committed to progressing welfare standards for farmed fish under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Delivery will be progressed this year by working with stakeholders in the farmed fish sector, as well as with veterinary experts, regulators and animal welfare organisations, to deliver guidance that is both robust and operationally feasible. We are also strengthening enforcement of farmed fish welfare by working with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to increase the number of trained fish inspectors and the number of inspections that are carried out per year, and to require those inspections to focus on adherence to the relevant welfare standards.

To improve transparency across the sector, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has updated the Scotland’s Aquaculture website to provide better access to important data and information. It has also launched a discovery project to prototype a new digital solution for co-ordinated regulation, with the aim of rolling that out next year. Meanwhile, we have published a mortality data topic sheet to enhance the understanding and use of all the data that is published regarding fish health.

On spatial planning and consenting, we have delivered on a programme for government commitment to confirm that local planning authorities are responsible for fish farm planning controls and to confirm SEPA as the lead regulator for fish farm discharges within the three to 12 nautical mile zone, thereby future-proofing regulation as fish farms look to move into more exposed locations.

We have also adopted Scotland’s first regional marine plans: the plan for the Shetland islands region, which we adopted in December last year, and the plan for Orkney, which we adopted in February this year. The adoption of those plans, which marks a significant milestone for marine planning in Scotland, enables a community-led approach to be taken to marine spatial planning, to reflect local circumstances. We have also worked to support more proposals to be made as part of our fish farm consenting pilots, which are operating in the Shetland and Highland local authority areas, and we are addressing the recommendations of an initial evaluation exercise.

The Scottish Government is highly supportive of sector innovation, and work to ensure that the activities of the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre continue effectively into the future is near completion. We have also continued to work with SEPA to implement a monitoring programme to support the sea lice regulatory framework. The programme, which is examining sea trout on the west coast, the Western Isles and Orkney, was implemented last year, and, this year, it will be enhanced through the support of the Scottish Government. Although there are appeals relating to elements of SEPA’s framework, appeal mechanisms are part of a fair consenting system, and due process will be followed. To ensure that Scotland is taking the right approach for the longer term, our chief scientific adviser for marine is working to consider the scientific underpinning of SEPA’s sea lice framework.

It is important that I finish by reflecting on the value of salmon farming in Scotland. The latest Scottish fish farm production survey reported that, in 2024, salmon farming achieved a production value of more than £1.3 billion, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs statistics revealed that salmon exports were worth £828 million in 2025. We know that the wider sector generated £468 million in gross value added in 2023, and that it supports more than 11,000 jobs across the wider supply chain. Beyond those headline statistics, the sector also supports community benefit through its contribution to the Scottish consolidated fund, which is distributed to coastal local authorities.

As ever, there is always more work to do. Although I am pleased to discuss with the committee the progress that has been made over the past 12 months, we will continue to deliver the work programme that we set out in response to the committee’s report.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.