 Ilych yn fawr, escaped competeinswyr, a Agenda item 1 will first decide whether to take item 4 in private. Are we agreed? Agree. That takes us on to our next item, which is consideration of two negative SSIs. That is the Tuberculosis Scotland Order 2023 and the B-Disease and Pest Control Scotland Amendment Order 2023. Can I first start by asking for any comments on the notification for Tuberculosis Scotland Order 2023, Rachel Hamilton? When I was reading over the papers with regards to this TB order and the changes and the policy objectives within it, I was concerned that I was happy with most of it, convener, but I know that industry are happy with most of it. But there is something that's niggling at me, and I don't feel comfortable with one of the aspects that was the 95 per cent reduction in compensation. I am minded to bring forward a motion to a null, but I would like to find a solution to this, if possible. My argument around this is based on the responses to the consultation. I know that there were a number of stakeholders who represent farmers within the consultation, but I would like to understand the views of a wider group of people who will be affected by this. We're not currently affected as such by bovine TB in Scotland. However, if we were to be, this could be a devastating impact to farmers who are already going through a lot of hardship. If we could find some sort of solution to ensuring that we understand a little bit more about this specific aspect, in fact, the response to it was not conclusive. I have concerns about the level of contributors to the consultation. It seems to be quite low, given what I would suggest are far-reaching changes in the regulations. We do have some opportunity. The timescales are very tight, but we do have up to 17 May for a motion to move to a null to be heard, which would give us the opportunity to write with some of the questions that you raise, potentially ask a minister or some officials to a meeting next Wednesday to explore this a little bit further before taking the decision on how we move forward. Everybody agreed that we write and request a minister or an official to answer some of those questions a meeting next week. I am not here as often as I can. Can I just clarify? Do we need a minister or an official and if this is religious to clarify the information so that we can proceed to make a better informed decision? Ideally, we would have a minister or a cabinet secretary, because some of those decisions may be political and officials may not wish to stay in the position. Ideally, the best solution would be to have the cabinet secretary, but failing that, I think that officials would go some way to answer the questions. Christine Grahame? Yes, thank you. I think that it's a bit unfair if it's just an official. Obviously, if anything quasi-political came up, they're in an invidious position, so maybe it's up to the Government to send somebody, we know. If they've not got a cabinet secretary, then the minister. Obviously, if they're accompanied by official, good and well. OK, Jim Fairlie. I'm not quite sure where the political side of this would come in. The country has generally agreed that it were TV-free, there may be issues with certain reactors. I'm not sure where the politics of this would come in. As long as we've got clarification of what the purpose is behind this and that everything has been looked at, I'm not sure there's any politics to worry about. I think that politics is obviously referring to politics with a small P and it could be the decision to reduce compensation by 95 per cent or 45 per cent. That would be a decision that a minister of a cabinet secretary would make rather than a civil servant. I think that we're talking about politics with a small P rather than just purely act on scientific evidence. It's a decision that a minister would make. Rachel Hamilton? Convener, I welcome your understanding over this and the understanding of my colleagues as well. I think that your suggestion is great. If we could make sure that we can get this through, whether it's minister or otherwise, I think that that's the biggest point here, is the urgency of this and that we have the opportunity to consider it as a committee. I have no idea what the minister's diaries are. I agree, ideally, a minister, but I really think that we should keep our minds open to the possibility that it's unofficial at this very short notice, given that much of it is technical information that we're looking for. I agree. We're all content that we were right with some questions, but we'll invite, preferably, a minister or a cabinet secretary to attend a meeting next week, if not, we would look to an official Christine. I'm presuming that we'll have no of what was, well, we better send them, no, because it was in private. No, the queries that have been raised would be quite good useful in advance to send to the Government if that would be appropriate to circulate to the committee. Again, it's a matter of the Government, committees of priority. There may have to be, and I say this with a lot of inverted commas around it, a political decision at the end of the evidence session about what they do or do not with that regulation. I'm just not happy that it would just be unofficial. I think that perhaps, I listened, I've not been part of the original stuff of the queries that were raised by members around this table if they were circulating and then sent to the Government saying, these are the problems that we have, it would be a brief session but we would like clarity and so on. I think that we're all in agreement. There's no doubt that it's down in the cabinet secretary's ministers to ultimately make the decisions on legislation and their best place to answer why certain decisions have been taken. The meeting would be in public but I'm feeling as if everybody agrees that we're right to ask for a minister of cabinet secretary to attend but failing that, an official could answer some of the questions. Okay. Any comments on the bee disease and pest control Scotland amendments order 2023? Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener. I think that we all agree about the importance of protecting native bee populations but I just would have liked a bit more clarity in the policy objectives. It says that the instrument is considered a more effective tool. I would like a bit more understanding of the reasoning behind that and also referencing enforcement by authorised persons. I would like a bit more detail on who those authorised persons might be. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? No? Okay. We do have more time on the bee legislation. So, if you're in agreement, we'll write with the queries that Beatrice Wishart has raised. I hope that we'll get a response and then revisit this SSI at a future meeting. Okay. Any other comments on the notifications? No. Okay. I'll briefly suspend this meeting until I the changeover of witnesses. Thank you. And our next item of business this morning is an evidence session on salmon farming in Scotland. I welcome to the meeting Mary Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. Jill Barber, the head of aquaculture development and Malcolm Pentland, the deputy director and lead for marine economy and communities from the Scottish Government. I also welcome, I'd lost you. Edward Mountain, MSP who's attending for this agenda item. Edward Mountain. Thank you, convener. I'd like to thank you and the committee for allowing me to attend. Before we start this session, I believe it's important that I make a reference to my register of interest. I would like everyone to be aware in my register of interest that I am a co-owner of a wild salmon fishery on the river Spay, thus making on the east coast of Scotland. And as such, I've been managing inshore fisheries for over 40 years. The migration routes for smolts leaving the river and salmon returning to the river Spay are along the east coast of Scotland, where there is no significant salmon farming that could affect those fish. Thus, I don't believe that salmon farming has any impact on my register of interest as a salmon fishing proprietor, but I'm keen that everyone is aware and I want to be open and transparent about those interests, convener. Thank you, Edward. We have up until approximately 11.30 for questions and discussion, but I'll firstly start and ask the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. I would, convener. Thank you very much and thanks to the committee members for inviting me to provide you with an update on the progress of our aquaculture commitments, as well as outlining our ambitions for Scottish aquaculture. I was happy to provide an update in advance of the meeting today on the 2017-2018 parliamentary inquiry recommendations. I hope that the committee members found that helpful alongside the broader update that was provided. I look forward to answering the committee's questions today. Aquaculture is, of course, a key component of Scotland's blue economy, with farm salmon, the leading food export in Scotland and, indeed, the UK. The sector is of vital importance to many of our rural and coastal communities and has much to offer through the provision of healthy food, food security, skilled jobs, apprenticeships and training programmes, as an example. In recognition of the sector's importance, we have a broad agenda on which we are trying to really create momentum. We continue to make progress to deliver on sea-lice interactions, a programme for government and bute house agreement commitment, and a key component of our response to the inquiries. SEPA is also preparing to launch a second consultation on its more detailed proposals for a new sea-lice risk assessment framework, which provides a further opportunity for stakeholders to input their views on this really important matter. We are making good progress to review and reform aquaculture regulation following the independent review of aquaculture consenting, delivered by Professor Russell Greggs. The Scottish Aquaculture Council, which I set up in response to the review last year, is advising on delivery of all of our commitments to ensure that the sector is supported, innovative and operates within environmental limits and social licence. The council has met three times so far. Most recently, just last week, where we heard from Professor Maggie Gill, she is the chair of the Scottish Science Advisory Council following their independent review into the use of science and evidence in aquaculture consenting and the sustainable development of Scottish aquaculture. That review was carried out at my request in response to the issues of science that were raised by Professor Greggs. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Council's report has been published, and I would like to record my thanks to Professor Gill and her team for their detailed consideration. In parallel, a collaborative consenting task group has been established to take forward and pilot key recommendations from last year's independent review of aquaculture consenting. A key element of this work will be to ensure the improvement and streamlining of the administration of the consenting process while maintaining those high environmental standards. The working group is working to begin trials of a new process later this summer. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the organisations that have committed to this group, as well as for their enthusiasm towards exploring new processes and providing the resource for that. We all have the shared objective of ensuring that the consenting system is as effective as it possibly can be. The sector can only be a truly sustainable success story though if economic growth goes hand in hand with positive outcomes for Scotland's communities and Scotland's natural environment. Our vision for sustainable aquaculture is being developed to align with and to contribute to the outcomes in the blue economy vision, and it will have an enhanced emphasis on environmental protection and community benefit. I am pleased that the Scottish Government's vision for sustainable aquaculture is in its final stages of development, and I look forward to being able to share a copy of that with the committee. That is it from me in terms of an opening statement, and I look forward to hearing the committee's questions. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. It was 2018 when the Acclair and the Affairs Committee undertook the investigation into the impacts of aquaculture. I remember clearly and it might have been even made that quoted, that the status quo is not an option. We are now quite some time down the road from there. The whole range of questions that we have today is probably on whether we still have the status quo from five years ago and anything has really changed. What I would like to touch on specifically in my question is what efforts have been made to address the issues around farm fish waste on the environment and particularly on the seabed. Where have we changed? What improvements have been made on seabed waste? What are the challenges ahead as we look to increase the output from aquaculture? I would just like to touch on your initial point first about the status quo not being an option. I know that that came out clearly from the committee's inquiries, and I think that it is something that we would agree with and I think that industry and others would agree with as well. I think that that also came out quite clearly through Professor Russell Griggs's report into aquaculture. I would like to think from the 65 recommendations that had been set out from those inquiries, I hope that from the information that I have set out against each of those recommendations that I provided with the committee, you can see that of course some actions are still under way. I am not saying that we have by any means solved all the problems or the issues that were raised, but we have made significant process in the time of those inquiries as well. Part of that work has been in relation to what SEPA have been doing as well, the implementation of their fin fish framework, which has been taken forward in stages, which has really worked and has consolidated them as the key regulator for the environment. In relation to some of the issues that you have talked about there, we have seen the transfer of responsibility to SEPA throughout that period of time and since they have first established that framework. Have you seen improvements in, as there has been a reduction in fish farm waste, have you seen that reduction take place over the last five years, and if not, what are the challenges to that becoming a reality? Talking about specifics, have we seen an improvement? That is what I am coming to, but it is important to outline the position that we are at in relation to that framework, because I think that it sets the context in which the progress has been made in relation to that. They have assumed the authorisation and responsibility for the residue treatment discharge from Wellbow, which is transferred from Marine Scotland to SEPA. There are also other areas that are in the process of being transferred to SEPA as well, so that they are looking at the cumulative impact of all the different issues within our marine environment. I would say that there have been improvements in that regard, but I do not know if officials would want to come in in relation to some of the specifics there. Specifically with regard to sea bed waste, the new SEPA fin fish framework that has been implemented in phases introduced a new tighter sea bed standard. It had enhanced predictive modelling, and it needs enhanced monitoring alongside it as well. SEPA is well through implementing that framework with a lot of farms operating to the new tighter sea bed standards. Is that returning any results now, or when do we expect to see improvements? The farms that are on the new standards are already having to operate to them, and some of the other ones are being implemented into phases, but it is not just the sea bed standard that is being monitored. We have also got a environmental quality standard for Emma Meckton Benzway out at the moment, for example, so that is something else that is starting to control or increase control on waste going to the sea bed. SEPA is working on a new compliance assessment scheme to go alongside its new frameworks so that people can see the progress that is being made, but also if they are meeting their sustainability criteria. Arran Burgess. The responses to your questions were answered by my questions. Thank you very much, convener. I am just looking for something in the Maggie Gill report. It was recommendations for the Scottish Government. It says, in point 2, that it is aquaculture as for land-based food production is an industry that has environmental impacts and is susceptible to climate change. SEPA or another part of the Scottish Government is who consider commissioning independent horizon scanning synthesis of the international literature to give advanced warning of where regulations may need to change. You have just started to talk about what the sea bed compliance has been. What general improvements have you seen from the non-compliance of agricultural regulations and what is the difference between the 2019 revised aquacultural regulatory framework made in that regard? Touching on the points that you have raised, we have received the Scottish Science Advisory Council reports that we are considering the recommendations and how we respond to that at the moment. We had quite a detailed discussion on that at the last meeting of the Scottish Aquaculture Council last week, which was of course very helpful in that consideration. In terms of what you are talking about in looking ahead at climate change, I think that that is where it is really important that the frameworks that we have in place are adaptive. We are able to look ahead and ensure that we have the mechanisms in place that are flexible to the challenges that we might meet in the future. I think that that is also where the farmed fish health framework is also important in that regard, because that has been a key strand of their work and is looking at the challenges presented by climate change as well. There are a few strands of work that feed into that, because we know that there are going to be more challenges in the future, so it is important that we have the capacity and capability to deal with those. Is there effectively future proofing in that? As much as it is possible to do that, and ensuring that we have that flexibility there to deal with the challenges that we face. Of course, by the work that I outlined in my first response about the SEPA overall, the fin fish framework, and the changes and the different phases of work that are being taken forward there by consolidating SEPAs, the overall environmental regulator, I think that it significantly helps in that process. Beatrice Wishart SEPA is obviously the key regulator here. You previously stated that SEPA is fully engaged with the Scottish Government regarding the implementation of the GRIG's review recommendations. How would you characterise or indicate how your working relationship is with SEPA? Sorry, the Government's relationship with SEPA is a body that is ultimately answerable to the Scottish Government. I think that we have a positive working relationship, and I think that that is where the work that we are taking forward through the Scottish Aquaculture Council is really important, because it brings together all the key stakeholders, whether that is industry, environmental organisations, the key regulatory bodies that are involved in aquaculture in Scotland, and really trying to facilitate those wider discussions. Last week, we had a meeting where we discussed, and we went into more detail about the science report that we had received in some of those recommendations. Of course, we do have positive relationships there. Good morning. In the Butehas agreement, there is a commitment to strengthen the regulatory framework around farm, salmon and escapee incidents. It is reassuring that that includes introducing proportionate penalties for escapees, which, of course, put our wild salmon and other marine life at risk. Currently, the revenue raise from that goes to support wild salmoned conservation and research, which is important. However, I would be interested to hear if the Government would consider giving all of it to the regulating bodies to improve enforcement of regulations, given the high rates of non-compliance by salmon farming companies and the current reliance on self-reporting. That would be in relation to penalty fees that we receive for escapes. I think that we have already made commitments in that regard as to what we would look to do with any increase in penalties. There is still work that is on-going in relation to that, and we have also outlined some of the work that we need to do in our implementation plan for the wild salmon strategy, which we published earlier this year. I think that what we had said initially was that we would be looking to potentially ring fence any monies that are received from that in relation to looking at how we can support research into wild salmon and work that needs to be taken forward there. Of course, that work still needs to be undertaken, so we have not made any firm decisions yet in relation to that. I think that what I am getting at is that there is a situation where there is a problem around non-compliance and the fact that the industry self-reports. I also understand that there are budget challenges, so if we can raise revenue from somewhere—in this case, it seems to me that if we brought in proportional penalties, it would be great that it then went to supporting our enforcement of the sector. I understand that conservation and research is equally important, but we also need to start, given the situation in the salmon farming industry, to be stronger and more robust in how we regulate it. I think that if the committee is intended to do more work in relation to that and teasing out some of those issues in more detail, it will have particular areas or thoughts in relation to that more than happy to consider it. As I say, we are undertaking that work, so we still need to do that in relation to penalties. Of course, we need to do that in the context of what we have said we would do, and that would feature in any of the discussions that we have on that in the future. I want to pick up on that or to amplify that. Obviously, industry has a role when it comes to compliance too, whether it is on escapees or anything else, so without minimising the role of Government and legislation here, do you have any kind of picture of whether the picture is improving with regard to the effort that industry makes around compliance? Absolutely. I think that we have seen that through the voluntary reporting of data that we have seen as well. Obviously, we have some regulatory and mandatory requirements that we have of industry, but I think that mortality is an example where the industry has voluntarily published that information by the percentage and cause of mortality as well. I am sure that officials will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that they are looking at their community engagement and their own code of practice around that and how they can better do that. I would think that, while I have outlined some of the action that we have taken in relation to just that overall holistic picture and trying to consider all the various issues in the round, and I have talked about the role of SEPA within that and the role of regulation, I think that industry is making those changes too by the various voluntary information that they are providing. We do collect all that information too. We have the Scottish Aquaculture website as an example of that where we try to pull all that information together. Just to add in, I think that I said in response to the first question that SEPA has introduced additional monitoring on farms. Ministers have approved increases to the fees that SEPA are charging alongside the implementation of that framework to make sure that it is cost recovery and that the inspections are taking place. I think that we can ask SEPA to see if we can get some information on what the new data is looking like under the new regime. Thank you, convener. Two questions. First one on the waste. One thing that has been clear in the industry is the use of antibiotics since 2017 has gone up by 168 per cent, which are mainly used at sea. Are you comfortable that the industry is using such a high level of antibiotics at sea and that one of those antibiotics, oxytetracycline, is one of the main ones that are used to treat human diseases and, therefore, building up the risk of antibiotic danger of overuse? Are you concerned by that? I think that, in relation to the use of that, Jill touched on earlier the work that is on-going in the consultation that we have at the moment in relation to imamectin benzoate and the use of that. Obviously, anything that is used has to be done within the environmental limits and standards that we have in place. I think that that is where the work of the Farmed Fish Health Framework has been really important. That is a group chaired by the chief vet where treatments are a theme of work within that. I think that if the committee would like more detail on the work that they are undertaking in relation to that, I would be happy to provide that. I am concerned that a 168 per cent increase suggests that there are problems with fish health and that we are just using more antibiotics to cover it up, which could be a detriment of our need for antibiotics. I will maybe leave that hanging when we go on to the next question that was in the rec committee report, which I was part of. It says that sepa was neither adequate nor effective. You have made comments in the charts to recommendations 62, 63, 64 and 65, which cover sepa. None of which covers the real problem that identified by the rec committee was that sepa is not carrying out enough inspections and particularly unannounced inspections. Do you have any evidence that, since the rec committee report was published, sepa has carried out more inspections and whether more of those are unannounced so that fish farms are not prepared for their visits? In relation to the inspection rate, again, I do not have that information to hand or I do not know if that information that officials would have, but I would be happy to provide that information to you and to the committee as well. I just want to pick up on mortality rates because you mentioned it and it is connected part of what Edward is saying about the antibiotics. What is the percentage of mortality over what kind of period of time? Can we just move on from that and then I will bring you in later because we are actually going to touch on mortality and there are a few questions. There is one of mine anyway, but I just thought that because we are already on it. We will come back to that. Just before we move on, I was lucky enough to visit some salmon businesses in North America in April. It would appear that the Faroe Islands salmon is the premium product because it is seen as being produced in a more sustainable and environmentally friendly way. Norwegian salmon also appears to take the lead ahead of Scottish salmon. Scottish salmon seems to be in third place. Do we need to increase regulation? At the moment, it seems to be that Scotland is in the attractive place to have an aquaculture business because the regulations are more lax than the Faroe Islands are in Norway. What is your perspective of where Scotland is when it comes to regulations and producing the highest quality product? I obviously want us to be producing the highest quality product in Scotland, but I would disagree with that assertion that we are somehow more relaxed in our regulation. I think that there are certainly improvements that we can make to that process, which is why we are undertaking that programme of work that we have set out, that we have the consenting task force to try and streamline that process. We are not about deregulating here. We want to make sure that our regulation system, our consenting processes are efficient, effective and transparent. However, I do not think that it is a fair comparison to say that we would be sitting below the Faroe Islands and below Norway when it comes to our regulation. I would likewise view our product as world class, although there are no difficulties about saying that. On the subject of regulation, as well as being stringent, it has to be workable. I wonder if you can say any more about how the Government is responding to what Greg recommended in that respect. At the minute, we have multiple application processes with Crown Estate, Government, SEPA and local authorities. Greg seems to be asking for a single process and a single document. Can you say anything more about what the Government is doing to respond to all that? That is where that really feeds into the work that I mentioned in my opening comments about the consenting task group and the pilot projects that they will be looking to take forward, because you are right. There are numerous different processes and numerous different bodies involved in that from Marine Scotland to Crown Estate, local authorities and SEPA. We know that there are improvements that can be made to that process. I think that when Greg has given evidence to the committee, he talked about, was that perhaps in Norway where they have almost a one-stop shop or one person that takes the application and goes to the other bodies. I think that what we are looking at doing here and what we are looking to pilot through the consenting task group is that multilateral engagement right at the start of the process. That involves that community engagement as well as all the bodies that would be involved in that. They are really keen to take that work forward and pilot it with an application at some point. I do not know if Malcolm can give a bit more of a detail and a bit more of an update in relation to the work that they are taking forward. The consenting task group that the cabinet secretary mentioned is making good progress on that front in developing this co-ordinated consenting process with that single consenting document informed by that multilateral pre-application discussion, which I know Professor Griggs highlighted the importance of when he spoke to you in the summer. That group is effectively developing a new blueprint for managing agriculture applications that allows the existing SIPA car permit and the local authority planning process to run side by side rather than sequentially. The consenting task group and the advisory group of the supports that I have met recently have been supportive of where that has got to. The next step between now and really the end of June is to take that blueprint and turn it into a more detailed draft management framework. At the same time, industry colleagues who are involved in that are looking to identify sites where that can then be trialled and the intention would be to begin live trialling in early July. Can you explain a bit more about the blueprint? The idea of the one-stop shop, is that still going to be possible or are applications going to have to be multi-layered? The group at the moment is looking at what can be done within the existing legislative framework. That is really where Russell Griggs has been very helpful and has been involved in advising this group's work. It is really that sort of streamlining of the processes that run side by side and that any kind of problems are identified right at the outset rather than the individual parties going down their individual processes. As I said, there has been real progress in that in terms of the stakeholders that we have brought them all together. Professor Griggs has reported and highlighted that there were some real difficulties with relationships and trust. We have those stakeholders coming together and all talking about their perspective on the process, the challenges that they face and, importantly, thinking about how to come up with solutions together. Over the course of nine months, there has been a change where we have participants that are referring to the kind of positive camaraderie within that group where we have SEPA, local authority planners, Government and industry. The timescale, if you could just clarify that. The intention would be to start some live trialling at the start of July. And where would that lead at? What is the sort of timescale after that? I think that we would be looking towards the end of the calendar year for the kind of outcome of how those trials have gone and a sort of assessment of what has worked and what might not have. Emma Harper I think that my questions have been covered. I know that the GIL report is a new report that has only just been released, but she does highlight what Griggs said about the creation of a central science evidence base. Is that what you were talking about when you were talking about the blueprint of bringing people together or is that a separate part of the report? That is actually a separate strand of the work in response to the Griggs review, but we are prioritising both those aspects at the same time. They are running it in parallel and they may well come together as we. The reason for me asking that is that there are concerns that are about the sighting of new fish farms. Given the fact that salmon is the largest fresh food export from the UK bar and nothing, it accounts for about £362 million of GVA to the Scottish economy alone, and it employs 2,391 people in the most rural and remote areas. It is a hugely valuable industry to us. We want to make sure that it is an industry that can go forward and continue to thrive. What are the Scottish Government doing to address the concerns about the sighting of those new farms and is there a need for that central scientific evidence that is trusted by all in order to be able to allow the sighting of new farms? In relation to the science, I would say that the report that we had from the Scottish Science Advisory Council really highlights some of the intrinsic problems that there are with that and how different science can be used by different people. That is where we really need to give that consideration to some of the issues. I think that what can probably help us to find a way through that is obviously that we have to consider those recommendations that we have received about how we communicate that, which is exactly why we asked the advisory council for their report as well. I think that a lot of that will also be helped by the work that is being taken to the consenting task group and what they are trying to do and that multilateral engagement right at the start of the process, as well as all the other pieces of work that we have touched on this morning as well. We have SIPA, who are looking to introduce the new sea lice framework as well, looking at the impacts on the marine environment holistically through their own framework. I think that it is all those strands of work that are important in addressing that point. I will reiterate that aquaculture is a massive part of our economy, and it is absolutely vital that we allow it to continue. From my understanding of it—and it is quite limited, I have to be honest—there are disparate bodies who all have different views about whether or not this is a good thing or not. I think that it is important that we understand that it is really important to our economy, it is really important to our rural jobs and that it is something that we have to nurture, but find the right way to do it. If we go back to what the convener was saying, if we are sitting third, we want to be first, it is just how are we going to be that first place with the volume increasing of what it is that we can produce in this country? That is probably more a comment than a question. Just before we come to the end of this section, I absolutely believe that ScotSaman is the best salmon in the world, and we have one of the best export products. What role does the Scottish Government have to ensure that those who are opposed to aquaculture and the companies that are involved in aquaculture can come closer together? It is quite a polarised argument at the moment, but there are some fantastic advances being made by aquaculture companies on rearing fish on shore for a longer period, which means that the reliance and antibiotics when they get into our fantastic Scottish Seas, which then gives ScotSaman that unique flavour and quality. It is the Scottish Seas, it is the water around our coast that plays the biggest part in producing a world-class product. What role does it have in ensuring that that message gets out there and that it works with aquaculture and communities to make sure that that polarised argument is addressed? It is a really important role, and I would just come back to affirm that I absolutely agree with the points that Jim Fairlie had made about the importance of the sector and your own comments, convener, in relation to that. I think that we do have a world-class product, and I think that that is widely recognised, but we have also got to make sure that industry operates within the environmental limits. We want to see that greater social licence as well, which is why the work that will be taken forward in our vision is critical to that. That is where some of the recommendations that came out through the Science Advisory Council report are quite important. It talks about the communication of some of the work that is happening and the potential improvements that could be made with that. Of course, we want to give our full consideration to the recommendations that are there, and we very much take that work seriously. I think that some of the issues can be about the science, how it is communicated, how we get that through and how we can better work with communities. It is how all those different strands of work come together. The consenting task group has a key role in that, because it is about involving communities in that as well, not just industry and not just regulators, but even just the work that we are taking through the Scottish Aquaculture Council. I think that it is important to bring all the different voices around the table together so that we can really start to talk through and find a way through some of the difficult issues that we know where we might face. Cabinet Secretary, I am not sure whether it is your policy decision or the collective decision in the Scottish Government, but it was decided that lowering the level of sea lice before intervention was mandatory from six to four, and one of the reasons given was that it could contradict a vet's view on the best option for the health and welfare of farm salmon. I would like you to explain when it would not be in the salmon's interests to deal with the sea lice, and you are committed to reviewing the decision in the future. I hope that I made my reasons for that clear in my response to the committee. It is by no means that we have said that we are not proceeding with it at all, but because of some of the work that I have outlined today, it is a more pragmatic approach for us to consider that and let that work bed in before we then look to potentially implement that. One of the key pieces of work that is going on at the moment is the SEPA's sea lice framework, so there is due to be another consultation around the impact of that. That is also on the back of a consultation that had been held last year. That framework will potentially have an impact on average sea lice numbers that could be permitted, so I think that it is important that we work through that work, we let that piece of work complete before we then look at revisiting that decision. I hope that it is also clear from my report that the levels are largely below the minimum thresholds that we have anyway. It is for those reasons that we decided at this point in time not to proceed with that, but by all means we will continue to keep that under consideration as that new framework bed is in and we see how that is operating. I cannot give a more definitive timescale on that at the moment, because we are due to have the consultation. I cannot say a precise date when the framework will be in place, because we need to go through those processes first. The average would be around about four and a half right now in Scotland in terms of sea lice, I would say. I do not know if you have any different figures, but what is your ambition? Again, we want to see as few as possible. We have the minimum thresholds that are set out there at the moment, and I have already said that we would be keeping that under review. Industry has to report those numbers. There is a mandatory requirement for that, and they are posted a week in a rears. As I highlighted in my previous response to you, they are already below the minimum thresholds that we have set out there. I think that the work that we are taking forward through the sea lice framework is going to be really critical in relation to that. We really need to see that framework in bed and then consider at that point whether it is appropriate to lower those thresholds and to continue that and take it forward. It sounds as though you are quite confident with regard to the verification process of the reporting. What is in place to ensure that there are checks and verification on those particular figures? That is a mandatory requirement for industry to publish those figures. We have the fish health inspectorate and their role in relation to that, so they have a role for auditing that information as well. They also undertake inspections in relation to that. This is something that we do inspect, we do audit and we do a check. Is there any point within the life cycle of the salmon to the finishing product that would alert you to any loopholes within reporting of sea lice? As I said, I have not been alerted to any potential loopholes that exist there. Again, we have the role of the fish health inspectorate and the inspections and monitoring that they undertake. I do not know if you have any further information in relation to that. You started off by asking a question about why you might not want to treat fish when they have a higher level of sea lice when you might like. Large-farm salmon can handle a number of adult lice. If they have other things going on with them, you might not want to be treating them because it causes them stress and it can cause mortality, so that is the sort of decision that might be taken not to immediately treat the sea lice. Another thing when you are talking about when you might not be reporting sea lice is that if you are treating and you are treating with chemicals, you cannot then use certain chemicals to count the fish. Ms Gougeon has outlined that the fish health inspectorate audits those reports. There can be some small gaps in the data, but it is important to point out that SEPA is looking at monitoring and purporting of that as well. I think that there are some really good technologies coming about automatic counting that is starting to be trialled so that things like whether you can treat fish when they fall asleep do not start to matter so much so that you can always have a constant lice count on the farm. I am presuming that you are talking about the withdrawal period before the sale. Would you rather that somebody else covered the mortality? I think that we are going to move on to that. I do have a supplementary on the sea lice, so we are seeing in some businesses a move to incubate or grow small for a longer period on contained units on shore. The reason for doing that is that you get a larger fish going into the sea cages, which means that the impact of sea lice on that individual fish is not so big, so you have said that a larger fish, a healthier fish, can handle five sea lice or six or seven without any significant adverse impact. What calculation is done on the overall load of sea lice in those cages and what consideration is given to that? We may not have to treat them with ivermectin or whatever, but it might mean that there is a far heavier load of sea lice in the sea. Is that a consideration when you look at minimum and maximum levels of sea lice? At the moment, the farm fish health regime is looking at promotion of the farm fish health, but what is important about the SIPA framework that is under development is that it is looking at levels of sea lice to protect the environment, so both the average number of sea lice and how much is being emitted, but also, very importantly, environmental conditions around the salmon populations. That is why the decision to pause looking at the farm fish health framework and making changes there was made because the levels of sea lice that are appropriate for the environment are being assessed under the SIPA modelling framework at the moment. I have got Jim Fairlain then, Christine Grahame. Something that, and I am going to move on to the mortality which follows on from this, but it is a quote from Professor Griggs on his review just published in February. It says, throughout the evidence gathering stage of this review, a lot of what I have heard and seen resonates with other reviews of the type that I have carried out. However, in all the reviews that I have conducted over the years, there are two characteristics that I have never come across before, namely, that is a significant quote. All the people and organisations that I have met with or had input from think that the current regulatory system for aquaculture is not fit for purpose. There are a lot of reviews, and that seems to have taken them back. It is quite a shocking statement, which takes me on to mortality. I am interested in the welfare of the animals. This is farm, factory farming of fish. What is the mortality rate, the most recent figures for mortality rate for salmon fishing? I am talking about fin fish. Can vary between 15 and 25 per cent. So you say that it has been 50. Who provides these data to you? Well, the industry publish the mortality rates by percentage in cause. That is not mandatory, but they do have a mandatory requirement to record the information on mortalities. Who are these industries? I am this new game to be understanding that major international companies are actually in this world. Who are these companies, which is not really a small business now? They are major international companies. Who are they? If you could name them for me, I do not know who they are. Well, some of the key industries that we have. Yes, the key industries that are international that do factory farming, the salmon farming in Scotland, who are they? Oh, we have Maui, Bakkerfrost, the Scottish Seafarms. So they are the companies that are actually monitoring themselves and providing the data. They may have a mandatory obligation in law, but they actually are not independently assessed as to whether this data is correct. Yes, there is the role of the fish health inspectorate in relation to that, who would be undertaking inspections and ensuring that the information that is provided is accurate and correct. We take it to the maximum at 25 per cent. How is that checked? I am trying to look at how that is verified independently, because self-regulation is not too happy about that. How is it done? Do the figures come in and the fish inspectorate go well? I think that we should go and check all the stuff on site, or do they simply check the data? How do they do it? Yes. Gill, you can talk through the process of the fish health inspectorate in their role. Yes, so just to be clear in the mortality reporting figures, some of those are collected through Scottish Government official statistics about how many fish survive to harvest, and that is the most accurate and best record that we have going back to 2002 of overall survival of fish. Over and above that, fish farms will have to staturally record fish farm mortality and keep records, and those records are inspected every time the fish health inspectorate is on farm. On top of those measures, we then introduce the voluntary reporting thresholds, which find far and large that everybody does and meets, because it is independently audited to do a good practice. If the fish health inspectorate gets a notification of mortality, they will review all that information and speak to the farmer, and they will take a decision on whether they need to do an inspection, which quite a lot of the time they do. So it is the records that are inspected? No, they inspect the fish every time they are on site as well, to make sure that what they are seeing tallys up with the records. Yes, but we are looking at getting actual data, and you can go on and say, you know, well the fish today is not too bad, and I have seen sea lice, and it is horrible, it can do horrible things to the fish. How do you know the figures are right to what I am getting at? To me, this is what I am trying to do. This is very important. That is a big, that is a quarter loss of stock that you are giving me as you are 15 to 25 per cent. So you will have movement records on to the farm, and you will have movement records off to the farm, and you will have mortality records, and also when the well boats are being used on farm, they have got fish counters, everything is counted, and anything is moved. So you can look across records to know how many fish have been put on to the farm, how many mortalities there are. So that is well audited, if there is something that is jumping out of the fish health inspectorate, it will see that. So as a final point, and now others might want to come in, are you content then at a 20, say I accept a 25 per cent, and mothers may or may not, as the case may be, are you content with that in terms of animal welfare, that figure? I don't think we'd be content with that, I don't think anybody would be content with that if you're looking at a figure that way. I mean obviously we want the mortality levels to be at the absolute lowest possible level. Now there can be a variety of factors that can impact on that through the cycle, but of course it's not something we would be content with and we would want that to be the absolute lowest level. And my next question is how, how do you reduce that? It's through again, through some of the different pieces of work that we're taking forward, so a key strand of work for the farm fish health framework that's being taken forward through there is work on mental mortalities. They've, I think, broadly categorised that under 10 categories. Some years we can see higher rates than others because of different pressures, so I think over the course of the, the past year they've been seen more gill damage from micro jellyfish. It's too early to say if that's a trend. We work with the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre, well through the Farmed Fish Health Framework. They've been doing work, I believe, in relation to harmful algal blooms as well, so it's really trying to, well I think a big step forward has been in standardising the data that we're able to put forward and publish in relation to mortalities. But again, for some of these issues there's not a quick or easy fix and it does require more work to be undertaken. And it's about identifying what needs to be done and where potential challenges might be in the future. And of course Professor Griggs asks for independent scientific evidence. Is one of his calls, are you pursuing that? Yes. Again, we've touched on already to do the Science Advisory Council report and the recommendations that they've provided us through that that we're given consideration to. And we asked for that review specifically because of the science recommendations that were in Greg's review. Thank you. Edward Mountain and then Jim Fairlie. Okay, if I can put some of the flesh on those figures that Christine Gaim was referring to just to help you minister. In 2016 there were 22,000 tonnes of salmon that died in fish farms. In 2021 that had risen by 35% to nearly 30,000 tonnes of fish that had died in fish farms. That, if you put on lorries, nose to tail, touching each other, would stretch nearly 11 miles of articulated lorries of dead fish. Now the committee under recommendation nine said that the mortalities were too high and made some recommendations in the report. Now I've looked at the information you've provided this committee and I don't see any of that being taken on board. I, the suggestion was from the industry that you move fish farms further offshore to prevent gill disease and infections. You don't allow any farms to continue where there is high mortality, where they are still continuing. And there was a consideration of going to a red amber and green system as far as the farms that were performing and not performing. Ie, if they got to amber they would have to reduce their production and if they got to red they would have to cease it. Do you not think that those were wise recommendations by the committee to protect the industry from itself and are you going to push them forward, cabinet secretary? Of course, I think that from the committee inquiries we take all those recommendations seriously and again we have made significant progress against a lot of the recommendations that have been set out there. I mean, as I outlined in my previous response to Christine Grahame, there can be a variety of different reasons that lead to that. I think that we're not content with the figures. I don't think that industry would be content with the figures either, which is why the work that we're undertaking here in relation to that is important in trying to tackle some of those issues too. But what you're saying is that you're content to let the mortalities increase by 35 per cent. Now the industry will tell you that they're producing more fish and therefore that accounts for more mortalities. But compounding an error surely is not the way forward. I don't understand any industry that would accept a 25 per cent mortality. I understand, cabinet secretary, with farming there is a certain amount of mortality but 25 per cent, are you really happy with that? Do you think it's good for the environment around our coastlines and do you think it's good for the industry? I've already responded to that in Christine Grahame's point. I mean, I don't agree with that. I'm not content with that figure. We want to see mortalities at their lowest possible level and I would like to think that I've made that clear to the committee today, which is why this work is important. Now you talk about the jump there. When we look at the averages, the number has stayed, I think, a relatively constant over the course of the past five years. I mentioned a specific example there, which we believe may have led to an increase in mortalities over the course of the past year, which is why that needs to be investigated. I think that that's why the pieces of work that we're doing are so critically important in trying to address that. To be absolutely crystal clear, we want to see those levels at the absolute lowest possible level. We're not content with the current position. I don't think that industry would be either, which is why we've got to tackle those challenges. It remains stubbornly high and over five years it hasn't reduced. That means the status quo to me. I just want to get some perspective here. The survival rate for wild Atlantic salmon is somewhere between 1 and 3 per cent and for farmed salmon is about 85 per cent, roughly. There will be extenuating factors, there will be extraordinary occurrences, like you mentioned jellyfish, algal bloom, stuff like that. The numbers of fish the Edward Mountain has just quoted there. My question is quite an odd one. What do they do with the dead fish? Does anybody know? That's set out in regulations and they need to be disposed of in a certain way. I don't know if Jillian can give a bit more information on that as well. Probably another important point to talk about as well is how some of those figures are recorded. Some of the mortalities we see, it's not necessarily an indictment or reflective of the husbandry of those animals and that also includes things like suboptimal ova that you get as well. Sorry, Jillian, I'll hand over to you. We know that. Depending on how the mortality occurs, we'll determine what it can be used for. Some fish will have to be destroyed in line with animal by-products legislation, but if you, for example, have your processing fish and you've got extra waste, you can use that as part of circular economy and do other things, turn it into fish, meal, fish oil. I'll pick up on the points about mortality and some of the figures that were reported in the media. Those are weights and I think that the best statistic to look at is the Scottish Government official statistics that has the percentage for survival over the years because that has the long-standing data set and it's not just looking at changes in weights from quarter to quarter, which can look like it's going up and down lots, but actually it can be for a variety of reasons. I think that the discussion on mortality is really challenging. There's a bit about fish being efficiently farmed and it's a smaller animal, so it's not like a mammal that has one offspring to look after. It actually lays lots of eggs to try and make sure that some of them survive, so it's quite challenging to compare mortality figures between different species, but I think we can all just agree that they should be as low as possible. While I accept that it will be as low as possible, as the byproduct of that, and I hate to sound callous to people who are taking this as a sentient type of thing, but the byproduct of that is surely there's an opportunity to turn that into fish fertilizer, other products, it becomes part of the process. Now we don't want to see mortality, I see Edward Mountain shaking his head and disgust, but mortality is going to happen because immortality is not an option, and if you're going to have farmed animals, then you're going to get fish that'll die, you're going to get livestock that'll die, it's just part of the process. So the fact that that can then be used in another way is that already happening in the industry? Yes, it is already being used in other ways and it's something we're trying to do more of. As I said, it depends what happens to the fish and what you can use it, but it's certainly something that, for example, the Sustainable Act Culture Innovation Centre is looking to support projects on. Thank you. Just a couple of points, and I'm going to bring Tristan Gray back in. We're talking about 25 million fish or upwards of 25 million fish a year that are dying. Do you think that figure, the 25 per cent, is accurate or is it under reported, given that it's not a statutory requirement to report mortalities? How does that reflect with other aquaculture industries around the globe? Is 25 per cent at an accepted level? Finally, what level of mortality would you find acceptable? I know that we want as low as possible, but given that the Government has been looking at this now for five years, what is your level of mortality that you would find acceptable? Because we understand that there will be mortality. What level is acceptable to the Scottish Government? Again, it's not possible for me to give a definitive figure on that, because we would want that level to be as low as it possibly can be. In relation to some of the figures that you're talking about, it's hard because there are also things that we cannot predict. I talked about what could have been a specific event last year. We don't know if that could become a trend, which then becomes more of an issue. However, I would also want to correct as well that you said that it's not mandatory to report it. Industry must record. It's a mandatory requirement to record mortalities. Again, we talked about the inspection regime and how that information is collected as well through the role of the fish health inspector there, so I would just want to be clear on that point. I don't know if we have those figures elsewhere with industry in other countries that we will be able to do that, or we can provide that at a later point. I would just say that, alongside Norway, we are having potentially small increases in farm fish for mortalities. It's not a Scotland issue, but it's a sector-wide issue. However, generally, if we were to accept that 25 per cent is fairly accurate, you must have a figure in your head that is acceptable, because we are all more or less agreed that 25 per cent mortality rate is unacceptable. That is based on 25 million fish effectively leaving the food chain. What level give or take a few per cent would be an acceptable level? There has got to be a target. Is it 10 per cent? Is it 20 per cent? We have been looking at that for years and years. What is a rough idea of what the mortality rate should be? Again, I would just come back to my previous response. It's not possible for me to give you a definitive figure as to what our mortality rate should be. Giles highlighted there that other people are experiencing similar problems. We want to work to reduce that to the lowest possible level. That is why the work that we are doing through the farm fish health framework and the other strands of work in trying to identify the issues is vitally important in trying to help us to address that. For the status code, it's not acceptable. 25 per cent mortality rate is not acceptable. You must have a rough idea of what that should be. If you are looking at the livestock industry, we know that there is a mortality rate of 10 per cent. We want to improve that. We want it to get into 5 per cent mortality. Surely there is an idea within the framework of a target. There must be a direction of travel to get us to closer to whatever. There must be some indication of what that might be. It is the third time that you have asked me the question, convener. I cannot give you a definitive response to that, but we would want to do what we can to drive that down from its current figure. I think that it's without interest to do that. It's with industries interest to do that too. Christine Grahame Yes. I have to pick up on Jim Faley's comments. They are sentient fish and they do feel pain. It's not a sudden death. I'm not at a heart attack dying. There's a painful process when the fish are dying in these factory farms. My comment would be that if we had 25 per cent mortality in a flock of sheep, 400 sheep would mean you're saying goodbye to 100 of them. I'd put it into some kind of perspective of the dynamics of it. I absolutely support salmon farming in Scotland, but I want to be done with the welfare of the animals at heart as well as producing a good product. Then there are the ancillary matters, which Edward Mouton agreed to. We've become a team accidentally here in that you have the antibiotics that are being put in to combat the conditions that the fish are in that's leading to increase in the lice. In fact, a bad thing of themselves as well. I just want to make that comment in reflecting on what my colleague Jim Faley has said, because I don't find 25 per cent acceptable. If it's a 10 per cent drop-off in livestock, you're saying that there are 400 sheep. We have 40 of them perishing. I can't imagine that that's corrected by a long shot. It leads on to the next question. We're now halfway through the 10-year farm fish framework, which was established in 2018. Can you assess your views, your opinion on its performance to date, and set out what some of the key achievements are? Yes, absolutely. I think I've touched on previous responses throughout the session so far this morning about the work that's been undertaken through the farm fish health framework. You're right. We're five years on from its establishment. There was a refresh in 2020. The group is chaired by the chief vet. It brings together the producers, regulators, innovation centres. We have fish vets who are part of that body as well. At that time, there was a refresh. They looked to refocus their priorities. The key priorities that we're looking to really focus and take forward were on climate change, looking at treatments and trying to address mortalities as well throughout that time. I think that I mentioned in a previous response probably one of the key achievements that's happened within that time is the standardising reporting in mortalities that they've worked on and produced and really bringing forward the 10 overarching categories into which they would fall. There's been work that's being done in partnership with SAIC as well, or that SAIC have been leading on in looking at some of the issues that we know the industry is facing. As an example of that, looking at harmful algal blooms, they're also looking at potential trying to remove the barriers that are for vaccination as well. So there has been a lot of work undertaken, a lot of work that is on-going as part of that as well, but I think that if the committee would like more of a full update in relation to the work that's been undertaken by the firm fish health framework, I'd be happy to provide that. Yeah, I suppose it was just the key achievements. What one or two achievements have we've seen that have resulted in an improvement and the issues that were reported? That we've done in relation to the categorisation, the work that's been taken forward in mortalities as well, and the points that have already been made in relation to that. I don't know if there's further points that officials would want to raise in relation to their work. I think that a big part of Scottish Government's role in that was the review of the sea lice, the firm fish health sea lice policy, and the reduction in the sea lice numbers, and then the introduction of the sea lice reporting legislation as well. Thanks, convener. Good morning to you all. Again, Jill, you just mentioned sea lice, and I'm interested in sea lice interactions with wild salmon population. I've got loads of pages open here because there's lots of work being done by the North Atlantic salmon conservation organisation. The document that I've got in front of me is a Government page document that talks about the impacts of lice from fish farms on wild Scottish sea trout and salmon, and there's lots of scientific information here about the impacts of sea lice on sea trout and wild salmon. There's lots of modelling that's been done, observational and experimental studies, so it's quite comprehensive, I think, that work is being taken forward to look at the impact of sea lice on wild salmon. I'm interested in hearing about what progress has been made to look at how we manage the farmed salmon lice on wild salmon population. There's been a few pieces of work that are undertaken that are relevant in that regard. Obviously, we've talked a bit this morning about the development of the sea lice framework and how that work has been progressing. We'd also had the salmon interactions working group report, our response to that, and I think that this is a key part of addressing some of the recommendations that were put forward in that report. Also, in relation to wild salmon, I would just want to mention at this stage too that we had our wild salmon strategy and a wild salmon implementation plan that was announced earlier this year, which has, I think, across five themes, 60 different recommendations as to how we address the different pressures that affect wild salmon, of which sea lice is one, but we know that there are broadly 12 pressures that have been identified that affect wild salmon populations, but the development and delivery of the sea lice framework is a really critical piece of work. We had a consultation on that last year, and another consultation is due to issues soon in relation to the impacts of the framework and what that might be. It's a risk-based framework, which, again, will look at the cumulative impact of a number of different pressures in the modelling that's used, so I think that that will be a big step forward in addressing some of the issues that we've faced in relation to that. Sorry, I don't know if there's more detail that Gillian Watt wants to add to that point. You talk about the 12 pressures. There's obviously lots of different variables that can impact the health of farm salmon and wild salmon, such as water temperature, and you talk about algae blooms and just loads of different things. Obviously, there is no one solution to help to look at how we manage addressing the issue of sea lice on wild salmon and strengthening the framework or around the regulations. Is there further work that needs to be done to strengthen any regulations? I think that the implementation plan really sets out where that work needs to be taken forward, so looking at pressures to wild salmon in the round. There's a delivery group that's been set up to oversee that work and the delivery of those recommendations as well. It'll be producing an annual report to highlight the progress against each of those recommendations, because this isn't just about one piece of work and tackling one pressure. We've got to make sure that we do what we can to tackle the other impacts that we know affect wild salmon populations. You mentioned some of them there, water temperature, there's disease, sea lice, there's predation, a whole host of things that we need to get to grips with and ensure that we're taking action on. In relation to sea lice and looking at some of those issues, innovation is a really important part of that. We've got research that we know we need to undertake. We've got to identify those gaps in information that we have. Again, the implementation plan highlights some of that work and where we can better work together with other organisations to try and address some of those evidence gaps and undertake that research where it needs to be undertaken. Again, we have this piece of work on sea lice, which I think really will help address some of the issues that we've seen there and really take that holistic view and again help to tackle one of those pressures that's been identified. In Dumfries and Galloway, there is no salmon farms, but there's a lot of work being done to look at how wild salmon move. Galloway Fisheries Trust is one of the groups that are doing a lot of really good research and it's the same with the River Tweed as well. Is that part of the engagement that you're talking about with local groups and local people is looking at how they're using their research and their evidence to help inform how we basically address those issues of sea lice and wild salmon? Absolutely. Some of the things that we've done is that we're looking to expand the counter network that we have so that we can get to grips with some of that data. Again, the implementation plan was important in highlighting where that further work needs to be done on research, on innovation, on that data collection as well. We know that we can't do that in isolation. It's not possible for us on our own to be able to get all that information that we would need. We need to make sure that we're working with, and we are working with the fisheries boards and trusts as well. They have a vital role to play in that and they're some of the key stakeholders that are part of that delivery group because we want to make sure that we're engaging with people because we all have a role in helping to deliver on those recommendations. The IFS has released a statement saying that the salmon is at risk of extinction, so I think that that is an urgent matter that needs to be dealt with. NASCO also released a statement saying that we need to be committed to using innovation and technology. In looking at some of the Scottish Government documents, it seems as though to use that innovation and technology needs support from Marine Scotland. What is holding us up here in ensuring that the Scottish Government is not aiding the extinction of the wild salmon and helping to preserve that iconic species? I think that we need to do everything that we can to prevent a further decline in numbers. We're not holding anything up in terms of trying to address the challenges that we face. Where the stage we're at now is based on the work that we've done, first of all, in trying to identify what the key pressures on wild salmon are. That's why we published a wild salmon strategy and why we then published the implementation plan. It's all very well having a strategy, but we may need to make sure that we're delivering on what we set out within that. That's where those 60 recommendations are key. That's why having a delivery group, which is ensuring that we are delivering against those recommendations, is going to be a really critical part of that as well. They've already had their first meeting and, as I said, we will be reporting on that annually as well against where we are in each of those recommendations. Innovation and what you've talked about there is really important. That is why we support innovation and fund that. I think that through Marine Fund Scotland, we've provided about £7 million worth of funding in relation to innovation and technology. We also work with the likes of the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre as well. They get funding through SFC and take forward a number of important projects as well. We're not holding anything up. We want to address the challenges that we know salmon face, but some of them are more difficult to deal with when we look at the impact of climate change and all the other different challenges that they face. That's why it's also important that we try to take action on all of those fronts and do what we can within the challenges that we know exist. Convener, I think that it would be worth having a commitment to a timeline on some of the serious ambition that the Government might have to protect salmon. If you have to provide the committee with more information on the implementation strategy, if you would find that helpful, because we have timelines and reporting set out within that, it might be helpful for you to receive. The right and the unclear committee both felt that greater use of the precautionary principle should be employed and that the Scottish Government should provide clear and strong leadership to ensure that the precautionary principle is applied and that producing appropriate policy and guidance documents is necessary. The committee considered an independent assessment of the environmental sustainability of the predicted growth of the sector is necessary. When we look at the move to take them fish to a heavier weight or old or onshore, we talked about it then they've been moving offshore. The time that the fish are actually in cages in the sea is reduced and the impact of that might be to reduce the use of chemicals, reduce mortality or whatever. Given the statements that I've just given you, what works being done to look at the additional impact of sea lice because they don't need to be controlled to such a level with older fish? What impact that weight of sea lice load might have on wild salmon populations? Is that something that you're looking at? Absolutely, that's exactly the issues that we're looking at through the sea lice framework and the work that's being taken forward to do that. It's been touched on already about the issue of escapes from fish farms and obviously industry bears its own responsibility here as well as regulation. Can you say a bit more about what your plans are to deal with the issues specifically of escapes and how you're going to tackle this in the future? That's one area where we're looking at strengthening the regulatory regime in relation to that. I don't know if officials can give more of an update in relation to where that work is at the moment. We do have the code of practice that was introduced in 2021, which was published essentially for the prevention of escapes, but that's work that we need to do, and we will be taking forward. I don't know if officials have any further information. One of the specific actions in the wild salmon strategy implementation plan is strengthening the controls to reduce escapes and exploring the introduction of penalties. It was touched on earlier with the ultimate aim of redistributing that income to support salmon conservation and research. I think that the technical standard on escapes, we're looking to have that revised during the course of the next 12 months. We've been working with the sector and others through a working group to update the technical standard to make sure that the equipment that's used is suitable to contain fish and withstand storms, etc., updating it in line with the Norwegian standard. One thing that has come up, or certainly that has been put to me, is that when an escape does take place, it needs to be reported and information made available to the community around about it in real time, if you like, rather than weeks or months after the event. What can be done practically do you feel in regulation to make sure that the reporting process, if you like, to the community to other interests around about is done quickly? I think that those are definitely the issues that we want to take forward as we're looking at the regulatory regime and revising that. I'm more than happy to take that on board and consider it as part of that work. Can I ask how the Scottish Government will ensure that the benefits of aquaculture will extend to local communities? Specifically, how can community views be taken into account when considering planning permission for fish farms? By community views, I also include other users of the marine environment. That's a really important point. We're keen to take forward that vision for aquaculture as well because we recognise the important role that communities have. We want to make sure that their voices are heard through that. I would say that that's one piece of work that we're looking at enhancing through the vision for aquaculture and that work that is under way. We talked earlier in the session about the consenting task group and the work that's being taken forward there. Again, that's where there's a strong focus on communities within that work as well and how we can generally get that engagement between all the relevant parties at an early stage in the process. Of course, we want to monitor how that's working and how the piloting of an application through the summer, how it all works through that process as well, and obviously take any learning that we get as a result of that. Obviously, communities can, at the moment, through the planning process, have the ability to put their views forward in relation to that, but I think that through those other bits of work that will really help enhance the community's role and involvement at an early stage in the process as possible. In relation to the community benefits of that, I would say also that we have the seabed lease fees from Crown Estate Scotland, so they're going to be increasing. Those funds at the moment will go to local authorities for the purposes of community benefit. One of the other benefits that comes from fish farming is well-paid jobs in remote rural areas, and I would suggest that there's the ability to turn around some of the depopulation that we've had in those areas. Cabinet Secretary, you'll be as aware as everybody else that housing is a huge issue. We see tiny houses or houses that would be almost worthless elsewhere going for phenomenal amounts in some of those areas because there are beautiful areas to live in as well. Young people who would be employed at fish farms are really struggling to get home and struggling to be able to stay in the communities where they were born and brought up. Is the Scottish Government doing anything to aid and assist young people in getting their homes, but also working with the fish farming industry in that? Yes, I think that the member is absolutely right in relation to the well-paid jobs and the importance, in particular, that aquaculture brings to some of our most remote communities and to our island communities as well. There has been work that's on-going. We do work with the industry in relation to trying to address some of those challenges because you are without a doubt right in relation to the pressures of housing. I visited Collins City a couple of years ago specifically to meet with the community there and to talk about a housing project that they had under way that was being done in conjunction with Maui, as well as through some of the funds that we had available. It's not the jobs in an area that are the problem, but it was the housing that was holding people back from moving to communities. Those pieces of work are really important. We would definitely want to continue to develop from here on in. I visited that project in Collins City. I believe that there has also been a project in Rome as well. We have been looking at the same thing. That will obviously all factor into the work that is being taken forward on a remote rural and island housing action plan. Will that work be led on and being developed by the housing minister, but I will of course be engaging closely with him on that as that develops? My apologies to Rachael. I am meant to bring in a question now. Do you want to ask your supplementary question? I asked it, but on question 8, so it's fine and convenient. I'd just like to pick up on Rhoda Grant's point there. Cabinet Secretary, does the Scottish Government support ring fencing the £10 million, as suggested by Sam and Scotland for rural housing, to deal with top depopulation? I know that that's been a suggestion that's been made. Obviously, we have the agreements in place with COSLA at the moment about how that funding will be distributed to coastal communities, so that's the agreement that we have in place at the moment. I welcome any suggestions and I'm happy to consider that, but it's important to remember that we would have to do that in conjunction with our local authority partners in looking at that community benefit. However, we have been able to show how we can make that delivery together with industry in some of the communities that I've mentioned. I am duly keen to make sure that that work progresses. Thanks, convener. I just want to go back and pick up on Rhoda's first question, and I'm just to illustrate the concern that I have. I'm going to tell you a little bit of the story, not too long, convener. I've been contacted by a constituent who is also a scientific advisor who objected to the salmon farm in the Loch Lomond and Trussex national park, and this person felt that they'd engaged all they could, but their views hadn't been taken into account. As a scientific advisor, they also wrote on behalf of a marine sector association to the original application, as well as personally— I'll just interrupt you. I need to get to this point, convener, please. No, no, no. Sorry, Ariad. Is my understanding this the application you are just touching on as going to public inquiry? Is that correct? If that's the case, it might not be a problem. I'm not asking about that application, but I'm just illustrating it and then getting to your point. You did mention that application. I think that you need to be careful that giving us a public inquiry that you— I'll make it less direct. Thanks for correcting me there. I'll try to make it more generic. I've been contacted by somebody who has scientific experience, who is a constituent who has done all they can to express concerns. What they've come to me is a sense of exasperation. They've asked me what can communities do to stop this industry completely wrecking the inshore waters on the west coast. I'd like to ask you how would you reassure my constituent that communities will have a genuine say on new farms in their inshore waters and that that right will be safeguarded and improved? I think that it is important that communities are able to have their say. I think that that's where we recognise specifically that when we talked about introducing and bringing forward a vision for sustainable aquaculture in Scotland, we mentioned that point specifically. So, of course, we're in the process of developing that. I hope to be in a position soon where I can share that with the committee, and you can see the role that is specified in that. I think that it's the same in my community, your community, wherever a proposal for development arises. It's right and fair that people have the ability to have and make their views known as the planning process proceeds. I think that we recognise that within the planning process as it exists as well. I come back to the work that has been taken forward through the consenting task force and the work that has been taken in relation to that. The multilateral discussion that takes place at an earlier stage will involve communities as a key element of that as well in doing that at the earliest possible stage in developments and engaging them as much as we can. Picking up on Rhoda's other part, not so much on the housing part but on the jobs and what you're saying is that we're trying to develop a sustainable vision on aquaculture. There's ample evidence showing the risk that climate change and the resulting warming seas poses to salmon farming, especially on the west coast. Salmon stops eating when the water temperature hits 18 degrees celsius and they can't survive beyond 21 or 22 degrees. If the industry could become unviable on the west coast, do you think that we should be planning for a just transition for workers now as well as regulating now the sector so that we actually have good environmental status, in particular on the seabed when the farms move from their current locations or possibly even go out of business? Is the Scottish Government undertaking a risk assessment for the future of salmon farming on the west coast and the livelihoods that currently depend on it? We're looking at those challenges that you're talking about. When I mentioned earlier about having an adaptive framework, it's so that we can do that as we see more information, we get more research, more data that can respond to the innovations that are in place as well. We need a framework that's able to adapt and manage to that and that's where the themes of work that are being taken forward through the farm fish health framework, looking at climate change and those other areas, we've got to look to the future in relation to that. I would say that that work and what we're doing on climate change is already a key priority and we'll continue to look at that going forward, but we are dealing with a really innovative industry as well. I'm obviously keen that we are able to enable that as much as possible. Will there be a risk assessment on the possibility of people actually losing jobs? I mean, if Rhoda talked about people can't get homes in the places where they want to live and if a salmon farm can no longer operate because the salmon aren't surviving and it has to move away, then those are lost jobs, are we assessing that risk? We haven't undertaken a risk assessment at the moment, but like I say, there are a huge number of pieces of work and I hope that that's clear from what we say out against the recommendations from the previous inquiries as well in terms of how we're addressing some of the challenges that the industry currently faces and that it will face in the future as well in setting out that work. We've talked a lot about the number of workers that are involved in the salmon industry, but it's much wider when you look at the supply chain and it can affect people who are supplying the feed, there can be boat building, I know in my own constituency there's a factory that makes boxes for the supply industry, for the salmon industry, so when you're looking at the totality of the supply industry in rural areas and how important it is and one of the issues are obviously hauliers are a big part of the supply chain, so does the Government recognise the need for reliable transport connectivity in order to get the product to market as well as supporting the areas in which the salmon industry operates? Yes, absolutely, because as Rhoda Grant touched on as well, we've got to ensure that we have the basic infrastructure in place, whether that's transport connectivity, whether it's the housing in rural areas as well, because you're absolutely right, there's the fish farmers themselves, but it's an industry that I think pretty much touches right through the supply chain every part of Scotland, whether it's in a rural area or not, so yeah, I would absolutely recognise the point that you've made and the importance of that. Thank you. Just very briefly, we know that we've got consultations undergoing with HPMAs. Can you give us an overview of what the agriculture industry response has been to the suggestion that MPAs might cover 10 per cent of Scottish waters? You'll be aware that this has been led by my colleague Mary McCallan, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition. I haven't seen the consultation responses yet, so I can't go into any detail about what they contain. I know that the salmon sector, just as the fishing industry have done, have expressed its concerns about that process, but again, we've had the consultation, and we now need to analyse those responses. Okay, thank you very much. Sorry, I've just picked something up that I probably should have asked you. There's an allowance in the licence charge for local community benefit for the area on the site is situated, and it's my belief that a significant amount of what's collected, similar to the norway, goes back to the communities and whatever forms so that they can benefit from the economic prosperity that the farms will bring. Decisions will have to be made on whether this is part of the payment that should be collected by government for redistribution and whether the operator should be legally obliged to disperse payments directly to the community. Did you answer that in your previous question? In response to Rhoda Grantwood, she asked me about the benefits that communities get. I talked about the sea bed lease fees that Crown Estate Scotland receives and how that's distributed to local authorities for community benefit. Okay, where my head is thinking of the communities that are affected by fish farm sightings, if they don't have a vested interest in it, they're not going to have the same buy into it. Is there a way of strengthening the local community's ability to be able to have a vested interest? In terms of the community's involvement and engagement through that process, are you talking particularly about the... There is a certain wind farm operator's work that money goes directly to the community for the community to be able to work. Is that something that could be considered for fish farm sightings? There is already quite a lot that is done by individual fish farming companies from sponsoring Shinty teams or doing other things, but I think it's quite varied and it's something that we can take a look at once we publish the vision for sustainable agriculture over and above what Crown Estate lease fees already have. I think that Professor Griggs recommended looking at social contracts with some fish farming companies when they're going through the development process. We've already said that there's a £50,000 fund for the community, so I think that we need to understand the totality of that and then what is best practice moving forward. I think that that's something that I'd like to learn more about as we go along. What benefit will come to the actual community who live there that are being most affected by it? That concludes our evidence for today. I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary and the officials for attending. That's been a good session. That concludes our meeting in public. We now move into private session and I'll suspend the meeting for 10 minutes.