 The next item of business is a debate on motion 15677, in the name of Edward Mountain, on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, on its inquiry into salmon farming in Scotland. Can I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Edward Mountain to speak and move the motion. Convener, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I open the debate on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I would like to refer members to my register of interests, specifically in relation to the interests in a wild salmon fishery. I would also like to pay special thanks to our clerking team and the team from SPICE who supported us during the inquiry. They have responded to the particular challenges of this inquiry with a professionalism that has allowed the production of a very detailed report. During the course of 2018, the committee conducted an in-depth inquiry into salmon farming in Scotland. Our inquiry was prompted by a public petition on the impact of the farmed salmon sector on wild salmon stocks, but it was clear that the problem went beyond that. Thus, our inquiry looked at further matters. We looked at the current state of the salmon farming industry in Scotland. We identified opportunities for its future development and explored how the various fish health and environmental challenges could be addressed. We took oral evidence from the industry representatives, research bodies, environmental organisations, HIE and all the regulatory bodies. We were also extremely grateful for the organisations and individuals who took the time to submit detailed and often technical written submissions to inform our deliberations. The committee's inquiry was also informed by an important piece of work carried out in advance of our wider inquiry by the Eclare Committee on the impact of salmon farming on the marine environment. We were extremely grateful for the valuable contribution that, to me, demonstrated the benefit of working jointly together by two committees. The committee was also made aware of a range of relevant activity by the Scottish Government and SEPA and the salmon industry, which occurred after we had finished taking evidence. That included the publication of the Scottish Government's 10-year farmed fish health framework in May 2018, the announcement of a salmon interactions working group in June 2018, which will examine and provide advice on the interactions between wild and farmed salmon, and the publication of a fin fish aquaculture sector plan by SEPA in November 2018. Both the Scottish Government and SEPA provided responses to the committee's report just last week. There are some key messages and recommendations in the report that I would like to highlight. Firstly, I would like to make it clear that the committee acknowledges both the economic and social value that the salmon farming industry brings to Scotland. It provides jobs in rural areas, investment and spending to local communities and stimulates economic activity in the wider supply chain. The committee however does not believe that the contribution made by the industry to the Scottish economy should be allowed to mask any negative impact on the environment. I will touch on some of those specific issues later. It is clear to the committee that the industry wishes to expand. However, the committee strongly agrees with the views of the Eclair committee that until they can demonstrate that they are truly good neighbours, it is not appropriate to do so. The industry needs to rise to the challenges that they face regarding fish health and the environment. To do so, the committee feels that the status quo in terms of regulation and enforcement is not acceptable. The views were shared by the majority of stakeholders, including industry representatives and, importantly, by the Scottish Government in its response to our report. The committee is therefore of the view that urgent and meaningful action needs to be taken to address the regulatory deficiencies, to raise the bar for the industry and, thus, to protect our environment and the industry's future. The committee is also firmly of the view that a stricter regulatory and concentrating regime that is fair and proportionate can only benefit the sector, helping to drive improvement and giving it confidence that it is meeting its environmental responsibilities. Let us be clear that the reputation of Scottish salmon as a premium product must be maintained. The committee is in no doubt that consumers and market see Scotland as a producer that meets the highest international production and fish health and environmental standards. We must ensure that that continues. The committee therefore welcomes that some of the key producers have recognised the benefits that enhanced regulation would bring to their product and are, thus, supporting the recommendations that we have made. I want to look at sea lice. That is an issue that the industry has to accept that neither chemicals nor cleaner fish can solve totally. We strongly believe that there should be mandatory and timely approach to the reporting of sea lice infestations. We recommended a compliance policy that is robust and enforceable with appropriate penalties. I note from the Scottish Government's response that it is already reviewing the farm-fresh sea lice compliance policy, which anticipates completing in the spring. Whilst that exercise considers the mandatory reporting of sea lice levels from March 2019, it will only be done monthly in arrears. In other countries, where our key producers operate, it is done weekly in arrears. One therefore has to ask why the Government is content to achieve less. The overall work is positive, but there can be no halfway house in what it delivers. Whilst we acknowledge the work that the industry is doing, there is a great deal of work still to be undertaken to tackle the sea lice problem. Turning to farm salmon mortalities, the committee and the industry believe that the current level of farmed fish mortality is too high. Losing 20 to 25 per cent of all fish put to sea is not acceptable. The committee believes that no expansion should be permitted at sites that report high or significant increased levels of mortality until health issues are addressed to the satisfaction of the regulators. The Scottish Government has said that it will publish mortality reports monthly in arrears and will consider options around web-based and real-time site reporting on mortality. It has also said that it will consider a broader review to the transportation and disposal of dead fish. Again, that is a welcome step forward on reporting, but Scotland is in danger of again setting a lower bar than achieved by other producers outside our key producers elsewhere. It is, however, disappointing that the Scottish Government does not consider that there should be on the restriction on expansion of sites with high mortality. Turning to environmental regulation, the committee shares the view of the Eclare Committee that the regulatory tools available to SEPA are neither adequate or effective. The Eclare Committee recognised that SEPA had not been performing well in monitoring or enforcing the regulations. That is our view as well. The sector has shown very poor rates of compliance with SEPA's current standards. That is borne out by the results of the SEPA compliance assessment process of 2017, which showed an increase in the number of salmon farms that had failed to meet the required standards. The committee is clear that SEPA must respond to its failures. I am sure that the committee will want to monitor the progress in this area with us. Looking at the location of salmon farms, the committee made several important recommendations, a need for a precautionary approach to applications for new sites and the expansion of sites, a need to locate new farms in more suitable areas away from wild salmon migratory routes, and a more strategic approach should be taken to identify areas across Scotland that are either suitable or unsuitable for the sighting of salmon farms and work to move existing poorly sighted salmon farms to more suitable sites. We called on the Scottish Government to provide strong and clear leadership to ensure that those actions are taken. However, it is a concern that, in its response, it suggests that the Government says that the precautionary principle has and will continue to be applied in a meaningful and effective manner. That is not what the committee heard in the evidence that we received. John Mason. I wonder if the convener of the committee would accept that we did hear evidence on both sides of that. Some people said that the precautionary principle was being applied, and some people said that it was not. Edward Mountain. I absolutely believe that some people said that the precautionary principle was being followed. However, as a generality, there were more saying that it was not than it was. Before I finish, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to highlight the committee's concerns about leaks to the media that occurred when considering our draft report. Those were clearly identified by the media outlet concern as having come from a member of the committee, and those leaks were sustained over several weeks. Indeed, a journalist showed me private papers from a committee meeting that had only been circulated to members an hour or so before I was approached. The member who leaked the papers made comment, and did so knowing full well that it was unlikely that they would be identified. Their actions significantly delayed the committee's consideration of the draft report. Worse still, it caused a level of mistrust in the committee regarding private papers and private discussions. Although leaks are a matter of the code of conduct, unless a member is identified, no action can be taken. As convener of the committee and a firm believer in the importance and integrity of this Parliament, I believe that the incident is totally unacceptable. I therefore suggest that the Parliament considers strengthening the code of conduct in this area. I have made no public comment on the unsubstantiated personal attacks that were made as a result of the leaks, and I will not do so now. However, I would like to say something directly to the person who leaked the private papers and made the comments to the press. You should reflect carefully on what you have done, because I believe that you have let the Parliament down, you have let the committee down, and perhaps more importantly, you have let yourself down. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I have mentioned some of the key points of the report, and there are many other issues that I am sure will be picked up and discussed by other members. We have a real opportunity here to build on the broad support that the report has received, but we need to be clear that this report and the Eclare report does not support business as usual, so neither should the Government or the industry. To do so would be to disadvantage Scotland, our salmon producers, and to damage our reputation as a quality food producer, and to potentially harm the environment. I look forward to what I hope will be a lively and progressive debate. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Gillian Martin to behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. Mr Chapman, it is very kind of you to do in public, Mr Chapman. A note to me would have been sufficient, but there you go. That is very kind, but it is not off your time. Do not look like that, so you get your time back. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. You can read my mind. There is a slight uneasiness in speaking to an inquiry report that was published before you took the convener post on, but I want to put on record my thanks to the member who was the convener at the time of the inquiry and report Graeme Dey and to the committee clerks for the work that they did then. I am now in bringing me up to speed with developments since the report was published. Set against the background of the plans to extend production in the agriculture industry to 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes by 2030, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and Rec Committee jointly commissioned a review of the scientific evidence on the environmental effects of salmon farming in Scotland. I want to play a tribute to the Rural Economy Committee, which has taken many of the recommendations in our report and has done a great deal of further work on the topic from its perspective. I echo Edward Mountain's comments on the merits of joint committee working. A year has passed since the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's report, and it is fair to say that a lot has happened. Before I go on to talk specifically about our findings and recommendations, I want to say that salmon farming has done three very important things for this country. It has made salmon affordable for households. When I was growing up, salmon was something that you got in a tin, mashed up and spread thinly on sandwiches at a time. Now that rich source of protein in Amiga 3 is an alternative, affordable, healthy, fresh option that is no longer the preserve of special occasions. Secondly, salmon farming is a massive economic contributor to Scotland's economy, particularly in our role with exports and job creations, particularly in rural areas, as has been mentioned. Its quality is respected the world over. However, most pertently to the portfolio of my committee, salmon farming is one of the lowest-emission farming methods. I think that that is often the point that is missed when we discuss it. The importance of this industry is why inclinings such as those of the two committees are so important as we move forward to expand the sector and enhance, protect our global reputation and protect the environment that supports the sector. The Scottish Government's commissioned report of 2002 addressed six main areas of environmental impact, which are the disease impacts on wild and farmed stocks, including the impact of sea lice, the discharge of waste nutrients and the interaction in the wider marine environment, the effects of discharges of medicines and chemicals from salmon farming, escapes from fish farms and the potential effects on wild populations, the sustainability of feed supplies and the emerging environmental impacts, including on wild, wrath and marine animals. The committee heard from the industry, regulators, communities and NGOs before reporting to the Wreck Committee ahead of its inquiry. The committee was mindful that rapid development and growth of the sector could take place without a full—sorry—the committee was mindful that rapid development and growth of the sector could not take place without a full understanding of those environmental impacts. I aim to shine a light on those in order for a debate to open up, identifying ideal areas for improvement and action. It is clear that the same set of concerns regarding the environmental impact of salmon farming are the same as in 2002. Many of our stakeholders pointed to the lack of focus on the application of the precautionary principle in the development and expansion of the sector. Scotland is at a critical point in considering how salmon farming develops in a sustainable way in relation to the environment, while at the same time delivering the substantial benefits that I outlined in the beginning of my speech. Our inquiry also found that there are significant gaps in the knowledge, data, monitoring and research around the potential risk that the sector poses to ecosystem functions, the resilience and the supply of the ecosystem services. Further information is necessary in order to set realistic targets for the industry that fall within environmental limits. We recommended that there should be a requirement for the industry to fund independent and independently verified research and development needed. The role of responsibilities and interaction of agencies requires review, and agencies need to be appropriately funded and resourced to fully meet their environmental duties and obligations. Scotland's public bodies have a duty to protect biodiversity, and that must be to the fore when considering the expansion of the sector. The committee saw a need to progress on the braces of the precautionary principle and asked relevant agencies to work together more effectively in that regard. The committee also identified the need for the farming industry to demonstrate that it can effectively manage and mitigate its impacts on the environment. In particular, adaptive management, which takes account of the precautionary principle using real-time farm-by-farm data, could have the potential to reduce environmental impacts. The committee called for an eco-systems-based approach to planning the industry's growth and development in both the marine and freshwater environment, identifying where salmon farming can take place and what the carrying capacity of that environment is. The committee also wanted to see independent research commissioned, including a full-cost benefit analysis of recirculating aquaculture systems, and a comparative analysis with the sector as it currently operates in Scotland alongside further development and implementation of alternative technical solutions, supported by the use of incentives. The committee found that the current consenting and regularity framework is inadequate to address environmental issues. In particular, the approach to sanctions and enforcement is something that will not affect the majority of responsible farmers, but it can tackle those few operators who may damage their sector's reputation if not dealt with appropriately. The committee recognises that there has been considerable further discussion on many of the issues that were reported last year, and a great deal of government-led action. We welcome the conclusions of the RIC committee, which support our findings and the continuing work that has been done in government agencies to address them. Both committees would like to see a full commitment and a necessary urgency across the industry agencies and government to address the complex challenges that we have jointly highlighted. Inmediate mandatory reporting on sea lice is still under review, and we look forward to strategic guidance on the sighting of fish farms and revisions to the consenting and regulatory framework. The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, alongside the RIC committee, will continue to examine, with great interest, the actions of the industry, agencies and Scottish Government in responding to the challenges to ensure that marine and freshwater environments are being afforded the necessary protections amid the growth of a hugely important sector in Scotland. I hope that I have never stood in this position ill-prepared for the debate ahead, but I feel particularly well prepared today having enjoyed a lunch of Prime Scott's salmon. Let me put on record my—a lunch in my office, I have to say—a posh affair. Let me put on record my and my cabinet colleague, Grisanna Cunningham, who is listening to this debate, appreciation of the diligence of the members of both committees and their inquiries into the salmon farming sector. As indicated in our response to the RIC committee, we acknowledge and accept much of its conclusions and recommendations. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government supports the farmed salmon and wider agriculture sectors and their sustainable growth. We need to do more to get the balance right to protect the environment, and we acknowledge that the status quo is not an option. Salmon farming is one of Scotland's success stories. The sector is a global player as the world's third-largest salmon producer. According to Highlands and Islands Enterprise analysis in 2017, 10,340 jobs across Scotland were dependent on salmon farming and its supply chain, generating £540 million in gross value added and providing wages worth £271 million. However, those are the macro stats. On an individual level, people in constituencies such as my colleagues Kate Forbes and Gail Ross of Mr Scott and Shetland, Mr MacArthur and Orkney, there are a great many people whose livelihoods are sustained by the modern Scottish industry. I am sure that all members will recognise the importance of that. Scottish Farms Salmon has become a key contributor to the food and drink success attracting a premium from Boston to Brussels. It is Scotland's biggest food export with sales in 2017 of £600 million to more than 50 countries worldwide. The industry has reinvigorated and re-energised many of our coastal, island and remote rural communities. That is a catalyst for vital improvements in social infrastructure, housing, transport and broadband. The sector has also constantly innovated in husbandry and farm management, recognising that continuous improvements in fish health and environmental impact are a win-win for aquaculture and other marine and coastal industries. Indeed, aquaculture is responsible for some of the biggest infrastructure investment in Scotland in recent times, thereby creating a broader supply chain of significant value. Capital investment by the sector is around £63 million annually. Recently, there has been a significant amount of investment such as Moewe, formerly Marine Harvest's Calacan feed plant on Skye and Scottish Sea Farms Hatchery near Oban, with a cumulative price tag of more than £150 million. Investments, incidentally, contribute towards improved fish health by increasing the length of time spent in hatchery and reducing the amount of time spent at sea, thereby stronger when they enter the cages at sea. Moreover, the salmon sector has created supply chain and processing opportunities and jobs elsewhere in Scotland from Stornoway to Recythe. There is no doubt that salmon farming plays a key role in our ambitions for our nation. It is also a low-carbon industry with a low-carbon footprint, producing, as Gillian Martin said, high-protein healthy food products that are increasingly affordable to domestic consumers, including children through school meals. It is helping to deliver our STEM strategy objectives with investment and innovation in research and development in our higher education institutions. The Government wants to support the key role that agriculture plays in attracting more young people to live and work in rural and remote rural areas. I am pleased to announce today that we are working through the agriculture industry leadership group to develop with Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Agriculture Information Centre, Lancer and others, an agriculture skills plan to support young people into the sector. We can also be proud of the global nature of our role in this industry. The director of sake, Heather Jones, recently contributed to an expert group in Canada to look at how to address the industry challenges. We, too, must learn from other countries and their approach to sustainable farming. As members have already alluded to in their addresses on behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that, in March, Scotland will host a meeting of EU and Northern European fish health inspectors and experts. We want the sector's economic contribution to grow, but we recognise that it must develop sustainably with appropriate regulatory frameworks that minimise and address environmental impacts. We are already taking steps to ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved. First, we have established a World Salmon Interactions Workstream under an independent chair, John Goodlad, to consider the relationship between and impact of farm salmon on wild salmon. The group has been tasked with proposing an improved set of arrangements, and we expect to receive the group's recommendations later this year. Of course, we must keep in mind that there is no single cause for the decline in wild salmon numbers across all parts of Scotland and indeed the north-east Atlantic. That is why the group will eventually explore other pressures bearing down on wild salmon, including climate change, predation, angling or man-made barriers in our rivers. Secondly, we have published a 10-year farmed fish health framework with four working groups, which have been up and running since autumn last year and are making good progress. In particular, we recognise the concerns expressed about mortalities and the links to sea lice, which is why it is one of the key workstreams. Control of sea lice on farms has improved. The most recent analysis that is available from Marine Scotland Science shows a decline over the four years from 2014 to 2017, but we are not complacent. There is more to do. I can't advise today that we will... John Finnie. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking intervention on that point. I am pleased that he came to... Of course, there is a lot of good news and that is welcome, but he came to the issue of mortality rates. In any other industry, if there was that level of mortality, there would be significant interventions. Do you believe that there has been robust enough intervention from the Scottish Government to address that issue? Fergus Ewing. I will come to mortality in a minute. I was actually dealing with sea lice. I just want to finish. I will come to mortality in a moment, but the point about sea lice is important. I can advise today that we will complete a review of our sea lice compliance regime this spring. It is also important to say that I expect that, although I am not prejudging the outcome of that review, it is a review conducted by experts and it is evidence-based. That is absolutely appropriate and rightly so, but I do expect that the regime will be tightened, providing assurance to all interests, including fish farm businesses, that our fish health inspectorate is working effectively to tackle sea lice infestations. Finally, and independently of government, SEPA has published its draft sectoral fin fish plan and its own response to the Wreck Committee. Mr Finnie asked about mortalities. I am pleased to see that mortalities are also reducing, in many instances, as have sea lice numbers. However, again, we are not complacent and more needs to be done. That is precisely why the fish health framework that I mentioned and the four groups that I have been doing a huge amount of work are also considering that matter. We are going to be taking interim steps in order to deliver an environmental monitoring plan to be delivered as a condition of any consent for marine agriculture planning applications. It is key that everyone has confidence in a regulatory framework that encompasses the principles of adaptive management, of best use of scientific evidence and clear advice to decision makers that stand up to scrutiny. I see that my time is running dry and, therefore, I will skip three pages of my speech out of consideration to you and perhaps others, Presiding Officer. I look forward to debate with great interest and enjoyment, and I will be very happy and keen to reply to points that members may make in the course of it. I begin by referring to my register of interest and to both fish farming and wild fishing. I should also state from the start that I was on the Eclare Committee when it authored its report on salmon farming and was also the Eclare Committee's rapporteur to the Wreck Committee during the Wreck Committee's evidence sessions. It was an honour to work on the Eclare report, and, whilst at times challenging, I certainly emerged with great respect for other MSP colleagues, many of whom are in the chamber today, as we combined collectively to produce that report. I particularly mention the departed Graham day, especially. I am departing from the committee, but Gillian Martin has hit the ground running, as she showed by her speech. Usually, I do not like to dwell on my register of interest for obvious reasons, but today I would like to make an exception to that, not least because I hope from personal experience to explain one of the tensions that is at the heart of this debate. My family business has a financial interest in a salmon farm on Loch Arcaig in Lochaber. Mr Finnie will know it well. It is a freshwater farm and is a relatively small operation, but it has been there since the 1980s, I believe, and has been a consistent local employer for several decades. It is owned and managed by Marine Harvest, who, of course, is a major employer across the Highlands and Islands. For those who work on site on fish farms, those who process and package the end product, no one can doubt the economic importance of the industry to a fragile area of Scotland. The cabinet secretary is quite right to highlight those points. I also have an interest in the world fishery side of life in terms of the Arcaig, Spian and Lockheed catchment areas. Like many other rivers on the western seaboard, wild salmon and sea track numbers in those rivers have been in serious and severe decline over the past 20 to 30 years. The reasons for that decline are complex and not fully understood, but undoubtedly, the increase in fish farms in the west highlands has had some detrimental effect on wild fisheries. John Mason. I wonder how the member would respond to the argument that wild fish have been declining since the 1960s, which is actually 50 years since before the fish farm started. Donald Cameron. I do not have any issue with that. I think that we can all agree that there has been a severe decline over a number of years, whether it is 30 or 50 years. I think that that is beside the point. The real issue is that it is incredibly important—I think that the cabinet secretary hinted at this—that a piece of work is done outside aquaculture that looks specifically at the decline of our wild fishery in general. Stepping away from my personal circumstances, I recall one of the first visits that I made as an MSP to the Argyll fisheries trust in Inverary, where I saw from a map on their wall that a salmon going to sea at the top of Loch Ffine required to pass at least 10 fish farms before it reached the open sea. There was a real sense of the negative effects of those farms on wild fish. I would like to carry on. I do not have long and I have a lot to cover. With that as background, can I make a few points setting out the position of the Scottish Conservatives in relation to this debate? We are committed to the fish farming industry in Scotland, but recognise that it must operate to the highest environmental standards. That commitment to the highest environmental standards is even more critical if the industry's ambition to double production by 2030 is to be realised. I am heartened by the more recent constructive approach of the industry, notably bodies such as the SSPO and SAIC, who recognise the challenge before it. Turning specifically to the REC report, which is a subject to the debate, we welcome its findings. As I said at the start, I observed the process on both committees and appreciate the work not only of the clerks but of the many witnesses and the contribution of MSPs. That is a balanced report to which I feel that it takes both a reasonable and measured approach to the challenges that are facing the salmon industry, but also acknowledges what it has to offer. As others have spoken about, there is a huge direct, indirect and induced impact of salmon farming, which creates thousands of jobs in Scotland. Figures from 2016 show that Scotland is the largest producer of farmed Atlantic salmon in the EU, with production worth around £765 million. Nevertheless, both the Acclair and REC reports have highlighted significant failings that we on these benches feel need to be addressed in order to strengthen the industry. I feel that it is particularly pertinent. The very first recommendation of the REC report says that, while the committee acknowledges both the economic and social value that the salmon farming industry brings to Scotland, it is essential that it addresses and identifies solutions to the environmental and fish health challenges that it faces as a priority. I think that there is an acceptance, a welcome acceptance from the industry that these changes have to happen. The Scottish Salmon Producers' Organisation has said that the salmon sector supports many of the overall aims and ambitions of the report and seeks to co-operate with the Scottish Government and the regulators to find the best way of ensuring sustainable growth of the industry. New growth, of course, must come with a view to reducing many of the concerns that exist and that the report highlighted. Others have mentioned that, but the current level of mortalities that the REC report says was too high in general across the sector and is very concerned to note the extremely high mortality rates at particular sites. One in the Highlands and Islands in 2017 was, of course, the one where 125,000 salmon died in Lewis following a bacterial outbreak. Instances like that can be avoided. I note from the Scottish Salmon Producers' Organisation that there has been investment and, for instance, a small improvement in salmon mortality rates. Steps are slowly beginning to achieve something. There is much more to do and I welcome the extensive series of recommendations on tackling, for instance, sea lice and the fact that the REC report agreed with the Eclare report that the use of cleaner fish should be explored further. Ensuring that we do quickly improve our regulatory approach is vital, but there also needs to be clarity as to who will enforce what. As the report indicates, there were concerns expressed in evidence that none of the regulatory bodies currently has responsibility for the impact of salmon farms on wild salmon stocks. I note also the salmon and trout conservation in Scotland who felt that there had been a general lack of urgency from the Government and it is clear that that must change. However, to any where I began and on a positive note, in Lochaber we have collaboration between the local salmon fishery board and trust and the industry. For example, the industry is invested in a number of wild fish restocking projects. There is collaboration, there is shared scientific and environmental expertise, and I think that there is a genuine hope that both sectors can assist each other. To close, we support the industry, it has to improve, it knows that it has to improve, it is in its interest to improve. If it can grow sustainably and operate to the highest environmental standards, the salmon farming industry can continue to play a key role in the Scottish rural economy. Rhoda Grant, for up to seven minutes, please. Scottish Farms salmon enjoys an excellent international reputation for quality, and we should never take that for granted. It is important that the industry, with exports worth £600 million, continues to thrive. That is something that is lost in the committee report, but it has to be recognised, and I am glad that Edward Mountain today emphasised that. Therefore, in all our interests, it is to get salmon farming right in Scotland to fail, to damage the Scottish economy and to put at risk high-quality jobs in remote rural areas. Some of those areas are barely surviving, and the last thing that we want to preside over is dying communities. If we are to see the repopulation of rural Scotland, we need to ensure that those areas have a thriving economy and fish farming as part of that mix. We need to skill our rural workforce for the jobs in fish farming. We need schools and colleges to get involved in attracting young people to the industry. Young people need to have their horizons broadened. No-one says that they must all stay within their communities where they were brought up. However, far too often, young people are forced away from those remote rural communities because of a lack of career and opportunities. Therefore, when we have an industry that can provide them with that future and career, we need to make sure that they know about it and that they have the opportunity to gain the skills that will allow them to work in it. Therefore, I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement today because we really need to capitalise on the opportunities that fish farming provides. However, that does not mean that we accept or condone bad practice. We do not. Both Government producers and agencies have to ensure that the reputation is not further damaged in order to allow us to maximise the economic impact of fish farming. We need to aspire to be the best fish farming industry in the world, an industry that is sustainable and has animal welfare at its heart. For many years, the industry has said to me that the bureaucracy that surrounds the industry is huge, myriad of organisations, each pulling in different directions. When I was reading the committee report and, indeed, the Government's response alongside that, that really came home to me. It listed stakeholders and regulatory bodies—the Scottish Government, local government, SEPA, SNH, the EU, Prince of Wales sustainability group, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, RSPCA, Fish Health Inspectorate, Marine Scotland, Crown Estate and, indeed, I have got a list of many more and, indeed, the result number that is not on that list. I frankly give an up count in them all. We need to streamline the system for regulating planning and managing fish farming. I wonder if that complexity leads to some of the problems that we have seen, and it certainly does not help in the finding of solutions. We need an industry that is well regulated that meets the highest possible standards. However, in such a cluttered landscape, it is impossible to see how that can be done, and I would urge the Government to look at that. I do not think that the committee looked in depth at the Norwegian system of management and regulation, but I understand that it is much more streamlined, and because of that, their industry is much better regulated than ours. Ensuring that fish farming thrives is not just an economic argument, but it is also a health issue. We need to eat more oily fish. It is important to our health. We are not eating enough fish. The recommended amount is two servings of fish a day, with at least one of those being oily fish. Obviously, vegetarians and vegans need to find those nutrients elsewhere, but for those of us who eat fish, we should follow those guidelines. I listened on the radio to a health specialist recently recommending that people should take supplements of those nutrients. It was clear that that would not be what they would normally recommend when our diet could easily provide what we need, but because there was such a shortage of them in our diet, we needed to look at taking supplements, and farmed salmon is part of that solution, because it is rich in long-chain Amiga 3 fatty acids, which are crucial to the fight against heart disease. It is simply not right that people need to rely on supplements when we can produce an abundance of the food that would help Scotland fight heart disease. The report also touches, and other speakers have already touched on that as well, the tension between wild and farmed salmon and those tensions have been long-running. Frankly, the science has not reached a conclusion. Wild stocks, ebb and flow throughout Scotland tends to happen in the same way on the west and east coast, despite the fact that there are no fish farms on the east coast. Therefore, it just does not simply add up that salmon farming is to blame. I welcome that further research is being carried out on that, because I think that it is extremely important. We need to protect wild stocks and we need much more research into what is leading to those changes. Is it climate change or something that is happening further at sea? Both the salmon farming industry and those who fish for wild salmon have an interest in the species, an interest in what helps them thrive and working together to find out more about the species and what is impacting on them is a way forward for both those industries. The report also talks about concerns about escapes. Strangely, it seems to be suggesting that sighting fish farms in rougher water is part of the solution to the problems, but rougher water will lead to the risk of more escapes because of higher seas and worse conditions. If that is the way forward, we need to ensure that the science and the engineering of cages allow them to withstand those conditions. Our salmon farming industry faces many challenges from those who wish it did not exist at all, and, of course, there are natural disasters, some of which have been alluded to today. Brexit also poses a threat to fish farming, as it has been dragged into the backstop. All fish exports will be subject to export controls and levees, and that could damage the industry. Although I understand that the EU would want to see fish imports in the same bargaining space as access to UK waters, however, it makes no sense whatsoever to have this involving farmed fish. We have to get it right for fish farming. There are huge benefits from this industry for health, social and economic, but we do not have to do that by ignoring the threats. We need to face up to them and we need to get our own house in order. John Finnie, for up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. If we are quoting lunches, fish cakes, cabinet secretary, I am sure that there was a salmon content that was very tasty, and I commend the canteen for them. I also commend the parliamentary staff and the witnesses for their assistance in compiling the report and the briefings. It has been a very polarised debate. People have often said to me, are you for or against wind farms? I find that a very peculiar question has now moved on to are you for or against fish farms. To me, it is like saying you are for or against houses. I like the right things to be in the right place and in the right way. I thought that there was a lot of detailed consideration given to this report. I was a bit concerned at the criticism. It was voiced of the committee that we had not given due regard to the industry. I will therefore read you the very first three lines from the report that the committee acknowledges both economic and social value that the salmon farming industry brings to Scotland. It provides jobs to rural areas investment and it spends into communities and stimulates economic activity in the wider supply chain. We have heard the figures that are involved. I very much recognise and agree that statement as someone who is from the highlands and may indeed have had a relative working on the farm that Mr Cameron referred to at one point. It is important to also say what recommendation 1 says in the next lines. However, the industry also creates a number of economic, environmental and social challenges for other businesses. Among the briefings that we have had today is a copy of a letter that is sent by the Scottish Crio Fishermen's Federation to the cabinet secretary. I know in the way that he would like to be open and transparent about things that would be good. If the reply to that, it may well be that he is not cited on that letter yet, but it raises a number of concerns about what it talks about, the expansion of salmon aquaculture. The committee also agreed very strongly with the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee when it said that the status quo is not an option. It said that that was in terms of regulation that the regulation enforcement wasn't acceptable and called for urgent and meaningful action. Those were all the things that many members have already talked about. There were sea lice mortality rates and the challenges of close confinement. Recommendation 3, of course, touched on the issue of a moratorium. It formed the view that there was insufficient evidence to support that. In a very rare break from consensus on the committee, I and one of my colleagues, Colin Smyth, dissented to that position. If you are saying that there are all those challenges, if you are saying that the status quo is not acceptable, if you are saying that you can only expand if you resolve those issues, maybe there was a map for a reluctance to call it a moratorium. In any effect, that is what it was that we were talking about, and that is most certainly what it should be. That is not to destroy an industry. We want to get things right. I talked about the level of mortality rate. There are a number of farmers in the chamber here today. They would not tolerance or countenance a fraction of the level of mortality with their livestock. There are a number of challenges. I asked, and the cabinet secretary was very open and said that, as far as he was concerned, the Scottish Government applied the precautionary principle. Well, if it has genuinely been applied, then why would we not have a moratorium? There is not a very good reason why a moratorium would not be as challenging as it sounds. The leading time for applications to planning and the planning process that I am told by the industry is extremely onerous anyway means that there is the potential for a lot of those issues to be resolved and satisfactorily resolved prior to any granting. It is often not the single effect of a fish farm. I spoke to someone in the tourist industry who was unconcerned about the fish farm and its locality—it was a diving industry. They were not so happy about the second fish farm. The third fish farm and the deposits from them have significantly impacted. This is, do I now buy another boat for this industry? When we talked about the impact—I think that someone used the term, good neighbour—that is precisely what we are talking about. The industry has provided a briefing, and I am grateful to it for that. It is a very concise, few bullet points, so I will just quote from some of them. The salmon sector supports many of the overall aims, so it does not support all of them. It supports the quicker publication of data, the exact timeframe and details of this yet to be worked out, so that has not happened. On seals—there has been recent coverage of seals—they are committed to moving to a situation in which no seals are shot by farmers under licence. However—I am sorry, but however is unacceptable, and those challenges are not new to the industry. On sea lice, the salmon sector in Scotland—for the violence of doubt, this is the Scottish Salmon Producers Association's brief. On sea lice, the salmon sector in Scotland is ready to move to a tighter action level. It is not moved to, and that remains an issue. I want to establish better relations with the wild salmon sector, and we have heard from Mr Cameron that that is possible. If we are talking about good neighbours, that is being good neighbours and talking with everyone, and not having a disproportionate impact on everyone else. Relocation further offshore—I am sorry, that is simply a rewarding failure. If you do not have something that is working effectively, the idea that you put it out of sight, out of mind further away, particularly with the challenges of climate change and the challenges of access, that is not the way to deal with it. I think that there are a number of challenges that remain. I certainly will not be able to cover the ground at the time that is available. The report was compiled in good faith, and I hope that it is accepted in good faith. That will be established in the long term, not in the short term, by the actions of government. I have to say that we need more urgency into this debate, and quite frankly, I do not believe that it is there at the moment. There is a lot to go, and we should have a moratorium pending resolution of those issues. Mike Rumbles, up to six minutes, please. We have already heard that FarmSummon is Scotland's largest food export, and is the third largest FarmSummon producer in the world. It is reliant directly and indirectly from more than 10,000 full-time equivalent jobs. According to the Scottish Summon Producers Organisation, it is worth more than £540 million to the Scottish economy. That in itself is why it is in everyone's interests to ensure that our industry operates to the very highest standards, and nothing is done to damage the reputation of our industry. If the reputation of our farm summon industry takes a hit, then everyone loses. To be fair, the major producers in the industry recognise that fact, and that is why, in their brief to MSPs, their trade body, the Scottish Summon Producers Organisation, supports many of the overall aims and ambitions of our committee report. I read that quite differently to John Finnie. He supports many of our committee recommendations. I did think that John Finnie was a little unkind to them. I want to highlight what I consider to be the main points of the committee report. In our second recommendation, we agree with the view of the Environment Committee that, if the industry is to grow, the status quo in terms of regulation and enforcement is not acceptable. We have already heard so far in the debate that everybody seems to refer to this quote, but we are referring to it for obvious reasons. It is the key to this issue here. I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government agrees with that when it says in its response to the committee that, if salmon farming is to continue to grow sustainably, then effective procedures need to be in place to address and pre-empt where possible environmental and fish health challenges. I welcome that. If I have time, and I know that I have mentioned it, I will give you a chance, because there are a number of things that I want to say. If we turn to our 59th recommendation, we identify a solution to what we see as a lack of effective regulation so far. The committee recommends that Marine Scotland should be tasked with taking responsibility in delivering the necessary improvements and in taking on an overarching, co-ordinating role. It was clear in the evidence given to the committee that, while there were many different organisations involved in the regulation of this industry, each body took an almost, if I can call it, a siloer view of their responsibilities, looking after their own aspect of the regulatory process. While it is obvious that each regulatory body needs, of course it does, to do its work, there was not any one body taking an overview of the whole process that has led to what the committee has described as a, quote, light touch, unquote, regulation and enforcement regime. That approach has not actually helped anyone and it certainly has not helped this important industry. In the response from the Scottish Government, it says that CEPA, Marine Scotland or local authorities and SNH are all currently working in a new group to develop proposals for strengthening protections. That is good, of course it is, but it does seem to me to miss the real point that the committee was making. That is that there needs to be one body with overall responsibility for ensuring that all our regulatory bodies work in a co-ordinated and effective way and move out of their silos. I will, if I have time. John Finnie I am grateful for taking that intervention. What timeframe would the member allow that single body to resolve the issues that are in play? Mike Rumbles That is a very interesting question and I wish I knew the answer to that because I am not going to be prescriptive here. I think that is the job of Fergus Ewing sitting in front of us as a very important responsible task that he has and I am prepared to listen to what he says. I hope that the minister would answer that question. Turning to the issue of planning applications for fish farms, the committee believes that a more strategic approach is needed here too. Strategy is what is coming out of this, it seems to be missing, where the Scottish Government should develop guidance to local authorities as to what areas across Scotland are suitable for new fish farms and those areas that are not. Instead of local authorities making a judgment on a specific application that they receive in a specific time for a specific place, that is what the law requires them to do to look at that specific application. They should be able to take a strategic view of the application in the round and that is really important. While I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government in its response says that it will meet with the local authorities to discuss a more strategic approach to sustainable agriculture across their areas of accountability, it is actually guidance that is needed here, official guidance from the Scottish Government. In conclusion, the committee has worked well together across party political divides to produce the report and I think that that is really important. I do hope that the Scottish Government has got the message here that about robust and effective regulation, that is co-ordinated, to ensure that the very highest standards underpin this hugely important industry for us here in Scotland. We all want this industry to continue to succeed. The way to ensure success is to maintain the very highest standards of fish health and environmental protection. That is what will underpin consumer confidence and is that consumer confidence that will secure the success of this important industry. We now move to the open debate. We are a bit pushed for time, so speeches are strictly up to five minutes, please. John Mason, followed by Finlay Carson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Five minutes, I think, I heard you say. We certainly worked long and hard on this report. Having finished taking the evidence last June, the committee only got to working on the report after the summer recess, and that took quite a number of weeks. Including it has to be said delays, as the convener has referred to as we discussed leaks along the way. I think that it is public knowledge that I clashed somewhat with the convener as to how those leaks were dealt with, but I certainly would agree with him that such leaks are not really acceptable. Perhaps it was not surprising that during that long period while we considered the report, the ground shifted with SIPA announcing their new thinking for the way forward, and that in turn meant that we had to further amend our report. However, here we are, and I think that we can say that we agreed on the bulk of the issues. Yes, salmon farming is a huge export and provides jobs in fragile areas and has other economic and wider benefits. However, yes too, we agreed that there are problems with lice, pollution and what the impact on wild fish and other wildlife might be. If we disagreed, it was more on the respective scale of those benefits and disadvantages. The key disagreement was on whether there should be a moratorium, as John Finnie has been referring to, on new developments until regulations improve, or whether we improve their regulation and allow the industry to expand and the two can go hand in hand. That is where my esteemed colleague John Finnie and some of the rest of us disagreed somewhat. The majority of the committee were not convinced that there should be a moratorium on expansion. Having said that, unsurprisingly, we spent a lot of time focused on problems rather than all the good things that are going fine. I think that that is human nature and applies in politics, football and most areas of life. Clearly, public trust in any food product is important, and that is why we need to be particularly protective of our environment, our food production methods and our regulation. We need to only think back to the BSE crisis to remember that it was not only the reputation of beef that was damaged at that time, but it did reflect on the whole Scottish brand. Trust is something that we can take a long time to recover once an individual, a product or a country has lost it. That is why we need to be particularly careful of our environment and perhaps be more wary of taking risks even if other countries do so. Fracking is just another example where our food exports could be damaged just by the impression that we are lax on environmental standards. That is why the recommendations that were made around transparency are so important. 11, 12, 13, 19 to 25, 31 and 33 all touch on that area of transparency. It is also featured in our recommendations on wild and farmed fish interactions in recommendation 39. The reality is that we were repeatedly told that there was a lack of data on many issues around this subject. On the one hand, strong claims were made that farmed fish were damaging wild stocks, yet we also heard that wild fish numbers were falling before farms were introduced, and some rivers on the east coast of fewer wild fish, despite the fact that they have no salmon farms. It seems that salmon are not as keen as ospreys and golden eagles to carry around tracking devices so that we know where they are and what they do. The level of feeling on the question of interaction became apparent to the committee as emails flooded in containing claims and counterclaims. The committee was subjected to repeated FOI requests, as one side sought to find out what the other was doing. Even before today's debate, there have been yet more emails and more briefings. It was refreshing to visit Lochaber and to see a better relationship and at least some attempt by both sides to work together and understand each other. There was broad agreement from witnesses that a precautionary approach would be taken on location of farms and other areas of planning and regulation. However, there was no agreement on whether such an approach is in fact being taken place at present. Some argued that the industry and government are being cautious, while others argued that they are not but need to be. However, I wanted to finally spend a bit of time concentrating on the positive effects of salmon farming. That is a sector in which Scotland is a world leader. Ourselfs in Norway are seen as two of the leading countries, and Scottish salmon features a premium price on world markets. I agree that everything is not perfect and that we should not be complacent, but let us not go down to the other extreme and run ourselves down. We have a fabulous product in a fabulous environment. Yes, we can improve and develop each of those. Yes, we can learn from others, but let us be proud of both our environment and our product. As Gillian Martin said, salmon used to be a food in Glasgow that was so common and so readily available that employers were restricted in how much they could feed it to their workers. However, times changed and I grew up, like Gillian Martin, thinking of salmon as a luxury product that we would not see on the family table. Now things have changed again. Scottish salmon appears in most of our supermarkets and I eat it on a regular basis. It is widely seen as one of our healthiest foods and I hope that other members too will support the industry by buying and eating Scottish salmon. Finlay Carson, followed by Richard Lyon, can I remind everyone up to five minutes, please? I believe that this debate marks an important milestone in the future of salmon farming in Scotland. Although the debate is centred on the Rex inquiry into salmon farming, much of the report highlights the work carried out by the clear and its own report into the environmental impact of salmon farming. Fish farming is the fastest growing form of animal food production on the planet, with around half of fish consumed globally raised in artificial environments. The importance of aquaculture to the Scottish rural economy cannot be understated. The industry has been a mainstay of many rural economies, particularly along the west and north west coasts of Scotland, supporting over 12,000 jobs, the supply chain companies and boosting exports for Scotland in the United Kingdom. The 2016 Scottish Government strategy predicts an increase in salmon production to about 350,000 tonnes per year, potentially worth in the region of 3.6 billion by 2030. The industry has huge potential to expand in the future. However, the industry, above all else, depends on the health of the environment in which it operates. It is clear that whether the sector expands or not, in regard to its impact on the marine environment, the status quo, as we have heard, is not an option. The report clearly indicates expansion that will only be possible with more effective regulatory standards, which both ensure that fish health issues are properly managed and that the impacts on our environment are minimised to absolutely ensure an economically and environmentally sustainable industry. One reason that the inquiry was undertaken was the growing body of evidence of the negative environmental impacts, despite agriculture in Scotland investing heavily in innovation to solve environmental and fish health challenges. The Eichler committee highlighted that the same issues that existed around environmental impact in 2022 still exist now, with concerns around high rates of sea lice, outbreaks of disease and escapes. Indeed, some of those issues have grown in scale and impact since 2002. The Eichler committee concluded that we are a critical point in considering how salmon farming develops in a sustainable way in relation to the environment, highlighting concerns that expansion is being developed without a full understanding of the impact. With that in mind, I agree that an independent assessment of the environmental sustainability is necessary. However, I welcome that the committee concluded that there was insufficient evidence for the introduction of moratorium on further expansion. A moratorium, I believe, would have been devastating for the industry, which we must look to grow, albeit with the right safeguards in place. I am pleased that the Eichler's recommendations were taken forward in relation to wild salmon populations, in particular the interactions between farmed and wild salmon. Although that might be difficult to deliver in practice, the sharing of data must be encouraged across the sector in order to ensure best practice across industry. Unfortunately, there is little time to consider all of the report, so I thought that I would look in particular at the challenge of sea lice infestation. The clear position is that a precautionary approach must be taken to address any potential impact of sea lice from salmon farms on our iconic wild salmon population. I must add that the sea lice is only one of many factors affecting the wild salmon population, and I look forward to my committee doing further work to explore the fallen numbers in our rivers. It is important to note that sea lice numbers recorded at salmon farms were at their lowest in number in September 2018 since reporting began. Without question, the industry has invested considerably in an attempt to address sea lice infestation on both farmed fish health and on wild salmon populations. However, it is clear that the industry has yet to identify a means to effectively deal with that parasite. With growing concern about the use of emorectin, benzoate and other anti-parasitic chemical treatments, which CEPA research concluded, it is significantly impacting local marine environments. Recommendation 26 endorses the clear's recommendations on the use of cleaner fish species such as wras, but with urgent need to assessments of future demand, given the growing concern that the current unregulated fishery is wiping local stocks out completely. Enshoir fisheries and conservation authorities in England have brought in statutory regulations for the wras fishery, and I wonder if the minister would consider replicating the best practice in Scottish waters. The industry talks about a shift to farmed cleaner fish, but the most recent data shows production of just 58,000 wras when projections show that we would need about 10 million by 2020. If the wild fishery collapses and the farming cannot fill the gap, what is the future for alternatives to chemical lice control? With additional safeguards that are recommended by the committee, coupled with Scotland's emnable history of innovation, I am confident that the salmon farming industry can continue to grow while at the same time taking into account the needs of our natural environment. Richard Lyle, followed by Claudia Beamish. I want to begin my contribution this afternoon by stating clearly that I support salmon farming in Scotland because of its potential growth. It is, in my opinion, sustainable and its contribution to our local communities. It is a Scottish industry that I want to see continue to grow and prosper. Salmon farming will bring increased benefits to Scotland, the local community and the local economy. The growth of the Scottish salmon farming industry started in the 1970s. According to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, it has come to be dominated by operators who have companies operating in several countries, which includes many productions and job opportunities in Scotland. Aside from job growth, it also provides 17.5 billion meals each year worldwide. That speaks volumes to its success as it is a leader to the salmon industry, along with Norway, Canada and Chile. Scotland's salmon is quality superior. We have come a long way since the start of the industry. I want to see it expand to be a global leader in its respective production. Yes, it must expand, but it must tackle problems along the way. That has been a good food provider. To become a European and a world leader in the production of salmon, the industry has declared its ambition to double the value of salmon by 2030. Furthermore, the salmon industry is currently spending around £400 million each year in Scotland on goods and services. As the industry continues to grow and reinvest, there is clearly an opportunity for Scottish-based businesses. An opportunity not to be missed. As a result, I am fully supportive of the industry because it aligns itself with our values. The sustainability report, which is documented that salmon is a sustainable source of protein, leaves less carbon footprint when it is compared to chicken, pork and beef. Did not you know that? Chicken, pork and beef are still producing 20 times more than salmon, but the salmon farm in Scotland can contribute to reducing the statistics, as it has the support of all present today. I am proud that we will continue to support an industry that enriches the lives of the people of Scotland. After the two reports by committees, I would now suggest that predicting the environment is one of the top priorities of this industry. SEPA reported that more than 87 per cent of the farms that produce salmon were either categorised as good or excellent. Salmon farm should be rightly committed to protecting the health, wellbeing of marine life. With the advancement of technology, there should be improved new ways of how to minimise factors that could result in any damage to the seabed. Technology has reached new heights. It should be used therefore by firms to resolve any local issues. However, I am not here only to talk about what we can accomplish or have accomplished. I am here today to present to you the things that we have successfully executed. What the industry has done for our country and what it can do in the future will reflect the best of Scotland. The industry plays a vital role in enhancing the lives of our communities and creates job opportunities for the people of Scotland with salaries that tend to be higher when compared with the Scottish average. Not only does it directly support our local employment, it also aids indirect jobs across the supply chain within the industry. The industry is clearly vital to the growth of Scotland and must be supported as it continues to grow. The ambition of the industry is well summarised with what it has done, what it is going to do and what it is committed to do for Scotland, and I would encourage it to do so. I would like to underline a key element in the industry, social economic impact. Salmon farming directly employs 1,772 people across freshwater and seawater farms. Agriculture contributes enormously to rural economy by supporting 12,000 jobs. Over a million salmon meals are consumed in the United Kingdom every day, including the cabinet secretary today. Over 60 countries which oversee the sales worth of £600 million making Scottish farm salmon the UK's most valuable export. Many of those jobs will help to support and sustain rural economies. That also helps to keep rural schools, post-offices, shops and community halls open. As I have already outlined, I could go on and on and on, but you tell me I can't, so my support for the salmon industry is now in record and I wish them well. Claudia Beamish, followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Sustainable development must be at the core, the way forward for all activity in our precious marine environment. That underpins our national marine plan, and that is essential for the future of all those who work in the salmon farming industry. In our Eclair committee letter to the REC committee, we stated, Scotland is at a critical point in considering how salmon farming develops in a sustainable way in relation to the environment. If the current issues are not addressed, this expansion will be unsustainable and may cause irrecoverable damage to the environment. In view of the range of evidence from our scientific report, and some of which has come to light since that part of our letter, I have today emphasised that I would change the word may to will. In my short time to speak, I am going to delineate and try to distill some of the reasons why. In the last session of this Parliament, I had the responsibility for scrutinising and making contributions to the Agriculture and Fisheries Scotland Act 2013. The purpose of the act was to ensure that fisheries are managed to support sustainable economic growth with due regard to the wider marine environment. I will start with sea lice and a continuing serious animal welfare issue, which also risks denting consumer confidence if it is not properly tackled. The Rural Affairs Environment and Climate Change Committee in our scrutiny of the act had to ask stakeholders to stop sending evidence about sea lice because it had in our judgment become a tit for tat. This time, we were a little wiser and the Eclare committee started with the commissioning of a peer-reviewed scientific report. Back then in 2013, I tabled an amendment calling for farm-by-farm sea lice reporting in real time. That was rejected by the Scottish Government and by the industry body, the SSPO—the latter principally on commercial confidentiality grounds. It is thus extraordinary to me to hear last year that the SSPO waited until giving evidence to our committee to make the announcements that the measures that the body had agreed to tackle on this issue. It just does not wash. I now note that the cabinet secretary's reviewed farm sea lice compliance policy will include consideration of mandatory reporting. However, consideration can be a disappointing word. I would seek reassurance from the cabinet secretary without pre-empting the group and his closing remarks. When I visited a marine harvest fish farm during the scrutiny of the Aquaculture Act, the wonders of wrath as a cleaner fish for sea lice were extolled. It is now—there are serious questions to answer, as we have heard from Finlay Carson as well, and also by the SIFT briefing as to the sustainability of the wild stocks. Can it be acceptable for the aquaculture industry to be self-regulating the wrath fishery through voluntary measures? The industry still has a lot to do to prove its sustainable development credentials, and I very much hope that people will do that. I, along with Colin Smyth, will be attending the opening of the salmon fishing season on the Nith, with the Nith district salmon fishery board. Can the cabinet secretary also update the chamber today on the timelines for the salmon interactions working group? It is fundamentally important for salmon and sea trout, and that also contributes to the fragile communities that depend, in part, on rod fishing tourism. That is also about local people fishing. The Fisheries Management Scotland points out that both committees recommended urgent research into the development of closed containment facilities, and I hope that that will be taken on board by the cabinet secretary. Can he also update the chamber today on the timescars for reporting for the welcome subgroups of the strategic farmed salmon health framework working group? The status quo, as we have heard many times today and from both committees, is not an option. I think that we all get that now in this chamber, in the industry and in the agencies. The sustainable future of the industry must be a collective effort. Further research is essential, and that must be in part funded by the industry itself. However, how can this be independent, possibly in part by a charging regime that enables groups representing the industry, local authorities, community and concern groups and regulatory bodies, to commission independent research into fish well for immortality, into the appropriate sightings of future applications, the effects of medicines on the seabed, to name but some of the issues that we have to get right. I welcome the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre, which will have a strong role to play in its briefing. The provenance of our farmed salmon, its reputation, affordable food here and for export, and the maintaining and developing of work in our fragile coastal communities are all at stake. I hope that the Scottish Government today will commit to the precautionary principle unequivocally in going forward. Mark Ruskell, followed by Tavish Scott. I thank members of the Wreck Committee for their detailed work on the report. I am very pleased to hear from the convener that the early work that we did in the Eclare Committee helped to focus in on the environmental issues. I think that that is how this Parliament should be working more collaboratively. Both committees have recognised that the status quo is unacceptable and that fundamental change is needed. In many ways, the report marks a crossroads in the way that we regulate the salmon farming industry in Scotland. In one direction, we can continue with weak regulation and an industry growing well beyond the limits of the environment that sustains it. In the other direction, we can drive high quality through regulation that demands the industry innovates to address problems before it can expand any further. You could call that direction a moratorium, but I believe that it is a way of delivering future growth and jobs in communities while addressing the problems head on. Last year, I attended the Arctic Circle forum in Reykjavik with the convener, Gillian Martin. I heard from those who are planning the future of the global salmon farming industry. It was an eye-opener, because it was clear that, while we are not alone in Scotland in highlighting the problems, we are slipping behind in delivering the solutions by failing to adopt more Nordic approaches to regulation and licensing. The Norwegians in particular have recognised that they have reached a peak. The footprint of the industry in the ffords has got far too big, but instead of seeking sticking plaster solutions, they have driven transformative innovation through competitive licensing. This is a profitable industry. The market price of farm salmon has nearly travelled in the last 20 years, and the coastlines to raise salmon are globally scarce, and listed companies are keen to show stock markets that they have a strong future. There can be no leakage of salmon farming to other countries, because every country faces similar problems. Limitless capacity does not exist, and the only way to survive is to innovate harder and to innovate faster. The Norwegians have allowed companies to expand further, but only if they invest in that innovation. Companies have come forward with an incredible array of closed or semi-closed systems based in the sea that address the issues of disease, parasitism, fish escapes and pollution from waste and chemicals head-on. Many of the solutions are offshore, and they borrow technology from the oil and gas industry. Sites for new and expanded farms are auctioned off to the highest bidder. Last year's licensing round in Norway generated over €300 million from just 23 auction sites, releasing a combined production capacity increase of around 15,000 tonnes. The auctioning of those sites at high value creates the wealth that can then be reinvested back into the research. I recently visited the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre at Stirling University, which is already mentioned by a number of members. There is excellent work going on that is focused on understanding and managing the problems associated with open cage salmon farming, but that work would be truly transformative if it was applied to the kind of sea-based closed systems that are already being developed in Norway. Why do Scotland remain a dumping ground for old open-pen technology that Norwegian companies would not get away with using on new sites at home? Meanwhile, the search for solutions to old problems is getting ever more desperate. For example, why are we compounding salmon farming's destructive impact by allowing an unregulated ras fishery that could drive species to extinction all to solve a parasite problem that could be largely avoided by using contained systems? The ras fishery has no reliable stock monitoring, no statutory closure to allow recovery during the breeding season, and poor regulation of landing sizes. The Government, as other members have said already, has effectively signed over control of this fishery to the salmon farming industry, and so doing is failing in its statutory duties under the Nature Conservation Act. Without the safeguards, there is a clear case for a catching moratorium until the regulation has caught up. Once again, we are trapped in a calamity where industry tries to externalise all its damages onto the public purse while we are left studying the impacts and scratching our heads about how to deal with them. Meanwhile, the industry is more than capable of innovating out of the problems if only it had the right incentives. The crossroads that we are now at, SEPA's Aquaculture sector review, currently falls woefully short of the kind of transformative regulation that we are beginning to see in Norway. SEPA's conclusions for this review need to come back to this Parliament for both committees to scrutinise. We cannot strike a cheap compromise between the environment and the economy when it comes to salmon farming because we actually need both. The prize is there if the Government can start thinking in a more Norwegian manner. Tavish Scott, followed by Maureen Watt. Dennis and Catrine Johnson's office window in the USound in Unst looks out over a pristine marine landscape. They would not recognise, as they have been working in this industry for many years, that they would not recognise much or some things that have been said in this debate today. They would not recognise that last speech and the allegations of deliberate malpractice about people who have worked in the marine environment all their lives for a variety of different companies. A lot of people do not see any history on salmon farming. Salmon farming started as a small crofting business in lots of parts of Scotland, including on the west coast, and it is now owned largely by international companies. It has changed overwhelmingly. However, what has not changed is the number of people who are employed in parts of Scotland that simply would not have jobs if salmon farming did not exist. Unston, Yale and Fetla are the best examples of that that I know anywhere in Scotland. There are 110 direct jobs and any number of 100 indirect jobs. Those jobs would not exist. Those islands would not exist. They were not for that industry. The idea is that those people deliberately pollute and deliberately go around with the issues of sea ice and mortality and tried to do nothing about it, are lines of argument that I just do not recognise in people. No, we have heard from you. We have absolutely heard the green position and by gosh was it clear. I can assure you that that speech will go to every one of my constituents so that they know where you are. Can I remind members that you speak through the chair and not to each other please? 110 jobs directly in the north isles of Shetland. 23 per cent of Scottish production of farmed salmon grown in Shetland, 421 people in the islands that I represent, worth £14 million to the local economy, is never mentioned by those kind of speeches from those benches over there. On the other side of this report that I found puzzling, the minister rightly mentioned the food and drink strategy. No mention of that in this committee report. There would not be a food and drink strategy in Scotland without the salmon farming industry and its export, as the minister rightly said, to 50 countries. Nor would there be the range of people who now work in the industry, as Ben Hadfield said in evidence for marine harvest to the industry. We used to employ just a farm manager and some farm hands. Now we employ scientists, veterinarians, people with information technology skills and so on and so forth. Scottish Sea Farms in their submission to members before this debate pointed out that on fish welfare, a point not made by too many other members in this debate, 36 farm-based fish health specialists, three in-house vets, two fish welfare auditors, two fish welfare officers at every harvest and one head of fish health. A huge number of incredibly able people. No, I'm going to make these arguments, Mr Finnie, and you didn't, so I'm going to make them. Mr Finnie, please sit down. The men and women with degrees and huge numbers of very precise qualifications now working in this industry all over Scotland. I think that's something that we should champion and support, not run down, as some people have chosen to do today. The other point that I want to make about innovation—can I just make these points about innovation and investment? We've heard Claudia Beamish's take on these issues already. On Scottish Sea Farms alone, they are trialling an innovative new device to convert wave energy to power, a green measure out of thought that would be worth mentioning by some in this place. The mantra converter has been introduced on a farm in Shetland. It's hoped that that converter will produce enough electricity to power feeding systems, underwater lighting and acoustic predator deterrents, thus reducing the company's reliance on diesel and indeed doing something about the predator issue as well. In Shetland alone, we do not expect to need to have any licenses for seals this year at all because of the work that the industry is doing, because of the work that the industry is investing in. I wish that a few more members had mentioned that as well. There seems to be lots of matters that are being invested that have not come up in this debate. What was mentioned by a number of members and rightly so is the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre doing very strong work in conjunction with the industry. It points out in its briefing for this debate that, in the first phase of funding, it has turned a £5.4 million project spend into a total R&D investment programme of £39 million across Scotland, of which £14 million has come direct from industry contributions. It seems to me that the industry is investing in exactly the kind of measures that are needed in terms of the environment, in terms of the future, which are desperately needed as well, because it is not just about the industry directly, it is the indirect jobs that go with that, it is the well-boats, it is the haulage companies. If you drive along the M6, if you happen to look out on the right-hand side as you are going past Larkhall, you will see a bunch of logistic centres, all of which employ people in many constituencies in the central belt of Scotland, Deputy Presiding Officer, who work supporting the salmon farming industry. It is not just about rural areas of this country, it is about right across the whole of Scotland. On sea lice, the Scottish Sea Farms are investing in a sea lice shield that is 13 farms already and growing, which will have a measure to deal with exactly the issue that I recognise needs to be invested. Let me finish just by making one observation. No, very quickly, Mr Scott. I should say that Mr Ewing and I have been in this chamber a long time, and this industry has been attacked by big-landed interests with fishing rivers and the Greens for many years. I hope that he stands up to it for a few more years. Maureen Watt, followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In taking this part in this debate, I should point out that I joined the rural economy and connectivity committee after it had taken all its evidence on the salmon industry. Therefore, I had to start by reading the Eclare committee's report, all the written evidence, and the committee reports where they had taken overall evidence in order for me to contribute to the report as it was written In my view, it is important that the rec committee looked at the industry and framed its report on the basis of the rural economy and its importance to it and not have an environment committee mark 2 report. In 2017, as others have said, the salmon farming industry harvested 189,000 tonnes and the sector's highest-ever output. Exports reached an all-time high in 2017 of £600 million worth of exports, going to 50 countries worldwide with the US, France and China of the top three countries. Interestingly, salmon sales to the EU account for 40 per cent of export value. As the cabinet secretary said, according to the HIE employment in the industry and its wider supply chain topped 10,000 full-time equivalent jobs, earnings direct and indirect are valued at around £271 million, as Tavish Scott well-paid jobs with good promotional prospects. Salmon farming has a GVA for Scotland of £540 million. Salmon farming company spent £164 million on suppliers and services in the highlands and islands alone in 2016. Are the importance of this relatively new industry to rural and remote communities and its sustainability cannot be understated? The industry's importance to other parts of Scotland should also be recognised. For example, in Recythe in Bellshill and in Stirling, as others have mentioned, with the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. I too recognised the huge amount, almost half, to the innovation and research and development that is provided by the industry itself. The industry has also transformed, as Gillian Martin said, our population's access to a healthy source of food and protein. It is now an affordable source of food on our school dinner menus and in our supermarkets. In terms of the supermarkets, the sector is only as strong as its weakest link, which is why, in my view, everyone is connected with the industry. In the words of Heather Jones, chief executive of SAIC, the industry agrees that it needs to be stable, well-regulated, animal friendly and scientifically robust. That is why she said that this is why we welcome the report's publication and focus on how aquaculture can deliver benefits to the Scottish economy and local communities. I have not come across anyone in the industry who does not believe that the industry should continue to grow in anything other than a sustainable way. The industry recognises the problems of mortalities, guild disease and sea lice and is already taking action to address those issues. It is not in the industry's interests whether it be its markets or its profitability not to deal with those issues. We know the highly competitive nature of the business and the hugely competitive industries that there are in Norway, Chile and Canada. With my time remaining, I would like to address the role of the regulatory bodies, particularly SEPA, in improving the industry as we go forward. Members will know that, on 7 November, SEPA published its draft thin fish aquaculture sector plan. Indeed, SEPA held a drop-in event in Parliament, allowing members to discuss this, and they have already consulted widely across the sector, NGOs and partner public bodies. About 14 of our salmon reports recommendations are directed at SEPA, and, in their briefing to us, they go through them and how they are addressing those. A recommendation of true addresses regulatory deficiencies as well as fish health and environmental issues. That is why they believe that their fish aquaculture sector plan already deals with that. Other recommendations in terms of medicines are addressed by the United Kingdom Technical Advisory Committee of which SEPA is a member, which deals with that. Other recommendations, such as 40, 41 and 42, relating to the protection of wild salmon, are also addressed by the interactions working group. It is important that the regimes are co-ordinated, enhanced, robust and effectively enforce compliance with high environmental standards. In meeting all those recommendations in the reports, I am sure that everyone is engaged to continuous improvement in the industry. As legislators, we must be enhancing the exciting industry. Jamie Greene, to be followed by Alex Rowley. Can you imagine a farm anywhere in Scotland where the animals are covered in flesh-eating parasites, diseased, and where a third of its livestock dies before even reaching market? A farm such as this would surely be the subject of many questions by us, by its peers, by the media and feel the full weight of our regulatory regimes. A farm such as this makes no environmental sense, makes no moral sense, nor any commercial sense, even to the farmer itself. Why, then, is a farm in water any different from one on land? One is an established form of practice, which we have been doing for hundreds, arguably thousands of years, and the other is a fledgling industry, which has seen monumental growth in demand for its product in a relatively short lifespan. This is the conundrum that I personally face from day one of this salmon farming inquiry. How do we strike that balance between supporting what is undoubtedly and undeniably a proud Scottish industry of great importance to our economy but equally be bold enough to say that the status quo is simply not good enough? We spent months taking evidence, often in the face of hyperbolic and often apocalyptic headlines, with emotions running high on all sides of the debate, as today shows. From day one, you were expected to assume one side of the argument over another. Are you in favour of fish farms or against? Do you favour a moratorium or are you against? Are fish farms the reasons for stock reductions in wild salmon or not? It was against that backdrop that it seemed like an impossible task. The role of the rural economies report was partially been not exclusively in the environmental aspects of salmon. We also had a duty to consider the social, financial, employment and the export aspects of the industry. Recommendation 1 set the scene. It said that if the industry is to grow, it must identify solutions to the challenges that it faces. Recommendation 2 went on to say, if the industry is to grow, the meaningful action needs to be taken to address regulatory deficiencies. What is the difference between those recommendations? The first shines a light on the need for the industry to tackle its own problems, and the second says that it is the regulatory environment in which it operates that we also need to sort out. Both are necessary in my view. I think that the 2030 vision of growing the industry is an admirable one, and we as a Parliament should be positive about it. The industry supports up to 10,000 jobs in Scotland and nearly £2 billion to our economy. A lot has been achieved and I too want it to grow, but growth cannot and must not come at any cost. I have not met anyone over our deliberations who is blind to or ignorant to the massive challenges that the industry faces, but I too have stood in the cold waters of Scottish rivers, none of them my own, rod in hand with nothing to catch but the cold. I believe that if we get some and farming right and with the right partnerships in place, we should and could work collectively to get to a place where we are proud of our product and where the industry can grow in the knowledge that it can do so in a responsible and regulated manner. Let me share some further thoughts on that. First, one of the recurring themes that has come out of the report and today is that around the regulatory framework, that I think is meeting neither the needs of producers nor those with serious concerns about the industry. A robust and forcible approach to regulation is the only thing that will be acceptable to address the concerns of many who have concerns over animal welfare and the environmental effects of the rapid growth that we have seen. Secondly, the same goes for the planning and consent process. It relies on subjective interpretation of what is in the public good. Thirdly, grow the industry, but do not grow for growing sake. I think that salmon producers themselves accept that. We have to compete with Chile and Norway in Canada, but this is not a race to the bottom. Farmed Scottish salmon should enjoy the highest quality standards. Let us be world leading in every respect. Lastly and more importantly is the sighting of fish farms. My personal view is that we should give serious consideration to the following, to closed containment sites or onshore sites, to the moving of sites that are in sensitive areas and the potential closure of sites where everyone agrees that mortality levels are unsustainable or those who are repeat offenders. Let us have an informed and sensible debate about offshore farms as well. It is not the great panacea that some believe. We should give serious consideration to the traffic light system that exists in Norway, which will allow different bits of Scotland to do what is right for their region and their environment. There is so much more that I wish we had time to cover in the short debate, and the debate is certainly not over. I support the growth of the Scottish salmon industry, but let the message also be heard today. We are watching and we will act. Alex Rowley, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to speak in this debate today on the conclusion of the report on salmon farming in Scotland by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I have a particular interest in this report as I sat on the Environment Committee when its inquiry went on into the environmental impacts of salmon farming in Scotland. While listening to the evidence and reading up on the issues, I found myself shocked by some of the concerns that were being raised. As someone who eats salmon on a very regular basis, I have to say that the levels of disease, mortality and the use of harmful chemicals used in the treatment of disease have certainly left me very concerned. Given that farmed Atlantic salmon is Scotland's and the UK's largest food exporter and that Scotland is the largest producer in the whole of the EU, I think that addressing the failings in the industry should be an absolute priority. That is not to be negative about the industry. Surely that is common sense if we want the industry to grow. In truth, this is an industry that has shown that it cannot self-regulate and that is why we need and must demand much stronger regulation and action from the Scottish Government. The report that we are debating today makes that point when it says, and I quote, the same set of concerns regarding the environmental impact of salmon farming exists now as in 2002 but the scale and impact of those has expanded since 2002. There has been a lack of progress in tackling many of the key issues previously identified and unacceptable levels of mortality persist. It is clear that something is not right if the problems in the industry are still present nearly 20 years later and in fact are getting worse. That is why I think that it is incredibly important that the Scottish Government takes note of the recommendations of this report today and the recommendations form the environmental committee, both of which highlight a desperate need for urgency in tackling the problems of intensive farming, sea lice, disease and escapes from farmed fish. Those problems mean questions that need to be raised around the issue of transparency and the publication of data, which is raised by both committee reports. By making data around mortality, sea lice, disease and escapes more transparent, we will be able to get a much clearer picture of what is actually going on in this industry. The public have a right to know what chemicals are being used in these farms and the impact of those chemicals in locks across Scotland as well as in our food. The committee report also highlighted actions that can be taken now to address and alleviate those problems. The Scottish Government could commit to the development and introduction of full-close containment contaminated farming. I recognise that that would need further research, but by outlining a realistic target for that, the Scottish Government would be taking a bold step and showing a commitment to addressing the negative effects of salmon farming on wild stocks. The questions around the pace of growth in the salmon industry remain with very real concerns that the industry must get its act together before any major expansion takes place. That again would show commitment to tackling the issues so that, in another 20 years, we are not simply talking about the problems that exist now. With regard to the concerns that have been raised about the impact of salmon farms on wild stocks, it is clear that the Scottish Government has not understood and appreciated the urgency of the situation and merely talking about a mechanism to inform the longer term determination of a regulatory framework in this area and a staged approach to building a long-term set of arrangements to fill the current regulatory gap. Indeed, those are not my words, but the words of the salmon and trout conservation Scotland are very clear that the Scottish Government response shows a general lack of urgency in key areas. What is required is urgent action and enforcement to control the negative impacts of the salmon farming industry. There is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to show leadership by taking on board the recommendations of both the committee reports. MSPs should be suspicious of announcements of further working groups on fish health or further repeat reviews of existing licensing and permitting designed to kick the committee's concerns into the long grass. We have been there before. The time is now for action, not words. I do hope that the Scottish Government will realise the seriousness of the situation and take the action that is necessary. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me start by thanking Tabish Scotch's constituents for the excellent products that they produce in their salmon farms and, indeed, all-round Scotland. That supports industries in my constituency. Sutherland's reports say that they have been smoking salmon for 100 years—originally wild salmon. We have the salted salmon being smoked with shavings from whisky casks to produce that marriage made in heaven—the taste of whisky on the small salmon, which I so enjoy, particularly if it is a knock glendiverin or glendglasser in my constituency. There is a fiction running through quite a lot of the debate. The fiction is that the producers of farmed salmon like lice on the fish. No. If there is lice on the fish, the commercial value of the fish goes down because it looks ugly on the fishmongers display. The fiction is that mortality is something to which the salmon farmers are indifferent. Every time a salmon dies on a fish farm, that is lost income to the salmon farmers. Do not let's pretend that the industry does not want to engage on the genuine and properly expressed challenges that they meet. Donald Cameron referred to Loch Ffine as an attempt to show the linkage between fish farms and reduced salmon runs. Martin Jaffe's book refers to Loch Ffine in relation to sea trout, the same species, and the three rivers that go into Loch Ffine, the one with the greatest reduction, is the one where the fish do not swim past the fish farms. The one where they have to swim past all the fish farms has seen the least reduction. There are many, many causes of reduction in the number of salmon in the wild environment. There are many things that affect both salmon farms and the wild environment. When I and my brother were water bailiffs for the Tay Salmon Fisheries Board in 1968, the whole talk of that season and previous seasons was in the reduction of fishing. Why did that happen? Well, there was illegal exploitation. We experienced those bailiffs, dynamite, hangnets and sniggering. I actually arrested somebody for sniggering on the island in Perth, which is an illegal method of catching fish. We had the clondycas from Russia sitting in Loch Brun with their own vessels out there catching salmon offshore, when the limits were three miles and 12 miles, not the 200 miles that we experienced today. We had predation from things like seals, the closing of the wee banky, the Sprat Fishery out in the North Sea in the 1970s, caused a quadrupling in the number of seals in the North Sea, and, guess what, seals like Eakin salmon. It is not one thing, it is a complex environment of different things. I first saw my sea lice in the 1950s. Unlike Jamie Greene, I was standing on the bank trying to catch with Ron Llyon salmon. My failures, I merely look in the mirror for the cause, because I am an indifferent fisherman. It is not because there were not fish in the river. I cannot judge because I have never seen them fish at Jamie Greene's competence. However, I saw sea lice at that time. We have crayfish in our rivers that consume almost anything that is there. You now have rivers where there is nothing but crayfish left in the rivers. We have had acidification of rivers because of the artificial fertilisers that are running off farmland. We have rising temperatures in rivers. We have clearing of vegetation on the edge of rivers that is allowing pollution and cattle on the edge. The products of the cattle being there are going into the rivers. We have other examples of where we have had dredging of things out of rivers that make it more difficult. Now, there are things that are good as well. We have dams and wears. The Plochry fish ladder is famous for supporting the proper passage of river up with other examples elsewhere. Let us not turn that into a simple-minded battle between the fish farms and the wild fish industry. It is a much more complex issue. I wish our industry every success in the future that I will continue to enjoy eating their products, but I will watch with interest as we regulate in an appropriate way. Colin Smyth is followed by Peter Chapman. Today's debate has shown that the business that is usual for salmon farming in Scotland is not an option. The industry has been encouraged by the Scottish Government to hit its ambitious growth targets, but the Government has not yet put in place the necessary regulatory framework to manage that expansion in a way that properly protects our environment and animal welfare. As a result, environmental and welfare shortcomings are in danger of adversely impacting on the economic and social benefits of salmon farming. Many members have highlighted that debate. The committee also highlighted those benefits. The very first sentence of the report states that the committee acknowledges both the economic and social value that the salmon farming industry brings to Scotland. The report goes on to highlight that aquaculture is worth £620 million a year. It supports 12,000 jobs, often high-skilled jobs, jobs of huge importance to the peripheral rural communities that they serve, which can be fragile with limited alternative employment markets. There is public evidence to the committee that Greg Seafood's Shetland set out the broader social and community benefits that those jobs provide, stating the help to support sustainable rural communities by providing year-round stable employment. That in turn helps to keep rural schools, post offices, shops and community halls open. The economic and social contribution of salmon farming was well-eared during the committee's inquiry, but it is because of the importance of that contribution that, unless the Government and industry tackle the environmental animal welfare issues that are highlighted in the report, the industry will not grow in a sustainable way and those economic and social benefits will be put at risk. It is not just salmon farming that is being undermined by the type of poor practice that is highlighted in the REC report and the previous report by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. Fin and Creole Fisher has told the REC committee that salmon farms can make their work more difficult and potentially dangerous by pushing those industries out of the most productive areas. Others raised environmental damage being done to marine tourism and wild salmon. What are the issues that could undermine salmon farming that we need to tackle? As several speakers have highlighted during the debate, farmed salmon has exceptionally high mortality rates. One kind has written evidence to the REC committee that stated that mortality rates are estimated to be over 20 per cent. In 2016, over 10 million salmon died on Scottish salmon farms. Recent data published by the Scottish Government on Scotland's aquaculture website suggests that the figure increased to over 11 million in 2017. The committee highlighted that there were particular sites with especially high mortality rates and made clear that we believed that expansion should not be permitted at those sites. There are also recommendations on the need to collect more up-to-date data on mortality rates. The committee rightly calls for far more tangible enforcement powers such as the ability to prevent expansion at sites with high mortality rates and a mechanism for limiting or closing down production when particularly severe events occur. Enforcement also needs to be strengthened through our revised compliance policy, which includes appropriate penalties. I appreciate the Farm Fish Health Framework for looking at a number of those issues after years of problems and not one but two damning committee reports. There is still no commitment from the Government to fully make the changes needed. However, that is not just about placing more requirements on the sector, it is also about how we support the industry to make improvements. The committee received evidence on the frustration felt by many in the sector about the disjointed and inconsistent nature of the regulatory system. Local authorities, Marine Scotland, Crown Estate, SEPA and Animal Plant and Health Agency are all involved in decision-making in the industry, creating a confusing and fragmented regulatory landscape. Dr Richard looks more from Scottish Environment link called for a single streamlined process in which a person submits a single application for a fish farm and all the impacts that are considered together. Although the feasibility of such a system remains to be seen, it is undeniable that we need a more integrated process. The committee's report reflected that important point. Note that the system is spread across several regulatory bodies and described in the current situation as confusing and poorly co-ordinated. The committee highlighted the need for significant improvements to co-ordination of an interaction between the various elements of the regulatory regime. I appreciate that there is work under way to address some of the issues particularly with regard to SEPA's responsibilities, but further bold action on that is needed. If there was, however, one aspect of the rec committee report that I was disappointed in, it was the committee's decision to dismiss calls for a moratorium, stating in the recommendations that there was insufficient evidence. The committee settled the changes that we need the industry and government to make, and I agree that it is only fair that they should have an opportunity to make those changes. However, if significant improvements are not made, I believe that a moratorium should at the very least remain an option, which is why I am dissenting from the committee's recommendation, completely ruling one out. In many ways, the committee agreed with me and somewhat contradicted itself by going on to state in the report that there should be no expansion in the industry until some of the serious problems have been sorted out. Frankly, that sounds a bit like a moratorium to me. In concluding, salmon farming is too important to our economy and to communities to be managed in an unsustainable way. The future of the sector requires us to hold the industry to the highest environmental standards and to ensure that they take animal welfare and agriculture more seriously. The Government needs to put in place the regulatory framework to achieve that. Work in this has begun with a number of initiatives and announcements in recent months, but we should be in no doubt—this is in no small part thanks to the work of the and rec committees. We have shone a light on the environmental and animal welfare failings of the industry. The recommendations of both committees provide a strong starting point for developing solutions to those failings, and both the Government and industry should ensure that those recommendations are now fully delivered. The committee has agreed to conduct the inquiry in June 2017 to get to this point. I want to begin, as many other speakers today have, by thanking everyone who helped us to produce the report, and everyone who worked so well with the committee throughout this consultation process and during our evidence sessions. I would also like to thank everyone who hosted the committee on site visits last April, and we have had 160 written submissions of evidence, and we have also met the Norwegian Fisheries Minister, Per Sandberg. It has indeed been a big job, and I believe that a thorough process has delivered an important report. Two things have been abundantly clear from all parties across the chamber today. First, we all recognise the huge importance of the salmon farming industry for Scotland. It provides economic prosperity and good, well-paid job opportunities in some of our most remote and disadvantaged areas. In those remote areas, as my colleague Donald Cameron touched on, this industry helps to provide a huge social benefit for sustaining rural schools, shops and local businesses. Salmon farming has created an estimated 12,000 jobs in Scotland and has become Scotland's biggest food export, with an estimated value of £600 million in 2017. Scotland is the top producer in the EU and one of the top three producers globally, so there is no doubt that the economic benefits for Scotland are huge. Salmon farming is also made affordable. It is no longer a luxury food, as Gillian Martin outlined. I can well remember as well when it was a luxury food. It is also, as the Cabinet Secretary outlined, sold in some 50 countries worldwide, so it again is a huge export success story. As Rhoda Grant told us, we should all be eating more oily fish. It is good for our health, and, despite what the vegans and vegetarians might say, I believe that it is good for us. However, the second thing that became clear during our inquiry and has been expressed multiple times across the chamber today is that the current status quo is not acceptable. More enhanced and effective standards of production and environmental sustainability must be introduced. We need to ensure that regulatory deficiencies that currently exist in the industry are addressed to improve fish health and environmental impact. There is no doubt that, in the past, there have been poor rates of compliance, and convener Ed Mountain mentioned that point. He also mentioned the fact that we need to make sure that we locate farms in more suitable areas in the future. I also believe that some of the farms that are in the wrong place need to be able to move them. I totally disagree with John Finnie on this point, when I think that there is a right place for fish farms to be, and there can be a wrong place for them to be as well. We also need to better understand the effect that salmon farming has on the wild salmon population. That is a hugely difficult subject, but Stuart Stevenson addressed many of the issues there and highlighted just how difficult the problems are, and they are multifaceted. Myrtality levels in salmon farms are often too high—I agree with that as well—but there is no doubt that the industry takes that very seriously indeed, and I am pleased to see that myrtality levels are now beginning to fall. Rhoda Grant also spoke of the issue of escaped fish. Thankfully, that does not seem to be a big issue just now, but there is no doubt that moving to more exposed sites could make that more likely to happen in the future. Mike Rumbles made the important point that there was no single body that took responsibility for regulating the industry, and that he believed that that was a huge failing, and I tend to agree. Many issues in the industry should only expand carefully until those issues are addressed, and with the Scottish Government's target to grow our food and drink industry to be worth £30 billion by 2030, it is vital that we grow our biggest food producer, namely the salmon industry. I welcome seep as Fin fish aquaculture sector plan, which was published in November for consultation. That consultation included plans for a world-leading framework for regulating marine cage fish farms. That is vital work, and I look forward to hearing the results of that consultation. The focus on the necessary environmental improvements for this industry has resulted in significant improvements in sea-lice numbers. Sea-lice numbers found that Scottish Salmon Farms in September 2019 were the lowest for that month and have been the lowest for five years, as Finlay Carson pointed out. That has been achieved with various methods, and that is certainly not only by using chemicals. The use of cleaner fish is a new and important way to tackle that issue. Again, Finlay Carson and Mark Ruskell highlighted the dangers to wild-rass stocks. However, the increasing numbers of those fish being grown on farm rather than caught in the wild will help to keep this method of control sustainable. Can I also say how much I agree with David Scott in his comments on Mark Ruskell's entirely negative speech, which I also did not recognise as a fair comment on this industry? No, I have no time. This improvement is only the beginning. I welcome Sea-lice efforts so far and look forward to seeing Sea-lice implementing the FIN Fish Aquaculture Sector Plan to continue this improvement in standards and regulation. I also welcome the Scottish Government's fish health framework, which expects to lead to not only a huge reduction in fish mortality, but much-needed improvement in the transparency and the reporting of mortality rate, life-levels and disease outbreaks at salmon farms. In conclusion, I am supportive of the industry and want to see it grow, but it must be done sustainably with high welfare and environmental standards at its heart. I thank the rural economy committee for calling for this debate. It has provided an opportunity to discuss issues of great import to a sector that has, I believe, become, in a short period, a cornerstone of this country's rural economy. I have been heartened by the support across the chamber—or most of the chamber for the industry—qualified by the need to meet the challenges that it currently faces. To start off with Mr Chapman, it was very fair of him to point out that some of those challenges are already being tackled successfully, namely sea lice, the use of cleaner fish, but there is more to be done. I hope that that short few sentences is designed to sum up where most of this Parliament is because plainly not everybody is in that place. That consensus, in support of a sustainable industry, is something that I am very much welcome. From my part, with the responsibilities that Mr Rumble said, fall to me, I will do my best to seek to implement, direct and ensure that the direction of travel of government policy reflects the tone of this debate overall. I thought that this would be a useful way to start the debate because, in the short time available, I simply will not have the ability to reply to every one of the many questions that were asked. I think that it is fair to say that the sector is investing very heavily to improve fish health, and it has been doing so for some considerable time. It has been doing so in some cases with success. For example, the Scottish Seafarm sustainability report points to £11.8 million in investment in fish health in 2017, which is 85 per cent in non-medicinal measures, and 91.3 per cent fish survival at sea in 2018, a 50 per cent reduction in the use of medicinal treatments, and a 25 per cent reduction in the need for sea life treatments. Surely those are all things that all of us will welcome. Interactions is a vital area where we are working on and addressing. I want to emphasise that we will not be kicking this particular can down the road. Claudia Beamish in particular sought assurances about time limits. I think that I am going to resist the temptation to respond to that specifically if I may. As a minister, that is generally a prudent course to take. However, in saying that, I want to reiterate my determination that we will act swiftly, but bear in mind please that each of the groups that we have set up—some of them some time ago—required to do their work. To do their work involves considering the evidence. Considering the evidence that we know from the committee's reports takes time, it is a long time since the committee's reports began. Similarly, we need to allow the groups—the interactions group—in particular time to do its work. John Goodlad's leadership and the technical expertise of those in the committee is a big advantage for us. The committee came to a view that it did not think that we should go far enough to say that there should be compulsory arrangements between salmon producers and wild fisheries. Does the minister have any views on the nature of those types of relationships and whether they should remain voluntary or whether they should be stronger than that? That is a very important and relevant question. I am not trying to dodge it, but the primary issue is what the impacts are. That is the first thing that one needs to establish evidentially. I think that many members have referred to the fact that there is multi-factorial. I think that Mr Stevenson referred to this. I believe that 12 factors at least can contribute to the mortality of wild salmon. Therefore, that needs to be considered first. Then, the appropriate action that should be taken should be implemented. At that stage, whether it should be done on a voluntary or compulsory basis, falls to be considered sequentially. However, I want to ensure that members do not gain the impression or seek to interpret what I am saying now as in any way a sense that we wish to delay action quite the opposite. However, it must be evidence-based, it must be orderly, it must be thoughtful, it must be considered. However, in the interim, we shall be taking steps to ensure that environmental monitoring takes place. That is something that we will be able to do ad interim, if you like, without waiting for the outcome of the various groups that we have set up. I welcome the fact that many members have recognised that setting up of those groups is a serious piece of work. It is the only way to address those concerns. Few, if any of us are experts, we must reach out to those who have the experience and knowledge and gain the benefit of their work, pro bono, in most cases, I have to say, and thank them and appreciate and value the work that they are doing, and that is the approach that we shall take. We have touched on the importance of the sector to rural Scotland, and I cannot emphasise enough the reach and significance of the investments that are being made. Galeforce, in my constituency, is investing 914,000 to develop new fish farming pens. The Aquaculture Innovation Centre has overseen 14 projects worth £11.4 million, of which industry contributed £7 million. There are very substantial sums of money that are being deployed in order to seek the solutions to the problems that we have discussed today. There is substantial community benefit, and I do not have time to go through it. I have got all the figures here, but some of the major companies are contributing to the communities in which they are based, and that is appreciated. We, of course, wish to encourage them to do more. When I visited Orkney some months ago, Scottish Seafarms was celebrating 10 years operating in Orkney. I learned that the average wage of their employees in Orkney was £37,000. Let me repeat that. I met them. I met several of them. They are hardworking, they were young—at least, in comparison with me, they were young anyway—and they were all at the heart of rural communities, a point that I think Mr Scott made very trenchant play and effectively, if I may say so. The cloud of Brexit, I am afraid, is hanging over the sector, and it is very clear that the approach that we recommend of the continuance in the single market is one that they would recognise. I wish that I could have time to say more, but I do not. I will conclude by very much welcoming the support for a sustainable aquaculture sector in Scotland and pledging to do my bit to ensure that that is precisely what we will continue to achieve and deliver. I call Gail Ross, the vice-convider, to conclude on behalf of the Rural Affairs Committee. That has been an extremely interesting and worthwhile debate, and it is clear that there is broad recognition across the Parliament of the economic and social value of the salmon farming industry. At the same time, there is a clear acknowledgement that action must be taken to address the fish health and environmental challenges that it faces if we are to grow in a sustainable manner. As Mark Ruskell says, we are at a crossroads. The debate, although from our committee, also had speakers from the Eclare committee as well, and I would like to thank them, the Clark, Spice and everyone else that gave evidence to both reports. We have heard that the status quo is not an option. That was the conclusion of the Eclare committee, and we agreed with that. The cabinet secretary also stated that in his opening statement, and many other members also stated that as well. This is an industry that is only as strong as its weakest link, as we have heard from Maureen Watt. The farms that are underperforming need support and guidance to perform better. One of our asks is that we get Maureen Scotland to take responsibility for improvements and assume that overarching role of regulator, as Mike Rumbles stated. This is a multimillion-pound industry and everyone needs it to succeed. It is a big employer in constituencies like mine and in uniquely fragile communities. Even one or two jobs could be the difference between the local school closing or staying open. That was also mentioned by Peter Chapman and Colin Smyth. Nearly every speaker managed to state the benefits of salmon farming, even Jamie Greene managed to say something nice. All the other conveners of both committees and all the members that spoke, Tavish Scott gave a robust defence of the industry, and he was right to also talk about Scotland's food and drink strategy. Richard Lyle said that Scotland's salmon is quality superior. I will not go over the stated benefits to the industry. I will now turn to the contributions in the short time that I have left. Gill disease was one of the major serious challenges that the industry faces. One of the things that the fish health framework has action upon itself is to understand the underlying factors, support for more research, establish good practice and formulate a long-term approach. As Maureen Watt stated, the industry recognises those issues. Sea lice is another challenge, as we heard from John Mason, Finlay Carson and I do not know if I am allowed to say this, but the Queen of Sea lice herself, Claudia Beamish, and the committee took quite a bit of evidence on this, and we heard differing opinions about how the challenge was being dealt with. We even heard disagreement about whether the numbers were decreasing or increasing. We had a number of recommendations, including an easily accessible information source, compliance in reporting to be mandatory and effectively monitored. I note that Alex Rowley talked about the reporting issue. As Stuart Stevenson stated, producers do not want sea lice on their fish. We talked about cleaner fish. This was mentioned by Finlay Carson, Peter Chapman and Mark Ruskell. The Scottish Government has confirmed that Marine Scotland and the industry have agreed a range of voluntary measures for the wild-rass fishing industry, and there are positive moves towards increasing hatchery-reared cleaner fish. However, as Finlay Carson stated, we will need more and more. Mark Ruskell stated that we might not need cleaner fish at all if we were to move to a closed-containment system. Most members spoke about the interaction between farmed and wild salmon. As Stuart Stevenson rightly pointed out, there are many reasons for the declines in wild salmon. A lot of people stated that fish farms only have a small contributing factor, and stocks are also declining on the east coast, where there are no fish farms. I believe that Rhoda Grant stated that in her speech. I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement of the group set up to look at this, which Claudia Beamish mentioned. I do not have a lot of time left. We talked about other things, planning the role of local authorities, purely sighted farms and how we can support the industry to make sure that farms are sighted in the right places. We have had some recent good news on shooting of seals. Again, it is an animal welfare issue. Nobody wants to see seals shot, and Scottish sea farms have managed to reduce the amount of seals shot by 31 per cent last year, due to using new types of netting. I know that Tavish Scott mentioned that as well. We must support the industry to strive. I have heard and read a lot in the run-up to this debate today, but I would like to take the opportunity to thank each and every person, as John Mason rightly said. We had a lot of people getting in touch. It is not about right and wrong. It is not about winning and losing. We have heard of the range of activity being undertaken by the Scottish Government via its farm-fish health framework and its salmon interaction working group. We know that SEPA intends to bring forward proposals to strengthen regulation, drive operators towards full compliance and improve environmental protection. Our committee believes that it is critical that those proposals result in meaningful and tangible action, which will allow the salmon industry to continue to be an economic success story, while ensuring that it operates to the highest possible health and environmental standards. I am sure that I speak for both committees members in saying that we hope that our inquiry reports have made a worthwhile contribution to achieving that ambition. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on behalf of the rural economy and connectivity committee into salmon farming. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 15728, in the name of Graeme Dey on behalf of the bureau, setting out a business programme. Could I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion? Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, and no member wishes to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 15728 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. The next item is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 15723, on the establishment of a committee. Could I ask Graeme Dey on behalf of the bureau to move the motion? Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Could I ask whether any members wish to speak on the motion? Oh, they are. Yes, they do. Could I call Annie Wells to be followed by Neil Findlay? Annie Wells. Presiding Officer, we support the motion to establish a committee on the Scottish Government's handling of the harassment complaints, and we respect the rules of the Scottish Parliament, which determine the number of MSPs from each party on the committee, and the rotating selection of the convener under the de Haunt formula. We are also confident that all the MSPs who have been selected will seek to scrutinise the decisions that are made in this matter and provide recommendations on a way forward. We do, however, continue to have concerns that the convener of the committee will be selected from the SNP. I wish to emphasise that there is no reflection on the SNP member who may be nominated for the post of convener, but there is a clear public interest in ensuring that this committee is both impartial and is seen to be impartial. There is no getting around it. That will be more difficult to achieve in this very particular circumstance if the convener is from the same party as the Government. So while we will support the motion this evening, we are disappointed that the SNP did not of its own volition chose to stand aside on this occasion, and we would continue to encourage the SNP to reflect further and offer the convenership to an opposition party. That, in our judgment, is the right thing to do. The Scottish Labour Party supports the creation of a committee into the Scottish Government's handling of harassment complaints. Indeed, we called for it at the parliamentary bureau. We support the remit of the committee and fed into the wording of it. We are content with the number of members proposed to sit on it. Such as the nature of the subject matter that this committee will deal with, it is essential for the standing of this Parliament that we get this right. The committee will deal with the actions or inactions of the most powerful politician in Scotland, the First Minister, and some of her key advisers in relation to complaints about the conduct of the previously most powerful politician in the country when he was in office. All eyes are on this Parliament in relation to how this inquiry will be conducted. Can this Parliament be trusted to do things openly and transparently in the national interest? That is a big test for us all. It is vital that any committee is not compromised before its work begins and that there is no perception of inbuilt bias. We fully understand that the Parliament operates the Daunt principle to allocate speaking times, committee places, etc. According to the convention, the next committee to be formed is meant to be chaired by an SNP member. That is how the system works in normal times. These are not normal times. Scottish Labour has serious concerns about the damage to the reputation of this Parliament if such an important committee is looking at such serious allegations against the most senior politicians in this country that are chaired by a member of their own party. We made that clear at the bureau. That is not an attempt to block an inquiry. It is a call for this Parliament to do the right thing. We tried to put an amendment to that motion today to ensure an opposition member chaired the committee. That was not selected by the Presiding Officer. Before Christmas, Professor Alison Britton's report to this Parliament on the conduct of independent reviews said that the process for the selection of members should be as independent of the subject under review as possible and the appointees should have no perceived conflict of interest which may raise doubts on the impartiality and independence. Although the process is not an independent review, those words are prescient and should not be ignored. We asked the Government to withdraw their motion in return with a proposal for a non-Government chair. Otherwise, we will vote against the terms in which the committee has been established tonight. Over the past several weeks, business managers have discussed every aspect of the committee at bureau and agreed the motion on behalf of their parties. A few moments ago, when I moved that motion, I did so on behalf of the bureau. Speaking as the Minister for Parliamentary Business, I want to acknowledge and welcome the considered and constructive approach that characterised those deliberations chaired by herself. The matter of the convenership was among those discussed. I proposed that the SNP would remove ourselves from the nomination for the deputy convenership, which we were also due to receive under the de Haunt allocation. Beyond that, we took the decision to nominate for hugely experienced and highly respected parliamentarians to the committee. Both approaches were decided upon before any questions were raised by other parties, a clear indication of the importance that we place on this committee and the work that it will undertake on behalf of the Parliament. Further evidence of that is to be found in the fact that, when the committee meets, it is our intention to nominate Linda Fabiani, who I believe should have the confidence and respect of all parties in this Parliament to the role of convener. The unprecedented decision to nominate a deputy Presiding Officer to such a role is one that I hoped other parties would, and I know some do, recognise as pointing away for the work of the committee to be carried out in an appropriate, non-partisan way. Thank you very much, and the vote on this motion will be taken at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions. I could ask Graeme Dey in behalf of the bureau to move motions 15729, 15730 and 15731 on approval of an SSI, and 15732 on approval of the draft social security charter. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Now we're going to turn to decision time. The first question is that motion 15677 in the name of Edward Mountain on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee report on salmon farming in Scotland be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that motion 15723 in the name of Graeme Dey on the establishment of a committee be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15723 in the name of Graeme Dey is yes, 92, no, 19. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on the four parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? That's good. The question therefore is that motions 15729, 15730, 15731 and 15732 in the name of Graeme Dey in behalf of the bureau be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And that concludes decision time. We're going to move in a few moments to members' business in the name of Jeremy Balfour on the Scottish Power Chair Football Association, but we'll just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.