 Hello, and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2018 in the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Can I please ask everyone to make sure that ac mae'n gwasanaeth ei gael. Mae'n gweithio'r ffordd o gwybod. Er fyddwch yn gweld i'r iawn cyffredinudd newydd yn creffting ac mae gweithio'n gweld i'n creffting i'r gwineithiadau o'i Gweithfarnir i bautu i fel weithrefanner. Mae'n cefnod i'r ddechlarasio rhoi'n gweithfarnir a fyddwch i'r ddechrau Peter. Yr cyffredinydd di-agreitid, ja dim o'r ddechrau'r ddechlarasio i ei gael a'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r gwneud. I have a very small registered agricultural holding, which, if it was in the crofting counties, would be crofting. It isn't. On that basis, we are going to move forward into this evidence session, which will explore the Scottish Government's proposal on crofting legislation and reform. I would like to welcome from the Scottish Government, Government Ferguson, in the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Michael O'Neill, the crofting bill team leader. Gordon Jackson, head of agricultural development and crofting, and Ian Davidson, the head of the agricultural policy division. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to make a short opening statement regarding crofting legislation? Yes, thank you, convener. Good morning, everybody. Most agree that the current crofting legislation is complex and lacking in transparency, having been developed on a piecemeal basis for over 130 years. The consultation was launched last August seeking views from stakeholders on the Scottish Government's crofting policy, the potential form that new crofting legislation could take and priorities for legislative change. During the three-month consultation period, my officials had a series of 21 meetings with the public and interested stakeholder groups, hearing directly from over 300 individuals across the crofting counties. The consultation closed in late November last year, with 122 responses from individuals and organisations. The responses were independently analysed, and a report on that analysis was published in mid-March. A wide and diverse range of views were expressed, and this highlighted the scale of the challenge ahead. The analysis highlighted almost equal proportions of support for new crofting legislation versus making changes to existing legislation and restating or consolidating law. Consequently, there does not appear to be a consensus that would allow me to decide on specific pieces of legislative reform. Following the publication of the analysis report, I met the cross-party group on crofting to outline how I wish to take matters forward and to hear members of that group and MSPs' views. I explained the time-proposing a two-phase approach to legislative reform, with the first phase in the shorter term leading to a bill in this parliamentary session. The first phase will focus on delivering changes that carry widespread support and result in practical, everyday improvements to the lives of crofters and the legislative procedures that they follow. I am keen to involve and engage MSPs, particularly those with crofting interests, to ensure that their ideas and proposals can be considered and taken forward in legislation. The second phase is a longer term work, where I have asked my officials to continue to give consideration to a fundamental review of crofting legislation. That will aim to provide a solution to some of the more complex and challenging issues that are facing crofting and what they might mean for how legislation is developed in the future. That work will begin now, but it will be for a future parliament to deliver. I am very pleased to say that that work is already under way. A crofting bill group has been established to involve stakeholder organisations in the development of the proposals for a bill and to consider the longer term issues. I understand that the first meeting of this group has taken place and was positive and constructive. I am also keen to use further non-legislative means to make changes to help to further improve the sustainability of crofting and to encourage new entrants. Those will include a national development plan for crofting and the new entrance scheme that will directly benefit crofters without the need to wait for legislative change. It is also not just within crofting that I see opportunities to enhance provision. I am keen to encourage more woodland crofts through the national forest estate and to ensure that crofting communities benefit from our ambitions for a low-carbon economy and commitment to provide all homes and businesses with access to superfast broadband. The approach that I am taking forward is pragmatic and focused on delivering a future for crofting in 21st century Scotland. I hope that those opening remarks are helpful. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The first questions today come from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Cabinet secretary, you talked about the consultation and I would like to start off by asking you a couple of questions about that. Of the 122 responses that were submitted, 74 per cent of those were from individuals. Do you feel that the responses were satisfactory and do you think that those most affected by the changes had a chance to adequately feed into the consultation? Of course, that includes the 21 meetings that you also held with face-to-face. I think that I do. A lot of work was put into the consultation. The information was sent to a wide group of those who have an interest. I have the list here. I will not read it out for sake of time, but I can share it with the committee. The bill team held a series of 21 public and private meetings. I think that Mr O'Neill might be able to share the benefit of his experience because I think that he attended 19 out of the 21. I do think that there was a very wide consultation. There have been previous ones, of course, and it allowed us to get a very wide range of views but also to establish that there did not appear to be a majority view for any particular approach. I do not know if Mr O'Neill might want to share some of the substantial experience that he developed. Yes, thank you cabinet secretary. When we went round the committee, we had over 300 people attend the meetings across the crofting areas and with an interested stakeholder groups. That covered a wide range of individual crofters to stakeholder representatives. We made sure that we had copies of information there for them to be able to take away with them. In certain places, we left copies of the consultation document and the response forms so that people could get back to us with responses to the consultation questions. We did go very, very wide in terms of the coverage of the people that we wanted to hear from. Cabinet secretary, what was the response from the cross-party group on crofting when you put the proposals to them? I do not know if it would be fair to say that the group has such provided a particular response, but I thought that it was good to engage with that group and indeed many of you here were there. I think that it is relevant to say that, since my appearance before the stakeholder group, there has been a number of reactions from key people involved. They have been, I think, as far as I am aware, broadly positive. For example, the NFUS has backed our approach on the issue of statement to that effect. The Scottish Crofting Federation said that we are pleased that the cabinet secretary has announced a positive way forward. That is good news for crofting. Brian Inkster, a lawyer who specialises in this, said that the approach seems eminently sensible. They recognise the complexities involved and that all that needs to be sorted probably cannot be easily sorted in just one parliamentary term. I appreciate that Governments can always be criticised from various different perspectives for not being bold enough or being too bold, but the response broadly to answer the question seems to be supportive from the key people involved. I am very keen to try to maintain a consensual approach with stakeholders and indeed to work closely with individual MSPs as we go forward with our plan. A two-phase approach, as far as legislation is concerned, has attracted some support. However, the non-legislative approach with the national development plan, the young entrance and, of course, the work that we have already been doing with grants, for example, which I can share with the members if that is of interest, we will continue with that non-legislative approach, because, after all, law is just words on a page. It does not of itself provide transformation to people's lives. I am going to bring Kate Forbes in and then Stuart Stevenson and then come back to Gail Ross. Just a very brief question about those who have responded to the consultation. He said that 74 per cent were individual members of the public. Were most of them active crofters, or were they representing other interests? I cannot give you precise figures on the number of crofting responses we had, but it was clear from the responses that a number of people were crofters. There were a number of people who had an interest in crofting, but not necessarily crofting themselves. However, I would say that the bulk of the people who attended the public meetings certainly were people who were crofters, and they had to have that direct interest. Mr Neil was to be commended for well and truly getting out of St Andrew's House and attending 19 of the 21 meetings around the crofting counties. I think that that was a shining example to some of his colleagues. I am sure that a delightful trip around the crofting counties would be welcomed by all. Stuart Stevenson. The minister, the cabinet secretary, has just used the phrase, crofting counties. Of course, in the original legislation, by a single vote, the area that I represent was excluded from being crofting county. I have had no approaches, let me just preface my remark by saying that. Was any evidence brought forward by people who were consulted about what the proper boundaries for crofting should be? In other words, should it be an all-scotland? It is an activity rather than something that one would naturally think is defined by simply geographical boundaries. And did the consultation make it easy for that to emerge? Because it is very well going around the crofting counties, but there might be views elsewhere that might bring that forward. Clearly that would not be for the phase 1 bill that the cabinet secretary has described, but might be for the later one. I think that if memory serves me correct, the 1886 act extended to 8 crofting counties. As always, I am indebted to Mr Stevenson's historical knowledge and did not know that his area was excluded by one vote, although he is very nearly a crofter himself, given his declaration earlier. However, I do not know whether Mr O'Neill can enlighten us on this question. In terms of the consultation responses themselves, there was little in terms of responses looking for expanding the boundaries. However, we have some of the meetings, particularly one in Vanessa, where there was somebody there saying that possibly there should be an extension of crofting across all of Scotland. And I think that there might actually have been one response that said something similar to that. That could well have been that particular person, I do not know. But there was not a great call for it. In terms of the consultation document itself, once we might not have asked a specific question in relation to that issue, what we had made very clear was if there was anything that people wanted to add in in terms of comments to the questions that have been asked or, indeed, any other questions that we wished to raise, then they were more than welcome to raise those with us. We did not receive much in the way of additional information on that issue. It is not a bit late to extend the crofting counters beyond the eight, and I imagine that there would be legal issues, not least under ECHR, about that. It is a very interesting question. I will come back to Gail Ross before we move on to the next question. Yes. I also add my thanks to the bill team getting out of Edinburgh. I am sure that you enjoyed your 19 meetings. Just for the record, were there any respondents to the consultation that wanted to see no change? Yes. In terms of no change, 8 per cent of the respondents said that they could just consolidate. That was option 1, existing legislation, and there was at least one individual who came in and said that we do not need to change the legislation. In terms of the 122, there were relatively few, and there were others that said that, of course, we do not need crofting legislation. It should be just linked into agricultural legislation with appropriate secondary legislation, but there was no... No, John, it was actually a very small number of people who wanted no change. Sorry. Can I just clarify, because I am not sure that I heard you correctly. I think that I am right in saying that you said 18 per cent... 88 per cent of the option 1. Good. I am glad that we clarified that, because I did not quite hear that. Right. I am going to move on to the next question, Rich Love. Good morning, panel, cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, as you have said, there have been several reforms and amendments to the croftlin Act 1886. Tober 2013 croftlin law, some group was established, its final report was published in November 2014. The some report identified 57 issues with croftlin law, which should be taken forward in the croftlin bill. Of those, it identified 17 high priority propositions. Can I therefore ask you, cabinet secretary, what issues are likely to be addressed in the bill proposed for this session? Well, the croftlin bill group, which I mentioned, has been formed, has already met and has considered this. I should acknowledge that we recognise the value of the Shucksmith report, and we also recognise the huge amount of work that has gone into delivering the croftlin law of Sump, which is a somewhat unfairly in the derogatory term, which is actually a valuable document and identifies a series of measures. It does not, in itself, amount to a series of prescriptive policy solutions. Some of its points—50 or 60 or so points—identify issues rather than provide solutions. We certainly want to try to identify, in the first phase, those items of improvement in legislation, for example, removing the somewhat rigid requirement of newspaper advertisement, which brings with it unnecessary expense. Some of the prescriptive deadlines to which the commission must adhere and which cause practical difficulties in connection with their work. We want to identify those measures that can improve and rectify errors under missions and which cause practical difficulties. Mindful of the fact that the committee did ask us to do exactly that in one of its recommendations. Phase 1 would deal with the various simpler issues. It would also be correct to say that phase 1 should not try to address some of the more complex issues, for example regarding succession or assignation. It would be helpful for the group not only to identify those issues that the bill should deal with but also those that the bill should not really deal with, and it would be better to deal with in phase 2. That is my personal view, and of course I am interested in what the committee members say. I do not know if, Michael, would you like to add anything about what we shall try to deal with in phase 1? I will add something very briefly, cabinet secretary. I do not know if this is going to answer possibly another question later on in the meeting. For your information, we have established a crofting bill group to start looking at issues for phase 1, and we have a list based predominantly on the sum, because that is where lots of the issues in relation to crofting legislation have been found, but we have augmented it with other things from the consultation. We have a list that we will be putting on to the internet-making public to show how we are coming to those sort of decisions in terms of what is included in phase 1. There was a very good first meeting on the 25th of April, and that stakeholders there were engaging very, very much in terms of the discussion about what should or shouldn't be in that phase 1, and hopefully that will ensure that we get sort of buying to the process as we move forward with the legislation. Over to the earth member of the committee to ask you other items. Can I ask and compliment you on the steady approach that you are looking at doing? Phase 1 will be this session of Parliament, phase 2, when? Our intention is to bring forward a bill before the end of this parliamentary session. Phase 2 would be a legacy issue for the next Parliament. However, I think that it is important to stress that I intend to ask my officials to do work now so that we can try to provide a legacy to the next session of Parliament rather than a blank canvas. Would you like to come in and push that a little bit harder? Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary, panel. Just a bit further on that, cabinet secretary, can you confirm what consultation there will be on the specific work that you are doing now? For instance, will you publish a draft bill? I think that there is—I am attracted by the idea of publishing a draft bill. There is no decision that has yet been made and I think that these are ones that have to be taken by the cabinet in the context of our other legislative priorities. However, I think that the approach that I am taking would benefit from having as much clarity as possible in phase 1, and therefore the publication of a draft bill would have considerable merits. However, we will give that further thought and discuss it with the crofting bill group and, of course, we will keep the committee closely advised. Just a bit further on the issue of time frame that Mr Lyle referred to there, what sort of time frame would we be talking about for that, cabinet secretary? I do not wish to put a firm timescale on matters at the moment. After all, it took 140 years from the battle of Culloden to secure crofting reform, so we shall, however, bring forward our proposals with the firm intention to legislate on phase 1 before the end of this parliamentary session. Cabinet secretary, can I just ask you on that one of the recommendations of the committee report when we did our inquiry into crofting that there would be sufficient time to allow the Parliament to consider all the legislation, and it was not one of those bills that appeared just before the end of the session. Could you confirm that what you are saying is that there will be time, because it is very important, and I believe that this committee accepts, it is very important to get this right. It has been telegraphed before the election that there would be crofting legislation in this term. Can I just confirm that there is going to be proper consultation and a proper time scale? I would like to push you a wee bit on when you see that bill coming forward to allow all of the Parliament to consider this. Well, the decision on timing of the bill will obviously be taken by cabinet in the context of the Scottish Government's other legislative priorities, and a firmer timescale will become clearer as the work progresses. I mean, I do think that the important thing with legislation is that we do take sufficient time to get the legislation right. And I do note, actually, that Mr Inkster, whom I quoted earlier, said as follows. He said, splitting reform over two parliamentary terms should allow a comprehensive and considered approach to crofting reform, unlike the rushed approach that led to the crofting reform Scotland Act 2010. That rushed approach created many of the problems that are requiring to be resolved today. Do you want to come in there? I just wondered what—we have a bill team manager here, which indicates some level of commitment. Is that the correct title? Sorry. I'm not the leader. You only have a bill team manager once you have a bill. The bill was first, then. That's a big event, but I just wanted to establish that we've put someone in charge of a prospective bill. When was that appointment made? No, no. I mean, I've asked Mr O'Neill to deal with this work and lead on that work, and that's what he's doing. The formal business of appointment of bill team managers is one that we haven't yet reached. Okay. I'm not sure we're going to get much further on that, so I'm going to push forward with the next question, which is Mike Rumbles. Cabinet Secretary, in your opening statement, you gave a very comprehensive outline of what's been happening from your perspective with the Government, your consultation, 122 responses, 21 public meetings. You mentioned the cross-party group. You didn't mention the fact that this committee has undergone an inquiry into crafting and that we produced the report. One of our major recommendations, which we all agreed on, was that, in our report following our inquiry on crafting law reform, our committee said, and I quote, that there should be a move away from a piecemeal approach to crafting legislation, and that the bill should be comprehensive. In other words, as a result of our inquiry into the whole process, we did it to identify what the issues were so that we could increase our own knowledge, but also to feed into you and to influence the way that you might approach this bill. Now, it strikes me. I haven't had time to discuss it with the rest of colleagues, but it appears to me that, in fact, you're doing the opposite. You're producing a bill, which is not going to be a comprehensive bill. In fact, you've just said, and you're talking about phase 1, and therefore I assume it's a phase 2, but it's a legacy for a future Government and a future Parliament. What it seems to me from your responses is that you're actually doing the opposite of what this committee recommended. I just wondered what your thoughts were. I do agree that the piecemeal approach is not desirable, but I disagree that the approach that I've set out could be characterised as a piecemeal approach. I think that it's a strategic approach, and the quotes that I've read out from Mr Inkster, for example, from the crossing federation of the NFUS would seem to recognise that we are taking a strategic approach to deal with things in stages that are likely to be efficacious, that are likely to work. Of course, I respect the work that the committee did, but I felt it, and indeed precisely because the committee asked me to, we then proceeded with the work that we've done, as well as the manifesto commitment. The point that I want to make is that I was very keen to reach out to the people of Scotland to get their views, and I think that I have demonstrated—and Mr O'Neill has done most of the legwork here—that we did reach out to the people and they spoke, and they said that they did not want to have, if you like, the fundamental reform approach. There was no clear majority, and therefore we listened to the people. I stumbled across a quotation from the Highland Land League, which was its slogan, convener, which Ampley sums it up, because its slogan was that the people are mightier than a Lord. I'm sure, convener, that there's a lot that would commend that slogan even today. The people spoke through the consultation, and we are simply being guided by the people in that regard. Yes, we also had a consultation, and we were guided by the people in the same way that you have, but we've come to completely the opposite conclusion, it seems to me. Could you outline how you've taken our other recommendations, Ace, at all, any of them forward? Well, there are several recommendations that might be more fruitful to deal with them each and turn, if the committee wishes. However, I've had due regard to all the recommendations, for example, to try to make practical improvements in the day-of-life of Crofters. That's why, convener, since 2007, we've devoted £60 million to extending 800 families to secure their future on Crofts. That's why, in respect of the CAG scheme, we've seen 4,000 applications—£12 million—or the cattle improvement scheme—£3 million. In terms of helping people in their daily lives and the practical issues, that was one of the committee's recommendations. I don't think that we're falling short. I'd just like to clarify in my mind that 43 per cent of the respondees said that they wanted a clean slate, which is a majority of people given the choice of options. If you add all the options together, or the other responses to the other options together, it comes up to more than 43 per cent. However, if you add by 1 per cent, 43 per cent said that they wanted a clean slate, cabinet secretary, which was the impression that we got, I believe, on the committee that there was a feeling that a clean slate and not a piecemeal approach were the way forward. Why are you not taking the 43 per cent? Why are you adding all the other responses to say that you don't have a clear majority? There were a majority of respondents to the question—a simple question—wanted a clean slate. I just need to understand that. I'm struggling on that, cabinet secretary. What I said was that there was no clear majority for a particular approach. With respect, 43 per cent is not a majority, so 57 per cent did not, but definitions support that approach. Moreover, I'm heartened. I appreciate the many different approaches that I've already said, but I go back to the fact, convener and correct, that you can tell me if I've missed out on anybody. The key people involved here at the stakeholder group and, subsequently, the stakeholders have commended the approach that we are taking. I'm heartened by that. Of course, debate and discussion is always appreciated, but I'm heartened by the initial response to our approach. I think that the kind of suggestion that Mr Finnie made of continuing to consult and to come forward with the draft bill would be consistent with that approach to try to continue to demonstrate that what we propose to do has broadly the consent of the people, not just a minority of the people. Peter, do you want to try? I mean, the convener stole my thunder a bit, because I was going to quote the 43 per cent bar of the consultation as well. Although it doesn't make a majority, it was the most favoured way forward by those that were consulted. My problem is that I certainly made my thoughts clear at the time of the committee that I favoured a clean sheet approach. Now, I accept that not everyone in the committee had the same opinion, but the committee did say that we didn't want a piecemeal approach. From my point of view, I think that this is disappointing, because it looks a wee bit like thinking around the edges, which is exactly why we have such a complex set of laws governing crofting right now. I mean, it's been thinking around the edges so many times that we end up with a set of laws that virtually nobody understands. Even the lawyers can hardly understand alone the average crofter. So I'm disappointed that there seems to be another attempt to think around the edges, and I think that we should have been much more robust. I say that, and I just ask what format the bill will take. The bill will take the form of any parliamentary bill that was set out of legislative proposals, but with respect, I don't agree with the criticism that's made. I think that the approach that we have taken seems to command a fair amount of support. However, I'm keen that we give a full answer to the committee, so maybe Mr Neil could add his comments because he's been absolutely closely involved with every part of us. Yes, thank you, cabinet secretary. Looking at the way forward in all of this, we had the option set out in the consultation document from one end of the spectrum having a consolidation right through to a clean sheet at the other end. In options 2 and 3, whilst they were different, they were closer together on the spectrum of legislative approach that we could take and really did involve very similar things in terms of changing existing legislation, and then, in one case, having a second bill to consolidate thereafter, that's option 2. In terms of option 3, it was then trying to reduce the numbers of pieces of legislation as well as change the existing legislation at the same time. However, they were doing very, very similar things. They weren't obviously going to a clean sheet. When you look at rose 2 together, 42 per cent of respondents were saying, go down and change existing legislation if you can. The 43 per cent said, let's have a clean sheet, so it made the decision a very, very fine one. In terms of some of the consultation responses, those who were in favour of option 4, the clean sheet, were saying that reaching consensus on a new bill could be difficult and time-consuming, and that may affect the ability to deliver this Parliament. Equally, others who are supporting option 3 in term of tidying up legislation would make changes that would not necessarily resolve all outstanding issues, and there could be a call for further legislation in the future. To a certain extent, it was difficult to get a way out in terms of, other than going and saying, let's try and solve some of the key issues that we can now that do garner lots of widespread support, and then looking at these more difficult issues that are quite hard to achieve consensus, because the evidence from the consultation was really saying that there's potentially opposing opinions, contradictory opinions in certain cases, that really do need to be bottomed out before we could make more fundamental change, otherwise we'll end up potentially back where we started, with people being unhappy with the legislation. Do you have some of the background to sort of why we've come here? I get all that, and I do understand that a clean sheet would be a difficult piece of work, and a huge piece of work, but, except my premise, that one of the reasons we're in such a complex situation is precisely what we've done in the past. We've think at the end of the ages, we've made small changes, and we've built law on top of law until we get a situation that nobody can understand, the croft and law, unless you've got a degree in law and even then you're struggling. In terms of what we're trying to do in phase one, it's then looking at things that can actually start making changes that make lives on the ground for crofters more straightforward, as soon as we can, rather than going... That's what everybody has said in the past. This is a design to make life a bit more straightforward, and what we've ended up with was a much more complex set of rules. I understand your well-meaning in what you say, but I think everybody that's had a go at this in the past would also say they were well-meaning, and it's absolutely ended up in a dog's breakfast that nobody can find their way through. That does really seem to be an unduly negative prognosis. We have had the welcome from the Crofting Federation, from the NFUS, from a distinguished lawyer, Brian Inkster, who I think is no difficulty in understanding, interpreting crofting law and advising clients there on. I think we should be a bit more positive about this. There is a desire to go ahead, to deal with the phase 1, as established principle at least, and I, for one, want to try to build on that positivity and take it forward. I'm going to bring Jamie Greene in and then Mike Rumble, so Jamie, do you want to come in? Thank you, convener. I step in at this stage because I believe, according to the plan, my colleagues are going to talk about phase 2 of the cabinet secretary's comments, but before we move on to phase 2, I just want to recap on something. Phase 2 is outside of the parameters of this committee, this Parliament, this Government. So there are many great unknowns in terms of what may happen in future Parliaments and Governments. I'm interested in what this committee does, and what this Parliament does, and what this Government is doing. So I would like to focus on the phase 1 bill for a second. Before we move on to phase 2, I will go into this next discussion no further in the know as to what this current bill will contain, what it will do, what it will achieve, what may or may not be in it. If it's not piecemeal, what is it? It's a series of measures, some of which I've already mentioned. I assume Mr Greene was listening earlier on. I gave some examples to Mr Lyle, so I've already mentioned some of them, but they're designed to be those that can be implemented relatively easily that are less controversial. The work is being taken forward by a group of experts with a bill group, but maybe Mr Neil could supplement the answer that I gave to Mr Lyle previously to answer Mr Greene's question about the content of phase 1. Mindful that we've to prepare this and then possibly consult on it, as Mr Finnie suggested. No, hold on. Sorry, I'm going to Michael first. Well, if you think he can answer the same together, why don't you come in and then maybe Michael, you can come in. Keep talking about hearing phase 1 and phase 2. There is no phase 2, because this is only phase 1. There isn't a phase 2. There's no way. The point that I was not going to ask, which you could link in with Jamie Greene's point, is that this week we're 40 per cent through this parliamentary session. We've got two years and we've only got three years left. The point is that we haven't even got a bill before us, so Jamie Greene was asking about this piecemeal approach. It strikes me that unless the bill comes forward fairly quickly, we're not going to have the time to deal with this comprehensively, so it is a piecemeal approach, isn't it? No, I don't think that I agree with that, and I think that it's a strategic approach, and nothing prevents this committee from expressing views about what future law reform should be, but I think that it would be helpful if Mr O'Neill could supplement to answer Mr Greene's question, the answer that I gave earlier, in which I did give a couple of examples of specific items that will be in the proposed draft bill. Give a list of areas that you think you're going to be delving into rather than going through each of them in great detail, because I fear that we may be short on time. Possibly it might be something that I can also provide to the committee after this is a list. Well, I think that you should read them out now if possible. One of the issues that we're looking at is joint tenancies. This is something that came out of the Women's Agriculture report because at the moment it seems to be crafting legislation means that you can only have a tenancy in one name. In these times, stakeholders are saying that it doesn't seem to be the right thing to have, so we can look at changing legislation there because that then brings crafting into line with other parts of our other tenancies and other types of agreements like that. There's something called minor reorganisation of a craft, and that would allow giving the crafting commission powers to sort out some quite tricky situations whereby you have part owners of crafts wanting to do one thing, and a particular owner is saying that they can't allow their neighbours to do whatever is with their part of the craft. It's looking at, again, allowing crofters greater freedom in terms of the land that they are managing. That's just one of those things. There's four or five issues in that. There's something in terms of the meaning of owner occupiers as well. There's a number of owner occupiers that bought their crofts prior to 1955 when there was no crafting legislation as such, and now they find themselves in terms of current legislation landlords of vacant crofts because they were never actually installed as a crofter. I think that there's something like 975 of those cases and that we could then resolve issues for those particular crofters if we can get that sort of legislation changed. The cabinet secretary mentioned registration requirement. That's in terms of the advertising and the process of first registering your croft. There's enforcement of duties when a croft is sublet and should that be on the tenant or should it be on the owner occupier or the tenant themselves who's actually let the croft out? There's the requirement for having annual notices from crofters and that's something that's happened every year. It's quite a resource-intensive process for the crofting commission and also a requirement placed on crofters that takes up their time yearly. We can look at seeing whether that has to be done every year. There was the Grazing Committee's duty to report, which is a recommendation that the committee put in its report. It's really reporting on neighbouring crofts and it's proved quite a difficult one for Grazing Committee clerks to deal with. We heard that on a number of instances throughout the consultation period and so we can look to see how that particular legislation might be refined to ease that sort of burden. We can look at deemed crofts and again I think the committee heard evidence from the crofting commission on deemed crofts and that's where the common grazing shares have become detached from the tenanted croft and that creates a number of problems. We think there may be a way to actually stop creating deemed crofts with changes to existing legislation but trying to relink them is quite a complex system and would require a lot of thought and discussion with stakeholders and crofters to work out what the effects of relinking would be so that's possibly a phase 2 issue but certainly trying not to create any more deemed crofts. We can look at that in phase 1. There's a change to whether decisions of the crofting commission makes have to be adjudicated by the land court or whether there can be something in the crofting commission that shows that it's more independent. Again, it's taking decisions that then don't require resources to be spent in the land court which can be expensive in terms of judicial resources. Michael, I think that's why I was concerned that I really wanted to headline things but maybe if you could submit that to the committee we could have a look at that afterwards. That would be very helpful through the clerks please. It's very valuable to me. The only point I was going to make, Mr O'Neill, will the important high priority recommendations of the SUMP report, the 17 high priority, will they be addressed in the phase 1 bill or will some of those elements be... Some of them will be. Some of the high priority issues in the SUMP bonds they recognise weren't easy to deliver and therefore when we were looking at drawing up this list for phase 1 we took that list and tried to match up things that were high priority and something we could sensibly deliver whereas things that may be contentious or require quite a lot of work because the legislation is so complicated around those issues that might need to go into phase 2, but the starting point was as many of the high priority issues in that list as we could. So that's the short answer, I hope, Mr O'Neill. So you've agreed that it's happy with... As this bill group is working or throughout its business we will be putting papers and information on a web page and we can again provide that with address to members of this committee. We'll have contact details for the bill team on that. So if people have suggestions about what they think may be included because the stakeholders are already considering this list at the moment and see if there's anything they feel that might be able to go into this. It's not fully set in stone but there are a number of things there that we can work on and that's what this bill group is doing. Move to the next question, Kate Forbes. Great. Thank you very much. This question will look at phase 2 with apologies to Jamie Greene. In terms of the content of phase 2, what is the current status of the Government's work on the proposed national development plan for crofting, which I understand was included in the programme for government at the start of this term? The programme for government suggested that work should begin on a national development plan and since then we have been taking that work forward. This will form a critical part of support that the Scottish Government will offer to crofters and crofting communities because we believe that it's important that crofts are utilised in the best possible way to contribute to the rural economy and sustainable communities. The stakeholder engagement process began in 2016 and they included the foundation, the NFU, HIE, the commission and SLE, and they have been giving consideration to what recommendations they wish to make to the Scottish Government for inclusion in the plan. This has resulted in a number of draft priority papers, including a development paper that we will be working on and looking to bring forward in due course. The plan will contain such things as an updated clear crofting policy, details of a new entrance scheme, a further developments promotional role for the crofting commission, which will incorporate better signposting of what support is available for crofters, a crofting pack for new entrants and common grazing guidance, and indeed the commission is working on a template for that very controversial issue. We are committed to drafting the crofting development plan and to consult key stakeholders thereafter. It is important work, but I stress that that is not stopping us from helping crofters, crofting grants with the bull stud scheme and with the CAGs grant support. Obviously, one of the biggest complaints that I hear in my constituency is about the lack of clarity and the fact that there are often sources of support for crofters that they are unaware of. Presumably, will the development plan identify sources of support and will it have strategic targets in terms of how we improve our support for crofters? Yes, it will aim to do that. Obviously, as Kate Forbes knows very well, the Houselad's enterprise is distinctive in that it has a social obligation in its remit, and it takes that very seriously. Of course, the business gateway deals with advice at the level of individual small businesses. The Crofting Commission has the general duty to promote crofting and have regard to the interests of crofters, but I think that the national development plan can fulfil the purpose of providing further clarity about who can provide support to two crofters in respect of particular ways in which they may wish to develop their croft. I'm also very complicit in the fact that our R100 programme, convener, will provide to improve connectivity with access to high-speed broadband at 30 Mbps, and our mobile infill programme seeks to address non-spots, especially in the rural and island communities. I'm going to go back to John Finnie with a small question, and then we're going to move on to the next question. Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, people in the Crofting counties are very practical people and are a real issue as ever as housing. How will that feature on the development plan? Will it feature in? It's absolutely core, and you mentioned this some previously, which has been welcomed, but if we're really going to not only build but sustain communities, we're going to need more housing. Yes, I think that Mr Finnie is absolutely correct, and I absolutely endorse what he says. There's a number of ways that I'm doing that. My colleague Kevin Stewart, who is dealing with housing, has taken a very close interest in special provisions and policies for the Highlands. I myself had a very fruitful meeting in Inverness a few weeks back with the Highlands small communities housing trust, who do excellent work. I referred to woodland crofts, and I've asked them to continue to play a part and a role in that. I do feel very proud of the fact that the grant scheme, the Croft House grant scheme, has assisted 800 families over the past 11 years. In my brief period at the helm, there have been 70 grant offers at a cost of £2.4 million, and 70 families directly have the opportunity to build or improve housing in their own part of Scotland and secure their future and help to secure the sustainability of communities and the school roles that depend on having young people coming in. That's a very practical and cost-effective scheme in providing a bit of extra support for people to build or improve a house. Obviously, Mr Finnie knows, the costs are very often higher of building a house or improving a house in the islands or remote communities for various reasons that the member will understand. I'll ask a question on phase 2. In a previous letter to the committee, the cabinet secretary wrote that the second phase would work towards clarity for those issues that are complex in nature and sometimes provoke contradictory views. Without asking for a list necessarily of what's in phase 2, what ways will phase 2 meet those objectives? Well, phase 2 is intended to consider issues that, as Kate Forbes says, are much more complex and have the potential to divide opinion. It's likely to focus on all crofting issues, not simply the ones that Mr O'Neill has alluded to in his description of some of the phase 1 items or potential phase 1 items. I think it's fair to say that phase 2 is likely to focus on really thorny issues such as asignation and succession, common grazings and owner-occupier crofts, and each of those are recognised as being highly complex areas. Myself, I've come to the conclusion that the difficulty that is faced here between those who wish fundamental reform and those who do not wish fundamental reform is the desire to retain the security that the 1886 act conferred, but a matching desire to develop and further sustain communities into the future by enabling and facilitating things to be done. So, if there's a way to combine the security of the past with the sustainability of the future, then I think perhaps that would signpost the work that we need to do in phase 2. I'm going to move on to Colin. There's a couple more questions, cabinet secretary. I would mindful of the time that's trying to get through them, so Colin. Sure. Thanks, convener, and good morning to the panel. In the consultation analysis report, a number of non-legislative measures were identified, such as promoting crofters rights, housing-related support, which John Finnie has obviously touched on and also support for new entrants into crofting, the latter of which you touched on, cabinet secretary, in your opening comments. Can I ask you to elaborate on what non-legislative changes you're considering and when and how those will be implemented? Well, I've a very fair question. I've mentioned the development plan, that's one. I've mentioned a new entrance scheme and the Government remains committed to introducing a new entrance scheme for crofting. We welcome the work that incidentally is already done on this topic by the stakeholder forum because it's of critical importance to encourage people into crofting, to ensure the long-term sustainability of crofting and our crofting communities. For members' interests, the stakeholders have been drafting a priority paper on new entrants, which I understand is close to being finalised. A lot of work has been done in the background, as I think Mr Neil demonstrated from his earlier resume of the contents or close contents of phase 1. A lot of work has been done by the stakeholders, a lot of work has been done by the crofting commission, particularly to address controversies arising from individual cases about grazing committees and their operation, and a template for guidance is being developed and I believe is close to completion from the crofting commission there and then. To answer Mr Smith's question, a whole raft of non-legislative work is being done by the Government and by our partners and stakeholders. Can I just touch on the new entrants scheme? Do we have a timescale as to when that's likely to be rolled out? Of course, 800 new entrants or potential new entrants have arisen through the crofting grant scheme, so that's a very practical way to enable people to stay on the land or move to the land in crofting terms. We are going to work closely with the stakeholders' engagement process because their work, as I said, is close to being finalised, and the scheme will be further developed over the next six months or so. Obviously, the implementation will be budget dependent and I don't want to veer into Brexit issues here, but plainly pillar 2 is not the subject of clear assurances from the UK Government, but I don't want to be negative today, convener, as you know, so I won't dwell on that. We're very keen to build on the good work that we've done in new entrants and work with the stakeholders to bring forward a practical and sensible scheme that will help to bring yet more people back into or remain in the crofting counties. Can I just briefly touch on the responsibility of the different initiatives? In 2009, the Government transferred responsibility for crofting development from the Crofting Commission to Highlands Enterprise. Some of the feedback that I've received is that, since then, high, I haven't really done a great deal to provide support and pathways to young people in new entrants. That consideration has been given to transferring back that responsibility to the Crofting Commission because it seems to have that sort of direct responsibility, authority on commission and crofting, whereas high tend to look more at the wider crofting community support rather than that sort of direct scheme like new entrance schemes. I know from my own personal knowledge of board members and employees of HIE that they take a very close interest in these matters, but to be fair to them, it's really business gateway and not HIE that has the role of providing direct assistance to smaller businesses, I mean that's just a fact, but it's in the DNA of HIE to consider and promote work and economic endeavour in the Highlands and Islands area. I would also point out that there is an express reference to inclusion in the legislation of the promotional role that the commission has. That is a part of the role that we can further build upon and it's one that I look forward to discussing with the commission when I meet with them again. Colin, I'm going to move on to the next question if I may with an ultimate question to John Mason. Thank you very much, convener. Cabinet Secretary, there's already been mention of the stakeholders' views of the proposals and I think that you quoted they were quite positive. I was just looking at some of the wording of the response firstly from the Scottish Crofting Federation and they talk about the bill in this parliamentary session which corrects the major anomalies. So there's agreement that that should happen, I just wonder is there also agreement as to what the major anomalies are? I mean we've had a list or suggestions, are they all broadly agreed do you think or will there be disagreement on that? The stakeholders are working through that list. We had a meeting last week, there is another one planned this month and the anomalies we can look to fix in phase one would be subject to those discussions clearly where stakeholders think that the anomalies are really sufficiently complicated and contentious potentially that that's something that they would wish to see in phase two then that's what we would be doing. So it's being worked through in terms of the list of things that I was reading from earlier and we also have a similar sort of list for the other issues that are not looking like ones that would be for phase one. And then they go on in their comments to say that that will pave the way to a consolidation bill in the next session. Now some people would think that a consolidation bill meant just pulling together existing legislation and not making changes. Do you think they're just using the wrong word are they misunderstanding because I'm not getting the impression from you that it is a consolidation bill in the next session? In terms of the response that the Scottish Crofting Federation provided they were in that response supportive or preferred option was option two which was change now and consolidate legislation afterwards and you are correct. The consolidation would not make any material changes to legislation it would just try and bring it all together. Obviously in the discussions we've had with the stakeholder meeting the Scottish Crofting Federation are part of that group and they understand the process that we have outlined and they are supportive of that route even though it may not lead to that consolidation it may need to do something else with that that's something we have to then discuss as part of that phase two work to say where is it and legislation really has to end up and where's the most sensible endpoint for it. Okay then I mean I'm just wondering how far can you go in this session I mean I accept that legislation and Jamie Greene made that point you know in a sense another Parliament is another session and it's completely new but the suggestion is that some preparation will be done before that and hopefully if there was cross-party agreement then whoever was the government next time would start they'd be up and running because they'd already have quite a lot of work done. How much work could be done before 2021? Well a fair amount of work can be done and I mean I guess the purpose is to leave a legacy to an incoming administration and of course that legacy could well inform the manifestos of various parties in the next election. How much work could be done? Well let's see but there's a fair wind behind the approach that we've taken I've identified some of in response to Kate Forbes questioning some of the areas which are far more complex and I've identified the principle which I think underlies the approach that would encourage people to support on a majority basis more fundamental reforms so I'm keen that we do a solid amount of work to answer John Mason's question in the hope that it would be of benefit to an incoming administration and you know I believe that it will. Michael do you want to add that? Just one additional point there that will be short in terms of the stakeholder group the bill group they are very keen not to lose sight of that phase 2 and want to start looking at that and it's something we will be discussing probably in June because we're trying to get to the early part of sorting out that phase 1 list but certainly it's something that they don't want us to do sight of we're not going to do sight of we're going to continue that work alongside the phase 1. As I indicated that was an ultimate group of questions I would like to try and tie that whole section together if I may cabinet secretary you will have read our recommendations in our report and I will refer you and then explain you the sections 101 to 103 with the recommendations which was to do with crofting policy and the principle was that before we had any legislative reform there should be a statement of overarching crofting policy from the Government. Now if that was put forward as recommended by this committee and discussed in this Parliament would it not mean that any work that is taken forward before the end of this Parliament could be more likely to take into account the views of the Parliament as well as the views of the Government? I think that with your agreement I think that Mr Jackson is keen to have a shot. Gordon welcome first and last chance. The consultation exercise linked to the bill picked up on the overarching policy statement that was put forward by the Scottish Government and asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed and if so why they disagreed or agreed. 49% agreed with the statement 51% disagreed with the statement of those who disagreed they disagreed for different reasons some thought it's too complex some thought it's too simple and there's a whole array of different reasons but the fact of the matter is that we are perfectly willing and to engage with the crofting stakeholders and work up and refine the statement further. Currently the statement encapsulates all the various important aspects of crofting about maintaining populations in remote rural locations contributing to the sustainability of communities etc etc but it appears as if the form of words needs to be looked at and we need to try and take stakeholders with us. Thank you Gordon so there wasn't a clear majority for the Government statement so it'd be useful I think Cabinet Secretary for the Parliament to have a chance once you've reviewed the statement and come up with a statement on crofting policy to discuss that to work out the way forward. I think that that would be a welcome addition Cabinet Secretary you may want to think about that or I'm happy to take a yes or no answer at this stage. I'll take it to Alexander. Okay thank you I'd like to thank you Cabinet Secretary and Michael and Gordon for attending and not for getting Ian although he didn't get to say anything so thank you very much for attending and I now briefly suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses. I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and move on to agenda item 3 which is part of our salmon farming in Scotland inquiry. Before we do can I just remind everyone please to make sure that your mobile phones are on silent and I'd like to invite members to declare any relevant interests and I'm going to start off that by saying that I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery. Does anyone else wish to make a declaration? No. So this is our fifth evidence session on the committee's salmon farming in Scotland inquiry. The committee will take evidence today from the aquilter industry's representatives now. Hopefully I've got everyone in the right order. Scotland's wrote the former chief executive of the Scottish salmon producers organisation, Ben Hadfield, the managing director of Marine Harvest Scotland, Craig Anderson, the chief executive of Scottish salmon company, Grant Cumming, the managing director of Great Seafoods Shetland and Stuart Graham, the group managing director of Gale Falls. Before we move on to questions I made the mistake of saying that some people have been here before they would know exactly how this works but the way it works is that if you want to come in on a question if you try and catch my eye there are five of you you might not all get to answer all the questions. Once you've caught my eye and I've brought you in you don't need to touch any of the buttons on the microphones those will all be done for you. If you start seeing me waving my pen like this that means that your time is coming up and if I wave it more furiously it means your time is really up and I'm not going to tell you what happens if you ignore that but could I just please ask you that the aim is to get a balance of questions and answers so I'd be very grateful if you could help me achieve that because there are a lot of questions as we go through the session today and the first question on that note is from Stuart Stevenson. Stuart, would you like to Thank you, convener. My colleague Richard Lyle and myself are members of the environment committee that has reported on many of the environmental issues around salmon farming but I think that this committee is wanting to as well as looking at that again look at wider economic issues and it's on that subject that I want to ask a few questions and in particular based on last week's evidence from for example Highlands and Islands Enterprise what benefits are there to communities and the people in communities in adjacent salmon farming? Who'd like to start off on that? No that doesn't work you don't all look away when the questions are asked. You've got to help me so Ben you can come in to start with them. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak today at the committee. I think the economic benefits for local communities are significant. The wage bill from my company in Marine Harvest is £47 million per year. We employ 1,250 people, approximately 700 of those are based on the west coast and Lewis Harris Barra etc. Interestingly what you've seen over time is that the role within the farms has become much more complex. It used to be a job with a farm manager and farm hands now it's become more technical employing a lot of scientists a lot of veterinarians people with IT skills etc and so the wage structure reflects that and because I've lived I'm English but I've lived in Scotland for 18 years because I've lived on the west coast. What you see is it's important that people can have a career and have good steady wage progression and so that is very well received in the areas that we farm in. Okay Craig and then I'll come back to you still. Yeah the Scottish salmon company also takes here into our social and economic impact we're having in local communities support local communities not just through salary which is very important our annual salary is around £16 million with the £1.5 million national insurance contribution 700,000 pensions contributions that's very important but training education in local areas getting involved and we have third generation families working with our company it is very encouraging. 25% of the people have been with us more than 10 years it's great so to be able to put something back that we take out of it is very important for us too. Thank you and I want to address something to Scotland's rep but maybe just technically although you're a former executive you're nonetheless still representing the SSPO today. I am indeed yes. Yeah thank you for that. The SSPO's community engagement charter is designed to benefit communities how's that going to work how's that working? Well it's a charter all of our member companies have signed up to which is a commitment to give the local communities some direct benefit from the if you like the yield from the local farm and I can tell you in round numbers last year we contributed around £1 million to local communities in various schemes each company has its own scheme but nevertheless they're all committed to abiding by the rules of the charter and that's what the charter is all about to do good practice in community benefit and we've been we looked at a number of schemes national schemes that are already in place and so we're similar to some of the other industries that operate in highlands and islands remote rural communities and it's direct support not all of it financial some of it is actually just giving of time it's actually education support getting into the schools getting into even nurseries as well we get involved in as well we also have bought small mini buses to transport people to local community youth community facilities and it's on-going but it's a commitment that the industry has to at this juncture of the road to put in at least a million pounds to local communities. I think this will be my last question who decides what the benefit is is that the salmon producers deciding what role is there for the communities themselves helping to decide how that benefit is applied. I decided at a more local levels people are encouraged and invited to bid for support basically and the companies themselves are really in charge of that but I know one or two have independent people involved in that and the scrutiny of that so it's a quite an open process it's not just a question of who you know or that sort of thing or that and that was the purpose behind the charters to make it an open process. We've been speaking quite a lot in these evidence sessions about expansion of the industry but certainly in my constituency in west or Ross there is a massive problem with housing. How can we expand the industry if there are no houses available for people that you want to recruit to fish farms and how are you working with local authorities to try and solve this? Ben, I'll bring you in. I'm quite keen to bring some of the other members of the panel in so don't be shy if you want to come in Ben. Very quickly we need to build more houses and some of the great projects that we've worked on in the past few years and months where we've put a new farm into the islands like Mock or Rum and we've had a proposal to build half a dozen houses, shore base and then gradually and managing the social implications well, hopefully move people out and kind of repopulate a bit. Grant, do you want to add something to that? Yes, I think it's a very valid concern. It's been a particular problem for Greek seafood. In Shetland recently we had a new gas terminal being built and that put a huge pressure on the housing stock and so we had to go and secure rented accommodation for employees. Down in Skye it's a long-term problem for us where we're farming as well so we've had to go and purchase properties but I think a better long-term solution is to look to buy more properties because by purchasing we're obviously just putting more pressure on an existing small market place. If you're building new houses Ben or buying new houses, are they then tied houses to your business? I assume that you will require whoever stays in that house to be an employee of yours and if they leave your employment, do they then have to move out the house? Is that the system that you would put in place? Hold on, Grant, and then I'll come to you, Ben. Yes, the houses are there to provide accommodation for our employees. We have tried as much as possible to be nice about it though. If we have people who are choosing to loop our employee we haven't asked them to be out the house the next day so we've given them a period of grace but we would expect them to move on to make space for our employees in future. Ben, you want to come in? Just various methods of doing it. Some on the islands where there's a landowner or it's in a trust and it's been leased on the 25 years we've put the money into build houses and then it's for our staff while they work there or for the families. The feed plant that we're doing on Skye that's created 55 new jobs and some of those are quite specialist in terms of engineering and IT and manufacturing so we've got land available there and we will have plans to move for planning permission and build houses and probably sell the house to an employee after a period of time working with the company and moving and becoming resident on Skye. Then of course there's partnerships with affordable home schemes where you do and get as part of a wider build and putting in some of the economics and that's very interesting to us. I'm going to move on to the next question, Jamie. Thank you convener and good morning panel. I'd like to maybe just take a step back and look at the bigger picture of the international market that Scotland is operating in. It's clearly a very competitive market. I think it would be a rhetorical question to ask how important provenance and high production standards are to the industry. I presume the answer from each view would be yes, they are important. Perhaps I could push further in terms of the differences between the export market and the domestic market in terms of the product that you make and how you produce it and also what your views are on how Scottish Salmon can stand out distinctively against some of our main competitors such as Norway, Chile or Canada etc. Grant? It's a very interesting point and I think we're already standing out against our main competitors on the global scale. There is a premium out there for Scottish Salmon that's both in our domestic market and externally as well and I think the reason that we have that is because provenance, we're obviously growing our salmon in beautiful wild Scotland but also in addition to that I think that the regulatory standards within Scotland are very highly regarded internationally. We're seen as having a very high standard and delivering a product that reflects that. Stuart, you haven't come in yet. Would you like to come in at this stage? No, I think it's maybe more appropriate for some of the other questions that we've got producers here and I think that most of those questions are much more relevant to producers. Craig, and then I'll come to Ben. Scotland's very important as is provenance. We have trademarked the phrase provenance guaranteed and also tartened salmon specifically for the export market. The story is always is it true that your fish come from Scotland? The answer is yes. We're only producing selfish that comes from Scotland. With the quality that Grant said, the creditations we get through, the thoroughness of it and the pure quality of the salmon and we've got a premium price for it, so it's very important going forward. Ben, do you want to come in? I'll just give you some numbers. Worldwide, there's around 2.1 million, 2.2 million tonnes produced. Norway takes the lion's share of that at around 1.1 million. Our volume's around 1.75 million. Scotland sits number third. If you look at just purely in costs when you buy salmon, you see a premium for Irish salmon, organic salmon, then Scottish, Labelle Rouge production, some most of the companies produced specifically for some of the supermarkets here domestically. It's a very high welfare and environmental standard, so that's the next price back it. You don't really see a commodity product with salmon any more. It is a high value protein. Generally, Scottish salmon trades around £0.50, £0.60 per kilo over a Norwegian salmon. That's really because, as the gentleman said here, it's regarded as producing a sustainable way, good regulation, high quality, and quite desirable. Scott, you're not going to rest unless I bring you in. I'll bring you in, but I did make the point that I can't bring you in on everyone, not on all of the questions. Scott, I'll bring you in and then come to Stuart Stevenson. I think it should be said. Every three years, the survey, 14 of the major seafood buyers in the world's markets at the Brussels Seafood Show, which took place last week in Brussels. I'm not sure if they conducted a survey last week, but certainly in 2016 they conducted the second survey at which Scotland received seven votes out of 14 as being the best-farmed salmon in the world. It's nearest competitor received two votes, that was Norway and Canada, and then the other producing countries received one. Those people know what they're doing, they know what they're buying, they know their buying quality, they know that they're buying a seriously premium fish. I think that that's an accolade that we're very proud of. Incidentally, it's the third time running that we've won the best farmed salmon accolade. I think that it's fair to say that we did ask retailers in this country to come to the committee and, unfortunately, whilst they've submitted written evidence, they were indisposed when we requested them to come, which I think was a sadness. Stuart, did you want to... Just a wee brief point, I think probably to Grant based on what he said. I can be corrected in this. Is there not an international trade in smolts? And if there is, how does that affect the provenance that we rely on to sell products? And I believe that it's two ways as well. It is possible to import and export smolts from areas of equivalent disease status. I think that currently the vast majority of the smolts are Scottish, if not all. It's more common for possibly eggs to come from abroad. That can be still a Scottish quality salmon. Jamie, back to you. Thank you. Can I pick up on that point? I was quite surprised to learn that in the perhaps question from Marine Harvest that all of the eggs come from Norway, so how does that add to the provenance of it being a Scottish product? Of course, it's quite typical in farming generally to move stock types around the world. You know, beef farming, chicken farming, pig farming, that's exactly the case there. What you have with salmon production is a requirement to take the eggs from brewed stock in multi-sea winter fish, so from big rivers. The majority of the worldwide industry for salmon uses Norwegian stocks. They have been bred over time. There are some elements of Scottish stocks within that, but they are used in Canada, Norway and Scotland. If I would like to bring Craig in because I think that he may have a different story to tell on that. Craig, do you want to come in on that? Yes, thank you. The Scottish salmon company is also important in the Norwegian eggs, but we started out a programme that has been so far invested £3 million into native hebridean, so we have a native hebridean brewed stock programme based on land gas, such that this is based on wild stock from the river Eust. It's a Scottish egg, a Scottish fish, and by 2020 we aim to 15 per cent of our production, native hebridean and growing. Stuart, you want us to come in. I'm from a company in the supply chain, so we're one of the largest suppliers to the industries. Just so everybody is clear that we're not a producer, so that's why I'm not participating in some of these questions. I might be allowed a small comment on two of the subjects so far on the community question that was asked. I think beyond direct community donations, assistance and direct jobs employed by producing companies, remember that there are suppliers and a very large supply chain, small and large, throughout the country and the rural area supported in these communities, about five times the jobs in the supply chain for everyone in the production companies. That's just one point. The other point was about regulation, just like to say that I see, I need to rationalise regulation however, robust regulation has been a key part of Scottish provenance. That may be part of the reason why we see some premium. I suspect that regulation is going to form part of the questioning later on in the session, so you may find that you can get in on that. Jamie. Thank you, convener. I continue along the theme of provenance and quality. Presumably part of that is around certification in international industry standards. I'll first ask the specific question of marine harvest. Why is it that your Norwegian farms are signed up to the Acaculture Stewardship Council? I'm not aware of how many are percentage-wise, but many are, yet only one in Scotland is. Could you just explain that? Ben, the company supports the ASC standards. It's very robust and it deals with things outwith regulation. The ASC standards when they were written mainly or predominantly took a lot of the environmental regulation from Scotland, and that's because it was the most robust and the best in the world in terms of protecting the environment. The ASC standards go beyond that and talk about social licence and more in-depth into wild fish and mitigating impacts there. Marine harvest at a board level decided that it would try to make all the farms ASC accredited by 2020, and in Norway we have around 40 per cent of the sites accredited. In Scotland we have one site and we have two. We have now just got over the hurdle that exists within the standard for small production in freshwater lakes or locks in Scotland, and it was really that the ASC standards prevented the farming of smalls in freshwater lakes, and that's why we didn't do that. We didn't take up the ASC. Now that that has been amended, we will move all the sites in Scotland to ASC accreditation. If I may convene, I just have to explain that quite technically. The trophic status, the nutrient levels in the lakes in Norway and Chile and Canada are fundamentally different to what we have here in Scotland. We have lakes that are borderline oligotrophic means the trophic, meaning that they can accept and deal with sustainably a higher level of nutrients from farming, and that science wasn't recognised within the ASC standards. Once we had it changed from evidence, then we were able to move more of the sites to ASC. 40 per cent of your Norwegian site, sorry ASC accredited, do you have a target or a timescale in mind for your Scottish sites to reach the 100 that you aim for? Now that that has been amended and we've had a more scientific, thorough assessment within the ASC standard, we will move quickly to put all the sites in Scotland to ASC. All sites? Yes, as quickly as possible. Can I just clarify? That was to do with smolts in freshwater, a protection of smolts in freshwater. Do you have any escapes in freshwater of juvenile fish before they're collected and taken out to the farms offshore? We've been farming in freshwater locks here in Scotland for 130 years and there has been a history of escape events recorded. That has happened. The general trend for escapes both in the sea and in freshwater is declined rapidly. Our last escape in freshwater was over a decade ago, so it is very low, but there is still a risk of it. The way that that's been addressed in the ASC standard is to implement a kind of gold-level practice of containment things like Kevlar nets, a minimum size of fish entered, count in, count out, etc. Sorry, just before we move on to Scotland, I can understand it across all of the industry, is that the same? Is the escape into freshwater of juvenile fish declining or have there been none for 10 years? I can't say that there have been none for 10 years, no. There have been in the last 10 years across the industry, but it then says that it has been declining and we're improving matters. A by investment, maybe Stewart could come in on some of the technology being applied now with regard to moorings and barriers, but the other thing is that we've got a new technical standard, a national technical standard that has arisen from the Ministerial Working Group on Aquaculture and is now part of our code, and all the companies are abiding by that. A lot of it is actually focusing on human behaviour. We've got to train our people to ensure that they maintain the nets in the best possible condition to ensure that we contain the fish. There has been human error involved in the past and we believe that we're moving quite significantly in that direction. I'm not going to have to apologise, Jamie, for jumping in, but Peter wants to come in and then I'll come back to you and say, Peter. Maybe Jamie was going to ask, but I would just ask Craig and Grant, are they going to go down the same route? Are they hoping to be ASC-graded as well in the near future? The Scottish Samo company has already gone full or... Hold on. Sorry. I was going to let Grant in first because he indicated. I'll let Grant in and then Craig, I'll definitely come to you. I suspect that we might have fairly similar answers. It's one standard out of hundreds of standards that are out there. We've got a number of standards that we do comply to, including RSPCA, Farm Assured, Global Gap, of course the Code of Good Practice and PGI. Those are the four that we've got currently. However, it's always a moving playing field, so it'll really be customer-led for us, which standards we go for in the future. I certainly wouldn't roll out ASC. Craig, do you want to add to that? Yes, please. The Scottish Samo company is similar. We have four world-class and world accreditations. The latest one that we've got was the best aquaculture practice, which we believe is the most comprehensive third-party aquaculture certification that there is, because it's the full process from egg to in the truck and includes feed companies and fresh water marine processing plants. We're happy with what we have, but with the recent changes in ASC coming forward, we'll certainly look at it again and review it. Jamie Halcro. Thank you. That segue is nicely into my next question around wider certification internationally. Before I do so, can I make a point of clarification with Mr Hadfield from Marine Harvest? Is it that the barriers to SE accreditation were related to smote farming and freshwater loss? How does that inhibit farms where the smotes are farmed in tanks and then sent directly to seawater, i.e. there is no freshwater lock element? Why were they unable to SE certified? That was the reason why we had only two farms ASC standard, because the way that we run our business is that a lot of fish start off in the hatcheries and increase in the recirculation hatcheries, where water is purified and recirculated through. Then they move to the locks at around 30 grams and then grown up into a smolt at around 120 grams and then to SE. That meant for us that roughly about 90 per cent of our fish had been through the farming systems in the lock. We had to go back to the ASC and get them to change that standard. To be very straight about it, it really was that the ASC had not recognised the scientific circumstances of freshwater environments in Scotland. It was not that we pushed them to change or anything else, but sticking to science and being accountable by science is very important in this business. Thanks for that clarification. Someone mentioned the fact that there are hundreds of certification schemes out there that one could accredit with or align oneself with. Is that a problem? The fact that there is no international industry standard on production, on provenance, that one producer can sign to one system or another in another part of the world to another, does that make it difficult to align the industry and create a true balance of certification and provenance? Of the many schemes that are the most widely recognised, which are the Scottish producers signed up to that help to give the Scottish product that provenance that it so desperately needs? I want to bring Scott in first and then Craig. To answer your question with regard to the one that is most widely used, is global gap 80 per cent of our production is global gap accredited? Global gap is the accreditation scheme and that is recognised in international markets. Ben Hadfield alluded to it earlier that the backstop of all production standards is the Scottish code of good practice. That was really what produced all those standards to a common level, if you like, and then they will enhance that with their own additions and attributes. That really is the basis of production standards and is recognised worldwide as that. All other countries have followed that. I think that it is something that we should be proud of in Scotland. This industry did it of its own back in 2006 and it has been a tremendous success. In the marketplace, there is a bit of differentiation between retail markets and retailers of different standards for the product on their shelves. Again, we have another accreditation. We were the first non-French food to receive Label Rouge accreditation. We produced that to a different standard to our superior fish. There is a lot in the mix there to consider, but all of it is designed to ensure high food quality and high food safety as well. Craig. Code of good practice absolutely agrees. It is a pinnacle. It is very tough and robust. It is exacting. We all adhere to it. It is very important that we do that. With the other accreditation that is out there, it is expensive. Scottish Salmon company put over £160,000 a year on third-party audits, which we welcome, but when we get global gap, Friends of the Sea, RSPCA, BAP, and I can go on and on and on, when you go to major retailer, they are very professional companies. They have their own technical teams and sometimes their own accreditation that they want you to adhere to as well with a separate audit. We work closely with retailers and try to align with what they want at the same time. We have four accreditation that are more happy with that. We will look at ASC, but we have to mind the technical considerations of retailers and their own accreditation that they want to attain. By that answer, I take it that the accreditation process is driven by the retail market rather than through third parties such as environmental aspects or other agricultural interests. Clearly, it is a retail product at the end of the day. I appreciate that. You are driven by what your buyers are asking for in terms of their standards. Is that at the forefront of the decision-making when it comes to accreditation? How do you make those decisions, given that there is quite a substantial cost in doing so? Ben, I will let you answer and then I will move on to the next question, which is Kate Forbes. There are around 20 standards. It is not quite the number that was discussed before. They are all very similar, but the retailers are looking for a point of differentiation. There is an element of competition about who can come up with the most robust standard. It really started in Scotland and it came from the code of practice and the regulation here, which seemed to be the best. It has been taken wider and now it goes into environmental groups wanting their own stamp on how salmon should be farmed. Last week, we had James Withers of Scotland Food and Drink in front of us. We were talking about the Scottish brand generally and the importance of the perception that Scottish farmed salmon is produced in pristine waters. He mentioned that the industry at large wants to embrace world-class standards. I certainly think that we have heard that this morning. If that is the case, what improvements do you think are still necessary to improve the industry overall and make it even better and bring it higher up in terms of world-class standards? Presumably none of you are standing still. I am looking at environmental issues and broader issues as well. I am going to give Ben, Craig and Grant the opportunity to answer that. Let's go the other way around. Grant, when did you start it off? I think that you are right. Our premium out there in the marketplace depends upon us having very high regulatory standards. I think that we have got them today. I think that there is more that can be done possibly to look at co-ordinating the regulations that are out there. At the moment, we require at least five licences to operate a fish farm and those are run by different regulatory bodies. Although all the regulators are very good and very thorough, there is the opportunity for things to sometimes fall between stools. I think that a crucial one is perhaps sea lice and sea lice medicines. Sea lice numbers are being regulated by one body, sea lice medicines by another. Actually, there is possibly an opportunity to look at more holistic regulations that could help to drive down both sea lice medicine usage and sea lice numbers under the one regulator. I think that that could really help. The animal welfare and the benefits and the care of the fish in the seabed is our responsibility and we have to keep on improving it. We just have to do that as our duty. That is investment in technology, in training, in new veterinary procedures and new ways and non-chemical ways of treating fish to keep fish healthy, to keep them cleaner. The use of cleaner fish, the use of technology in nets, the use of technology in cameras to make sure that the feed has been utilised 100 per cent. All of that and more, we must do on a daily basis and keep on researching and investing in new technology to go forward. It is very important. That is an industry that we want to work together to continue learning and improving. As you know, it is quite a young industry. The first farms were here about 50 years ago and it moves quite quickly. It is dynamic. We have had a very good regulation in Scotland to protect the environment. It is frustrating to listen to comments that we do not have that because the reality is that we do, but as the industry evolves from quite a young base, then that legislation should change quickly and be dynamic. You asked what the opportunities were. I think that we have to acknowledge that it has been a difficult period in salmon farming. We had in 2010 and 2011 some of the lowest mortality rates globally at around 7 per cent and really from what I see in operating and working in a worldwide company. Is that for the industry as a whole or is that for marine harvest? No, I was about to clarify. I work globally within marine harvest and really if you had 7 per cent mortality in the seawater phase in marine harvest, then you were kind of top of the pile within the group. That is where Scotland was in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Since then, we have had what I have termed in a letter to the committee akin to a perfect storm, where we have had El Nino conditions raising the temperature of the Atlantic, so we have had warm seas in coastal areas. We have had reduced efficacy of the sea-wise medicines, meaning that we have had to use less medicine and bring in other methods of treatment. What you have seen in that time is mortality levels have increased. Part of what I have done in the farmfish health working group is set out some measures that could enhance the regulation and go further and reduce the risk of mortality or the development of mortality within the industry. One of the things that we need to consider is that we could consolidate the industry and have fewer larger farms less connected in areas that are less sensitive and still maintain or even increase the amount of production that we have here. That might take some of the stakeholder conflict down a bit, in my view. I want to clarify so that there is no doubt that we will be looking specifically as a committee with you on mortality, sea-wise and disease. I think that if we can leave focusing on those later and more on the generality, Kate. I am on the team for that. It is just one question, thank you. Richard Cymru, if you want to come in, I am very Richard Cymru is getting the first bite and you are getting the second bite. It is set in the Scottish Salmon production success story in Scotland. Farm Salmon in Scotland and UK's largest food export, 10,340 jobs, £270 million paid out and paid per annum. On a visit this week to one of your farms, Ben, I was impressed with the level of wages you paid. I am sure that you all paid that level of wages. I believe that the Scottish Government wants to double the amount of production. Production was 162,817 tonnes according to the Scottish Government's official records. Industry has growth targets. There is a demand for the product. It is an excellent product. I believe that it is a very tasty product, but the output appears to be relatively flat. Why? Because you were looking away. It is a very good question. It demonstrates how difficult and challenging it has been for this industry to grow in recent years to where it wants to be. Ben Hadfield mentioned recent challenges with regard to fish health performance and the investment that has gone into that. Additionally, the consenting process is tough. We like it to be tough. There is nothing wrong with the consenting process being tough. We think that that is important. It has to be rigorous because it has to ensure long-term sustainability for this industry. We accept that and we work with it. However, there needs to be a shift in the culture here. We get together with the regulators, we get together with the Government, we get together with the policy makers and we align with what we want to see. The baseline is that we want to ensure that we grow sustainably from a good health basis and from a good environmental basis as well. That is where we are at the moment. As we have gone through a tough time in the past three or four years, we do think that we are coming out of it. We think that you will see that in the data that is coming out. It will be published in the coming months. On that basis, we want to work with SEPA, SNH and Marine Scotland in particular to develop a programme of farming fish in the most appropriate and health-enhancing way. If we can do that, we believe that, aspirationally, we can get to a target. We put out £300,000 because we were part of the Scotland Food and Drink programme. We have had a very successful food and drink industry in Scotland, which is very successful. We have doubled turnover from £7 billion to £14.5 billion. The idea is to reach for the sky and go to £20 billion and go to £30 billion. We are the largest part of the food part of that figure. Therefore, there is a bit of responsibility on us to deliver. We are trying to do that, but we can only do it sustainably. At this juncture of the road, it is an aspirational figure, but we want to work with all regulators to get there. Ben, you mentioned it a minute ago, and this is something that I am pressing. We have to work together with all sections in the salmon industry while down in order to double production. You touched on it slightly to move a farm away from a river that has been affected just now. The Government will give you possibly more a chance to move to another party in Scotland and double your production. Take away a small production area and move it up wherever and make it double. It is no use looking back. We have to look to the future. I am suggesting that, in order to do that, what can we do to resolve the problem that you have got in the wild salmon industry and people who are managing rivers? I will return to that question slightly later. I am very happy if you want to give a short answer. I would like to bring Stuart in on the previous question with Grant. Ben, if you would like to answer that briefly. First of all, it is a great observation. We can touch on it in more depth. It exists. Ultimately, the progressives on the wild fish side and the farm side working together will create more solutions going forward. The tensions, the heat and the argument won't work, but we can come on to it in greater detail. I would like to ask the question why we have flatlined. I, together with another originated the strategy that you referred to that sets out a doubling of the value of the industry. That is a nominal target that we should not be hung up on in terms of hundreds of thousands of tonnes, but we are looking to double the value of the industry out to 2030. Remember my comment earlier on about the supply chain, how much value is in terms of the overall value to the economy. That is very important and we can do lots of way of adding value to a smaller tunnel. Our focus is on value. To answer your question, the constraints that we saw in developing that strategy, the number one constraint, was recognised then and is recognised now as the biological challenge. The industry wholly recognises the biological challenge that it has. The number two challenge that we recognised in developing the strategy was the complexity of the regulatory and consenting environment. Nobody is arguing for a less robust but a more streamlined way of doing this would help to release the growth. As would we in the industry coming together to recognise and overcome these biological challenges. That was the number one constraint. Because the whole strategy for growth is all about doing this sustainably, none of us in the industry expect to move on until we are on top of the challenges that exist. Thank you. Grant, what do you like to hear? I would like to thank Richard for his opening comments and I agree with what he said. Yes, this is a great product. There is a colossal demand out there for it. I think that it benefits us all if we can grow this industry, but the number one most important thing is that any growth must be sustainable. As Ben mentioned already, we have been facing high water temperatures these past few years, partly as a result of El Nino, possibly partly to do with climate change as well. That has created a new environment that we have to control fish health in. That has been challenging for us. We have had real trouble the past few years with raised mortality rates, raised numbers of sea lice and one or two farms. It is more important for us to get that in hand and to make the changes, to make sure that we are starting from a good point before we begin to grow again. In Greek Seafood, if I go back to 2010, we were operating on 33 sites. We are now operating on 17. We have produced a number of sites. We have increased the fallow periods. We have created larger zones, management zones, which are followed synchronously. That means that all the fish are emptied out at the same time to give a break from sea lice. The sea lice cannot reproduce on the salmon. All those things have led to a reduced tonnage in the short term. We have gone from a peak of 19,000 tonnes of harvest biomass down to 12,000. We now believe that we have these problems under control. We can see that we are in a much better place than we were. I think that we can begin to grow now from there. To give you a few facts, our mortality rates are down on the previous 12 months. They are down by 37 per cent. Our adult female lice per average on our fish are down 87 per cent from where they were a year ago. That is good news stories, but we have had to do that before we can really look at our growth potential. I would agree with you as well that, and what Ben was saying, we might need to look at new-plan applications bigger sites, further out, more exposed waters. That is what we are doing already as an industry. Planning departments around Scotland are doing an excellent job, but there might be a question sometimes with resources. I think that they have a lot on their plates, and it is difficult to get through everything in the timescales that they need. That is very comprehensive, so I think that we will move straight on to the next question, Mike, which is here. I want to focus on your response to the Environment, Committee's report and the problems that they have identified. In their report, they say that further development and expansion must be based on resolving the environmental problems. The status quo is not an option. I have already heard comments from the panel this morning saying that we have a very good regulation, we have the very best regulation, but evidence to us previously, from other witnesses, Heather Jones, for instance, talked about the industry being self-regulating. My question is focused on this. Do you recognise the environmental problems, and Grant has literally just finished talking about that, but I would like to hear everybody else. Do you recognise the environmental problems? If so, what do you think you need to do to change your operations? Before we answer that, I will remind you that mortality, sea lice and things will be coming up specifically. Ben, if you would like to answer that question, bearing that in mind, I would be very grateful. First of all, we recognise it and we are very humble about it, which you must be when effectively utilising the environment to assimilate the waste from our activities, and you try to do that in a predictable, monitored and sustainable way. There are elements of the report, which I believe go beyond evidence-based criticism, and I have wrote a letter to set that out and sent it to Donald Cameron. The convener is very recent that that has been sent, but I have put that on record. We will touch on them, as you said, but we have to accept that mortality levels have been too high, and I can assure you that all the companies have put vast resources, literally figuratively, throwing the kitchen sink at dealing with this issue, and we can come on to that. The sea lice issue and the hazard that uncontrolled or badly controlled lice present to wild fish is serious, and we take it very seriously. We need more research in that, and we need to work collaboratively with the wild fish, but what we must not do is over-exaggerate it to the point of making salmon farm in a single issue in certain areas, and I can assure you that that does happen. Yes, we think that the report is thorough and very good. It is obviously setting a clear challenge of improvement to the industry, but, as a scientist, I can assure you that there are areas where it goes beyond the evidence that is available, and I am slightly concerned by that. Craig, do you want to come in? Grant answered a lot of that in his previous answer. The Scottish salmon company environment, we are involved every single day in the issues and problems that we have. We have to humble a good word and feel sad about it and work up a plan with the industry, with our own scientists, with our own veterans, with the Government and the Government agencies a way forward to solve it. That is what we have been working on—training, investment, new technology and new ships. Three years ago, we had two ships at sea. This year, we will have five, and two of those are specifically to clean lice. We do acknowledge what has happened in the past, and we are all working collaboratively together and as individual companies going forward to improve on a day-to-day basis. Mike, do you want to follow that up? I will probably bring Scott in, then it can give you a warning that you are coming now. The Environment Committee was very critical of the regulators. In fact, I think that it was Grant that said, you have five licences and different regulatory bodies, and often there is a danger of falling between, that is what you actually said, the different regulators. The committee was very critical of CEPRIN in particular, but others as well, in that they seem to be doing their regulation in silos, and we have had, as I say, other evidence from other witnesses saying that they thought the industry was self-regulating, because once you have got your permissions, you are regulating yourselves. That is the evidence that we have received. What would you like to comment on that evidence? Sorry, I said Scott first. Do you want to go first, Scott, and then bring Ben in? I think that the criticism of the regulators is a bit harsh. I think that the regulators do a tough job. They do it to the best of their ability. I think that the big change in particularly in the last 24 months is improvement in modelling and predictability, as to what actually is the discharge from marine farms. We have been doing a lot of work collaboratively with CEPRIN on that, and we are about to arrive at a new deeper model, which is the model that we basically achieve our discharge consents based on. There is another depositional zonal regulation that is being modified in order to accurately predict what the benthic impact will be on the seabed. That will be coupled with hydrodynamic modelling, which the companies bring in themselves, will undoubtedly enhance the accuracy of prediction in what the fate of the discharge from the salmon farms will be. That has been a big load of work, a big process that has been on-going. It has not been done in asylum, but it has been done in collaboration with CEPRIN. There is a lot of learning going on, a lot going on behind the scenes to get to the next stage. I am not a scientist, but this guy next to me can tell you a bit more technical detail on that. In my opinion, the regulators are doing a pretty good job under clearly tight resources. Ben, can you move on to the next question, which will be John Finnie? We should not downplay the strength of the regulation here in Scotland. It is good, and it is better than that that exists in many other salmon farming regions. However, in points, it can be disjointed. There is more work to be done to bring it together, to get a strategy perhaps more like Richard Lyle suggested that someone could take a view of the whole of the industry and say, okay, where do we want to go? We have a product here that has huge demand for it, which in terms of CO2 production is one of the lowest mainstream protein sectors in terms of CO2 emissions. It is 2.9 kilos of CO2 for one kilo of salmon, and beef is in excess of 30. We have a product that everybody wants, and it is good for the environment to farm. It is very efficient. There needs to be more cultural support in Scotland for what we have and how to do it in the best possible way. We want more farms, but we want better environmental KPIs. How do we get those two things together? We want higher farming production and higher value for it. We want the carbon footprint to continue to go down. We want lice levels to go down, and we want all the issues that we will touch on. Those improvements need to take place. Fundamentally, we want the industry to grow. Where is the best place for that growth? There is an opportunity through consolidation of the farming areas. Just briefly, because it is evidence that we have received that you have not addressed, there are five different regulators. Once you have got your licences, once you have gone through that process and you are running, the evidence is that you are largely self-regulating. Do you agree with that statement or not? I would agree with that statement in that all the companies are very professional and responsible and they utilise the environment to sustainably reprocess the waste. If you are cavalier with that, then you as the company are punished the quickest and the hardest. The regulation sets out what you can do in terms of discharge, in terms of pen size, in terms of nets and where you can operate. The regulation is structured. What I am suggesting is that it has improved in the past two years, but there is not a holistic overarching strategy within Scotland as to how this industry should move further. I think that it may be Stuart's best place to state that, because the industry leadership group and the activity of the Government to try and spearhead that and tick all the boxes as you grow this business is a good starting point. John Finnie, I think that yours is the next question. Thank you very much, Neil Gaiman, and good morning, panel, and thanks for your submissions. It has been part-touched on, but I want to go a bit further into that. That is the issue of mortality. Now, accepting that with livestock production there is always an element of mortality. Since you have already answered the question that I was going to ask initially, clearly you are not content with the level of fish mortality at the moment. Is there an acceptable level? Is there a benchmark that you are working to as regards fish mortality? Ben, I do not want to give you all the answers, but why don't you start it off and then see if we can bring in Grant and Craig on that? I am sure that you will have slightly different views, Ben. I can just give you an observation from working in the industry in a scientific and farming capacity for 18 years. If you are farming in a seawater stage, which lasts around 18 months, 20 months, and you are sub 5 per cent mortality, then you are amongst best in class. You have to remember that the life strategy of a salmon is to lay thousands of eggs and very few of those survive. The levels have gone up and nobody is satisfied with that, and the focus and resources being brought to bear on it is intense. However, there are other industries with mortality higher than what we have, and they are not singled out for such criticism on words like unacceptable. We agree that it is bad and that it needs to be resourced and fixed quickly, but the level of dairy herd replacement is around 35 per cent. The mortality in the bass and bream sector in the Mediterranean. Is there an acceptable level? Is there a target that you are working to? We are most financially affected when mortality is high and we gain from it when mortality is low, so the target that we are working to is zero mortality in the sea, and that is what all the professionals in my company are aimed for. As I said to you before, we did have, within the marine harvest group, which is represented in almost all the main farming regions, the lowest level of mortality in the period from 2008 to 2012. The mortality has risen significantly in Ireland, and it has risen significantly in Norway, due to the factors that I have described before. I do believe that the measures that are now starting to mature will see mortality decreasing in the coming years. Craig, do you want to come in on that? Mortalities are a serious issue and the last several years have been very bad. Improvements have been implemented in new areas of not just technology, but we are using fresh water. Our ships are full of fresh water to clean the fish, to help with the gill disease and to help them out. Five years ago, it was AGD, and now we have complex gill disease, cardiovascular problems with fish and new issues. We all employ veterinaries and have biology departments to investigate as quickly as possible to sample fish every day to ensure that they are healthy. Mortality is something that we want zero of, and when we have it, it is not good. We want to have it as low a mortality rate as possible. We are doing an awful lot to try to improve it, but we will never be satisfied until we get zero. If that is possible, that would be great, but if not, we will carry on trying. Grant, I feel that you probably may echo what Craig is saying. So, maybe if John asked a supplementary, you will be able to answer that as well. Yes, indeed. I thank you for those replies. It is to quote from the Eclear Committee report, and specifically this quote of a May, please. The overall number of deaths as a result of disease, ill health and stress, may be masked by the early harvesting of fish with disease and life threatening conditions. Is that the case? If so, how widespread is that practice? Grant, do you want to come in on that? Yes. I give you a bit of my background. I mean, I am quite new to the job of managing director. My background is very much in salmon farming prior to that, so this is a subject very close to my heart. Like any farmer out there, we hate it if our stock are not healthy. Welfare is our number one priority, just the same as any other farm of agriculture. And yes, if our fish are not healthy, we will look at the possibility of harvesting them. I think that that's a better option than sometimes it is to treat. So yes, if you left all fish in the sea and never harvested them, eventually all fish would die. So yes, there's been early harvesting. If we hadn't harvested early, then mortality rates could have been even higher. But then I don't think it's a bad thing to have taken that action and harvested earlier. Is it with the other producers? Who else? If anyone else would like to come in, I'm sort of looking at you. Ben, do you want to come in? Okay, Ben and then Craig. Yeah, I think it does occur. If you feel that the fish health situation is poor and we have a legal and a moral responsibility to keep welfare of our stock high, then a decision can be taken to harvest the fish out. Craig, do you want to come in? We take the decision very serious as well and take advice from a third-party veterinary group who come in and give us advice. If the fish's health is deteriorated so much, then we will take that decision to harvest, but it's a serious decision that's not taken lightly. I suppose that the telling word in that quote that I read out was the word mask. I don't know how you would react to that. Is it all open and transparent or is this avoiding a wider issue, exposure to wider issues? Ben? Personally, I think it's a, if you forgive me, it's a bad choice of word. We are very knowledgeable about the health status of our fish and the challenges that we have and it's part of our business to be top of our game in that. We're also very, very busy people and one thing which I can accept that we've done badly is communicated this in an open and transparent way. Sometimes it's complex information and you've got to explain it. What the SSPO has done to publish the CLI's data recently and what it proposes to do to publish the mortality data, what Marine Harvest has been publishing all this data by site since 2016. I think that's just where this industry needs to go to get a proper buy in culture for growth in the right set of circumstances for quality growth as a nation. I hope that's a good answer, but I don't think that the word mask was appropriate if I'm honest in the report. No, no, thank you very much for the replies. The next question is Peter. Thanks, convener and good morning gentlemen. Mine and my background is farming as well and you'll be well aware of the saying in the agricultural circles that where you've got livestock you will have dead stock. It's a factor of life and we all try and minimise it, but it's there and will always be there, I believe. One of the reasons that the mortality and the salmon industry has risen lately is because of amoebic gill disease and you're all trying to tackle that as well as you can, I'm sure, but my question about that is what is your view on the risk of these various diseases, not just particularly that disease, but any disease in farm salmon being transmitted to the wild stocks? Is there a real risk that disease problems that you may have when your farms are transmitted to the wild fish out there? Looks like, Ben, as a scientist, you're going to be answering that. If I just say that, just again, it's disease, sea lice will come to in a minute. You mentioned amoebic gill disease and that really came in to Scotland in 2011 due to warmer waters and it's ubiquitous through the environment. When farm fish go to sea they don't have amoebic gill disease and we take all the steps that we can to screen them and make sure that the disease is free when they go to sea. To pick up on Mr Finney's point, if fish were diseased we might take the decision not to put them to sea, so there's those levels of controls. But it's an open environment, so when our fish go to sea they can be infected by wild fish and then there is the potential for those diseases to be magnified within the environment because we've got a large number of fish in a given area. That needs to be understood to a greater extent and it needs to be risked and managed. What we also see from a farming point of view is that it's very difficult to have disease transfer from pen to pen. If you've got a disease that won't jump from pen to pen and it's 20-30 metres apart then the given dilution within a lock system within an area of open ocean for fish swimming, wild fish swimming by, is much lower. Again, being humble and taking it seriously it is an issue, it needs more research and then the industry needs to be very transparent about the steps that it's taking to minimise the risk. You're almost saying it's the other way around. The fish go to sea without AGD and somewhere along the line the stats and signs of AGD so that must have come from the wider ocean, if you like. That is the case but the concern from the wild fish sector and we speak to them quite a bit and they voice those concerns regularly, is the magnification potential that farms have. You need to accept that that's a reality as a leader of a company or working within the industry and just be clear about what you're doing to minimise the risk. The wild fish aren't always around the pens, they're not lurking there, they're there at critical times of the year. Could you maybe just explain a wee bit if you think there's a way of minimising exposure to both by timing of stocking and timing of harvesting? That has been done for quite some time where we have fallow periods within a farm to try and reduce, have no fish so that then you'll have no sea lice prior to wild, small exodus from a river or migration from a river. From a disease point of view what we do is that there is a good level of working in the companies where a whole area, even if there's multiple companies, will come together and agree when it's going to be stocked, when it's going to be fallow, what would happen in the event that one company notifies a disease to share that information with a company and then work towards a common solution. Our responsibility is transparency to convey it honestly and it's technical in a straightforward way and then minimise any risk and hazard. What I would like to see more of is collaborative working with the wild fish groups to address the issues there. That's something that should be mined much harder in my view. Peter, do you want to... I mean, I wonder if Greg, anything to add to that or you and the same opinion? The same opinion. We work as an industry collectively. Marine Harvest and the Scottish Seafarms shares some sea locks. We share information. We follow at the same time for an improvement overall and we talk to our neighbours and we make sure as much as possible that we do that. In the future, with the more transparency that all companies have signed up to and agreed to, we want to keep on improving that and making it better. Totally with the wild salmon trout association and all associations, we absolutely have more collaboration and research and we support that. Just to move on, there's a new framework being developed. We're told a farmed fish health framework being developed by industry in partnership with the Scottish Government. Is this a voluntary framework or will it have a statutory basis and what do you think it will achieve as regards the health for the whole industry? Ben, it looks like you again. I suppose that I should. I'm co-chair of that group, so I don't need to. Just because mortality and growth and the biological performance, if you run a salmon business, that's the core, that's everything about your profitability. The point I'm making there is really in this period where we've had a tough time and things have been difficult, vast resources have been thrown at the issue and a lot of innovation. The farmed fish health working group was then saying that if Government scientists and regulators all sat down and decided what steps could be added on top of that to go further, what would it look like? So the discussion there has been about improving transparency, improving communication flow and then work streams related to understanding amoebic gill disease more, understanding gill health, understanding how sea lice move around farms, how the farms are connected and then informing what the industry should do in partnership with Government and with regulators and also what changes to the regulation could be made to get the environmental KPIs in salmon farming developing quicker in the right ways. How that answers your question? Is that going to be a voluntary framework or will it have a statutory role as well? You're still working the framework up, as I understand, and it's likely to become more transparent where you've got to shortly, I believe. Can you comment on that? If you boil it down to its core, there are around 20 recommendations to improve regulation and co-working beyond what the industry is already doing. That comes in and needs to be worked on over the next 10 years, because it takes that length of time. I personally think that it's very good. It's predominantly going to be voluntary because we all want healthier fish and we all want better growing fish, but where it's needed and it's not being achieved voluntarily, then I would imagine that it will move into regulation and policy within the regulators. Jamie, you wanted to come in briefly. Thank you. It's briefly on the point of notifications or alerts when a producer discovers a disease in other forms of agricultural farming. They're very strict mechanisms in place through environmental protection agencies, etc. To notify other local farms when certain protocols are put into place when diseases are discovered, what statutory or mandatory procedures do you have to go through when you discover something on a salmon farm? Do you think that there's been a cultural shift away from not wanting to say that I'm the root cause of a problem or that we have a problem to a more transparent way of letting the wider environment know that there are agricultural issues? Ben, you seem to volunteer for all the difficult questions. Ben, I'm mindful that there's a lot of questions to get through to say if you could answer that shortly, I'd appreciate it. I'll try and do it shortly. We have the same statutory requirement for notifiable diseases that you find in agriculture. Things like infectious salmon anemia, we would have a lawful requirement to notify when you had a positive on the site. What we are pushing for as an industry and through the farm-fish health working group is that we have a gold standard transparency where all diseases, all ice levels by farm are published and out there. I think that that's a cultural shift that we need to make and it's been difficult. I can explain why it's difficult fairly quickly because we're often attacked constantly for these things. What we've matured in the thinking too is put all this information out there, be open about the problem, be open about what we're doing to address it, have the debate and try and foster a greater culture for managing these disease challenges. The next issue that we're going to move on to is sea lice. I'd be very grateful if somebody could explain the position on sea lice and the publication of data. I think that it's fundamentally changed or the position has changed since the eclair committee reported it and we have had some correspondence. Scott, is that something that you would feel comfortable doing so we understand where the industry as a whole is going on sea lice? Yes, I'll try. Basically, the SSPO has been reporting average sea lice numbers on a 30-area basis for a number of years now, and that's out in the public domain. It's on our website, published on a quarterly basis, based upon the fisheries board areas in order to get some analysis of what our sea lice performance has been. However, we've taken it to a more granular reporting base now. It's been quite difficult to ensure that we're getting the absolutely accurate information. There's no point in putting information out. It then has to be withdrawn and reset. I think that some of you have received a copy already, but as of today, we've got on our website a farm site by farm site sea lice report. There's a three-month lag, but there's a reason for that. Again, it's to ensure that we have the right data, and it's checked and double checked to ensure that it's accurate. That will be produced on a monthly basis with a three-month lag per farm site. That is as from now. On our website, it will also be sent in advance to Marine Scotland scientists. Marine Scotland scientists, by the way, are still very keen to receive the area report, which, believe it or not, they think tells them more from an analytical point of view. That's basically where we are with sea lice reporting. It's quite interesting in the sense that I don't want to hold Norway out as the best model always, but you can actually go on to a website and click on a farm and get a report of that farm on anything to do with that farm. Say, I've got one in front of me and I'm not even going to try and pronounce the name of the farm. I've got 0.12 female lice per fish. I've got all the details on the back of lice per fish, medical treatments carried out, mechanical movements of lice carried out, sea temperature, any fish disease and any escape incidents. It's pretty forthright or clear to me. We did this yesterday or the Spice Clocks did it for us yesterday and came out with the 16th to the 22nd of April, which is not three months. It's barely two weeks and they seem to be fairly accurate. Would you say that's where you want to be? Ben, you're bound to agree because your company is probably the one who owns this farm, but maybe Scott, would you think that's good practice and would you like to see it going to that level? A lot of the information that is on there actually is in the public domain from Scottish... On a farm-by-farm basis? On a farm-by-farm basis you can... On a one-click start? Scotland's agriculture website, SEPA report on cast data, a lot of it is there, but I take your point that to be in nearer time, if you like, to what the actual performance is. Yes, that would be, I think, a good step, but it requires a lot of resource to do that. I think that it's one step at a time. It's been a very considered step to get where we are with regard to our reporting and we are going to keep enhancing it, there's no doubt about it. Ben, you're obviously going to tell me it's excellent because I won't say it's a marine harvest farm, but... Well, firstly, I'm very impressed that you managed to get that information off the website because it has a nasty habit of being available in English and then reverting into Norwegian. It's definitely English. Yeah, I'm impressed. But it is a good website and I think, yes, that's where we would like to get to and the steps that have been taken recently emulate that. It is one area where Norway is better than Scotland and I can assure you there are many areas where Scotland is better than Norway. I mean, lived there and worked there for some years. What Norway also has is a kind of more supportive culture about marine farming and using the sea generally, you know, and it's ingrained within their culture, right from access to fishing to farming. So, to go directly to the question, if we have full disclosure like that and unfair criticism which goes beyond evidence, which we have quite a lot of in Scotland, then it's not something that we would want. The ideal would be that the industry moves forward and mirrors that level of granularity with its publications and we all come together and we develop a solution-focused culture about developing this industry in a sustainable way. I would strongly advocate that that's the right way to go. Right, I'm going to part that there because there are a series of questions that lead on for that and it's right that other committees are members coming in. Colin, if you'd like to lead on that. Just following on from the questions on the publication of data on sea lice and also mortality, would you have any objections to making the publication of that data for all salmon farms compulsory in Scotland? Stuart, I'm going to let you come in. Just a small one. I have something which I could maybe contribute to this, maybe more difficult for producers to mention in case it would appear defensive. Ben touched on the subject of Norway having a much more pragmatic evaluation of use of the marine environment. The risk that I see with right up to date full disclosure of data is malicious attacks coming on a commercial basis and even I've seen some evidence of down to personal levels of attack round about the data. So I think we need to be aware of that risk when and if we make decisions round about what we're disclosing and perhaps particularly when. Grant, you want to come in on that? I think in an ideal world it would be voluntary but I think if there was a feeling that the voluntary information wasn't suitable and the MSPs decided regulation was the way to go, that would be okay. Colin, you've got a series of questions. If you could feed them next few in maybe we can get everyone to get a chance to answer. Absolutely, there's a number of questions there about regulation and other things. We've obviously touched on, first of all, the impact that sea lice on farm fish can have on wild fish but I'm keen to know to what extent is that issue taken into account by the work that you actually do in terms of planning your farms. Is that something that is really important and a key issue for you or is it somebody else's priority and if so, who's? Sorry, I'm just slightly distracted there. Who would like to head off on that? Ben, do you want to come in and then I'll try and bring Stuart in as well? It's a very key issue, we take it very seriously. The primary action that we take is to minimise any discharge of farmed derived lice during the sensitive period for wild smolts when they're exiting sea locks. Our own policy for expansion is in areas away from rivers. Our expansion has been predominantly on the western isles and the small isles, such as on barra and muck and rum, where you don't have high concentrations of wild fish, so it's high up there. Stuart, do you want to come in? Wild sea trout, a different salmonoid but essentially in the same territory. He just basically draws research from all over the place, he's not doing research himself. There is one in particular that he quotes, which is Loch Cardin, where there's three rivers. There's a farm, but the river that's suggesting the farm has seen no reduction in sea trout, but the rivers that are distant from the farm in Loch Cardin have. He posits but does not conclude that there are quite a wide variety of interactions with the wild sea trout and the environment, reduced salinity, warmer waters and lice. Is that a piece of evidence that he brings forward in his book from elsewhere, something that you associate with that, yes, lice is a problem, but this isn't just about lice, the future health of wild salmonoid populations? Grant, and could I maybe encourage you just to help the committee, is if you think there's a difference between salmon and sea trout and the effects of lice on either of them, if there is a clear difference, you might like to mention it. If you don't think it, don't mention it, Grant. There is a difference between sea trout and salmon, and I'm not an expert in this field, but my understanding is that salmon will run out of the river and then will tend to go to deep sea, so they have to pass the salmon farm but are not necessarily there for a long period of time, whereas with sea trout they live much more locally, so they may come into contact with sea farms on a more regular basis. I think that there's no question that there's a huge number of issues facing our wild salmon populations, not just in the UK but right across Europe. Sea lice is one of them, and I think that there's no question that sea lice are bad for farm fish and they're bad for wild fish, and we have to do everything we can as an industry to make sure that our sea lice numbers are at the minimum. However, it is important to note that salmonids are struggling in areas where there is no farm salmon as well, so particularly in the southern regions, so in England, in Wales and France, salmon populations or salmonids, sea trout as well, are suffering much worse than they are in Scotland and Norway, which obviously have much more in the way of sea farming. That's not to say that there's not a connection between mortalities in particularly sea trout and farmed salmon. There may well be, and we need to do everything we can to bring that down, but it's clearly not the only thing that's at play here. Ben, do you want to comment on that? Craig, I'm very happy to bring you in on that as well. As a company and increasingly as an industry, we start off with the view that excessive levels of farm-derived lice retained within a sea lock or an area of contained water body poses a hazard to wild fish, and it could put additional strains on them. Salmon and sea trout are different. The sea trout smalls are generally larger, but they spend more time in coastal waters, so the exposure to that hazard will be different. What I suggest is the way forward for the industry is a gold standard of transparency, and then to minimise the lice levels and the farming presence in sensitive areas over time, so to have growth in areas away from migratory fish systems. I think that what we suffer from here in Scotland is a continual overstatement about the effect that farm-derived lice has on wild fish, and it's important not to, in my view, overreact to that. Salmon and sea trout are under pressure due to climatic factors, due to higher levels of predation, due to many, many things. To then say that the west coast, the primary impact is coming from salmon aquaculture, I don't believe that that's correct, but we are utilising a shared space, and we are having the environment assimilate our waste, and we are, especially over the period 13, 14 and 15, having a higher burden of sea lice on some farms. I think that it's incumbent on the industry to address that problem, work with the wild fish, minimise the hazard, and try to research the scale of the effect. It's still very important not to overstate it. Colin, do you want to come in with any of the other questions? I will bring you in, Craig. It's just a question of trying to get a few questions there on the table as well. I'm keen to know what the driver there for is. If you say that it's not as big an issue, as some people may suggest, what is the driver for the action that's being taken by the industry? First of all, do you think that the industry is doing enough to tackle the problem of sea lice? To what extent has the practice been impacted by Marine Scotland's new sea lice regulations? And what further regulation do you think needs to happen to drive that work forward? Craig, do you want to come in on that? I know that you're keen to come in, and Ben, I guess you want to come back on that as well. Craig, Stuart and then Ben. SSC have invested heavily in research and training in new ships, and to better understand exactly what's happening with sea lice, how to clean them, how to keep the fish healthy with minimum handling every time you handle a fish, it can affect the salmon. Of course, when we clean and we work in farm management areas and having larger cages in specific areas, that helps as well through proper planning. As an industry and as a company, we're certainly looking into that. As I said earlier, it's not a matter of spending money. We spend an awful lot of money now, and it's money well spent, and it's money for the future that we want to go further to better understand and to clean the fish and to find it. Lice are a worldwide phenomenon at the moment, and they've been there for thousands of years, and we're only now on that learning curve, so we're going through a progression of improvements that we don't want to stop as a company and as an industry. Stuart, do you want to come in? I'll come to you then. I think that the premise of the question was round about the effect of sea lice on wild fish. I'm not a scientist, but I've been closely involved in this industry and the fishing industry for 35 years. We had very strong, aggressive commercial fisheries of salmon for years in waters around Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have recorded issues of ducks, for example, taking large amounts of smolts coming down downstream, returning to sea. We have exploding, in some cases, seal populations in various areas around the country. We have climate change. We have huge growth in pelagic stocks, which are feeding off similar feed as salmon sea might have been feeding from. The point of making is that there is a large amount of other reasons that may be contributing towards reduction in wild fish numbers over long periods of time. Of course, we need some science around that. We need to study all those causes on an equal basis. I recognise all the things that Stuart said about pressures on wild fish, but our responsibility as a major industry in Scotland, which could have a hazard to wild fish, is to minimise that hazard and to communicate how we do it. We have a situation where the production plan reflects the needs of the farmed fish, but also any potential hazards on wild fish. We have a lice management plan, which has moved more from a medicinal strategy into a mixture or holistic strategy, including biological controls with cleaner fish, fresh water treatment, in some cases shorter cycles with larger smolts, and that is geared towards lice minimisation. Ultimately, what I am suggesting is that it is present in how you manage a fish farm operation, and where I would like to see it develop further is being definitive about the level of impact on wild fish. That takes quite a lot of energy and research, and the industry should take part in that and support that both technically and financially, in my view. It would be good to end up at a situation in which salmon aquaculture provides more of a solution than the hazard. Working together on salmon is an iconic species for Scotland, both farmed and wild. We have a duty, I believe, to work with the wild sector to make sure that it is as healthy as possible. More projects on habitat enhancement, restoration, etc. Interesting points are in the need for research and some of that collaborative work. Is there a need for any changes to the way in which tackling sea lice is regulated at the moment? We touched on regulation earlier and suggested that there should be some changes. Is there a need for changes in the way in which it is regulated to tackle the issue of sea lice? Just mindful of the time, I am very happy to let somebody, one person, come in there and grant. I think that one area that would be very interesting to explore in that field is integrated pest management. That has been something that has really pushed our sea lice figures down over the past year, using a number of factors that are not just relying too much on medicines. Our medicine usage has gone down and a number of alternative methods of either reducing settlement or dealing with sea lice once the fish have come. We have made a lot of progress. Maybe there is a role to look at how we manage to integrate pest management into the regulations. It is important that it does not become too hard and fast. It would be easy to say that we must do X, Y and Z, but maybe, as time moves on, A, B and C will be better options. It is not a bad idea if regulation is looking at integrated pest management. Just a quick question before we move on from that. Nowhere has lower female lice limits per fish targets before treatment than Scotland. I think that I am right in saying that. Is that right? Do you think that that their levels are an aspiration that we should be seeking to achieve? You can do a yes or a no, if you like. Yes. We should seek to achieve those, but Norway is colder. It is harder to control lice in Scotland and it is harder to control lice in Ireland than it is in Scotland. Those are very arbitrary targets and people get fixated with them. One target that is acceptable in one water body is not acceptable in another water body. It is more collaborative research that is required between the parties. Not quite a yes or no answer then. Grant, I am really sorry. Ben has given quite a good answer to that for all of you. Richard, I think that you are the next question. I would like to push on with that. Yes. The capture and beneficial use of waste. Ben, you did write to Graham Day in regard to the CLEF Committee report, which I am a member of that committee for my basically. You wrote, The National Trust for Scotland, the NTS, quite properly, was asked to give evidence to both the Acclair and Wreck Committee hearings. We felt, however, that some of the evidence did not engender fair comparisons or contextualise criticism. You have got to say that, for instance, the comparison made the most recent Wreck hearing by NTS between human sewage and discharge from farm salmon is misplaced. Why is it misplaced and is it not correct that the volume of waste and untreated waste discharge from fish farms into marine environment is half the volume of human treated effluent of Scotland, which I found quite disturbing? And you're it. Would you like to come on that? I'm sorry. You wrote the letter. I should try and be a bit more patient to tell me that. Maegor. Yes, please. Yes, I wrote the letter. What frustrated me with that is that it's an apples with pear's comparison, and really a body like that should, in my view, do a little bit better. First of all, sewage is treated because it contains fecal coliforms, which are harmful to humans. Fish are ectothermic. They are cold water species. They don't contain fecal coliforms. Secondly, when people compare it to a sewage equivalent, they often choose to use phosphorus, and phosphorus is an issue when it's discharged into a fresh water environment in terms of eutrophication. It's not an issue generally when it's discharged into a marine environment, and so, you know, in summary, what we do in Scotland is very thoroughly and very scientifically through regulation with SEPA. We balance the discharge of waste from the farm relative to the assimilative capacity of the water column in the seabed beneath it, so that over time it's reprocessed and it's sustainable. So, coming out with, in my view, really sensational headlines like that, I would argue that that's a thing of the past, and it's a little bit about this culture that we discuss. You don't hear so much of that in Norway. People accept that if you use the marine environment to reprocess waste and you manage that in a good way, well, then that's a good thing, and that's what happens in agriculture. They have that view about the sea, and I'm basically giving you my side of the view. I hope that's acceptable. What are you doing to capture and use this waste to adjust the environment impact, or, as you contend, there is no impact? I'm very keen to bring in other producers. Grant or Craig, if you want to come in on that. Sorry, Ben, I'm not trying to shut you out just to balance Grant. Yeah, we're certainly looking at it. It's quite tricky, technically, to do, but we are interested in removal of waste. Really, what's limiting the sustainable size of a fish farm just now is the environment's ability to assimilate waste. So, if we can remove waste, we can increase the environment's potential to holes more salmon, which then allows us to hit these markets. So, it's something that we want to look at. It's technically difficult, it's expensive, it's very energy intensive, but it's not impossible. We've been looking at this recently for sea sites. I don't think we're there yet to be able to make this work commercially, but I think as time moves on that might well change. If we can recover the waste, it's not just that we can reduce the impact on the environment and then possibly produce more salmon, but also it could be a potential energy source for us as well. It could be used in anaerobic digestion to produce biogases as well. So, it's an area that we're very interested in and we'll continue to monitor. Craig. Yeah, it's the same, and the industry should collaborate with the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre as well to look into this for collaborative research, financial input and put some serious effort into it for the first time and actually start. So, yeah, it's an area for a positive move that we can make as an industry. Ben. I want to ask a quick question then, what are the people on? I noticed, it was reported that share prices in salmon companies fell slightly due to Norway considering raising site tax. Norway either licences or sells sites in their area. Can you, just for the record, and I can't pass up asking you this. What tax do you pay in Norway and what do you pay in the UK? You may want to find the information if you don't have it. Ben, are you in a position to answer that? You might not be in a position to answer that, but I mean, you would be the only one, I think, that could. Yeah, I can answer that, I hope, reasonably well. Of course, we pay corporation tax in the UK and Norway pays corporation tax on its profits in Norway. When you buy a licence to operate a farm in Norway, that is purchased from the state, when you gain a licence to farm in Scotland, you pay a rental over time to the Crown estate based on the tonnage that is taken from the site. Like Scotland and Norway, you have community gain, where there are some smaller payments paid into community funds, etc., so that exists. How about that answer there? I am saying that Norway makes more money from salmon farming than what Scotland does, and then I will finish it up. No, that is not correct. Thank you. I am going to move on to the next question then, if I may, which is Gail Ross. Thank you, convener. I want to talk about seals. By 2022, there is a chance that we will not be able to export to the US because they are thinking about banning products from fish farms that continue to shoot seals. What are you doing to try and get shootings down to zero? Do you use acoustic deterrent devices and, if not, why not? Are there any other emerging technologies that we are seeing to try and reduce predation from seals? Seals are something that we have been working very hard on reducing our impact. We have reduced the number of seals that we shoot by 80 per cent since 2011, when the licensing process came in. We are well on our way to reducing that to zero, and we have been well on our way to that before the use from the US, but that just adds urgency to that. We need to be reducing the number of seals that we shoot down to zero, not just because it allows us access to the US market but because it is the right thing for us to be doing. We have worked very hard on that. If I take you back to 2011, Greg Seafwood did not have a good record. We shot 23 seals on one farm, which was not acceptable. Since then, we have worked very hard on finding alternative ways to control that. Since January 2015, we have had to shoot one seal, which is still one too many in my opinion, but we are working down to zero. That is the same for the whole industry. In terms of ways of stopping seal-samin interactions, we have invested a lot in physical barriers, so a lot of different kinds of netting to try and prevent the seals from getting at our salmon. That is our first choice of barrier. We do use some acoustic deterrents where we find that it is necessary, but that is the next step down. We do not want to do that. There is the potential for acoustic deterrents to interfere with other marine mammals, so it is something that we want to minimise as much as possible, but it is probably preferable to having to shoot a seal. Greg, the Scottish salmon company aims to get down to zero and we have been gradually deploying marksmen less and less. Acoustic deterrents are very important and effective. We use them in most of the sites where we have seals, predominantly in the north-west, outer hebrides and inner hebrides, where, in the past two years, more and more grey and common seals have appeared. The third generation family is working for us, and they have never seen so many seals in outer hebrides as we get today. It is an issue. Dispatching a marksman is our last resort, and it is taken very seriously. Acoustic detectors are stronger nets and double nettings sometimes in other ways. More research into what else can we do to tell them to come, because we have to protect our livestock. I suppose that the difficulty is once a seal gets into the net, how you solve that. Stuart, you wanted to come in. As a producer of acoustic deterrents, I think that it is an excellent question, and, therefore, I have to also declare my interest in having us to see it. Ben, do you want a short answer on that? The short answer is that we do not want it as an issue. It is negative, it is embarrassing, it is not something that the industry is proud of, but we have a legal requirement to protect our stock as well. There is a rock and hard place element there. The levels have come down enormously, and it is about an 80 per cent reduction. In terms of the way that we manage the population, it is good now that there is a quota system so that you are not reducing from any specific area too much. What was shot by the industry last year was something like 0.3 per cent of the population, or 0.3 per cent. It is very low. Context is important here. In 2017, the wild capture fishery sector recorded 610 seals killed against the 48 killed by the aquaculture industry. While the industry battles and works hard to reduce its levels down to zero, it is important not to overly beat the farmed industry up when it is an issue for other sectors as well. Craig, you talked about R&D and technology and how that is moving on. Is that research, would that be shared across the sector? Yes, but we talk to the different companies through SCIC at the same time, and it is shared across the sector. Very briefly, Peter, and then I am going to come to you. I am just going to try and redress the balance a wee bit. I mean, I already said I am at my backlands farming, and to suggest to a farmer that he couldn't shoot a fox would go down very badly indeed. However, you guys are very focused on not shooting seals, and seals are far from an endangered species. There are thousands of them out there. I wonder if we have a wee bit to hook up on not shooting any seals at all, given that that would go down very badly if that was transferred into farming and he couldn't shoot a fox, for instance. I will just make a comment. I can understand, Peter. I think that the level of shooting that we have today is not an ecological problem. It is a reputational risk problem for us, though. Seals are a very iconic species. People come to Scotland to see the seals, and in some ways it is nice that there are so many for them to see. It is something that we need to do as an industry to get down to zero, I think. I think that we are going to leave that one there and move on to you, Kate, with your questions. Great. Thank you very much. I would like to ask some questions on the Aquaculture Industry Leadership Group, which I believe that Stuart Graham co-chairs. My understanding is that the main purpose is to drive the development and delivery of the Aquaculture 2030 industry strategy. How is the group held to account in terms of its status? Is it voluntary membership at the moment? What kind of accountability do you think it should have and to whom? The leadership group is an industry leadership group, so the important part here is that the industry has taken the lead. It is a very collaborative group. I think that from the formative co-chairs of the Vision 2030 group, which was a gentleman Dennis Overton, chairman of Aquascot and I, we took an initiative without any authority to invite stakeholders to a working group to formulate the strategy. This is quite a small industry and we took some soundings. From that, we assembled what we thought was a representative group of the public and private stakeholders to produce that strategy. At the end of having produced the strategy, we held again from a database of industry contacts, we held an elective process, entirely voluntary, to elect members of the industry leadership group. We have very light touch self-imposed governance. I co-chair with the managing director of Scottish Sea Farms, two-year overlapping processes terms, I should say. In terms of being held to account, currently we are not held to account other than I guess by all of the stakeholders around the table. We are transparent, put meetings on to website meeting minutes and so on. There has been a lot of talk, we heard again last week, about partnership collaboration, working with regulators, government and others in the hope that that might drive change and also support the industry. Do you think that this would be the group to do that through? Is there a role for a greater strategic oversight of the industry through this group? The group runs entirely with no dedicated financial or administrative resources, so we all come to the table with the ability to take a work package on. I think that it is the right place for a strategic leadership of the industry, and that is what we do seek to do. I guess that we have just had a review after one year of its existence. We felt around the table that it was working quite well, the process. I would like to comment, however, that we have had a large amount of public sector and government stakeholders around the table in this. I think that the power of that collaboration has been absolutely remarkable. Something really to behold in terms of how quickly we were able to get things moving in the right direction. It is a very interesting model, which we feel thus far, although it is only one year in, has worked well. I am talking about getting other stakeholders around the table. From your perspective, a lot of talk about reputational risk. What does the industry want through this group from government, from regulators, in order to be able to demonstrate that the industry is concerned with meeting relevant environmental standards, in light of the desire to grow in a sustainable way? If that question makes sense, it is a bit waffly. I think that all of the right stakeholders are around the table to hold the industry to account in terms of delivering the strategy. The strategy is premised on sustainable growth, and an understanding that biology is the number one challenge. The group feels about right for me. I think that we are making good progress, and I think that it is the right forum. If we felt that there were more people that could add value, we could certainly look at that. However, there is general guidance on industry leadership groups as an optimum number around about 12, which we are there or there about that. It feels to me that it is working well. John Finnie, you have a question, and then there is a final one for me. Thanks, convener. We have touched on regulation already, so that has covered quite a lot of the ground. However, when we were out on Monday, we were visiting in Lochaber, as you may know, and somebody told us then that they felt that the regulatory system had become less predictable than it used to be. Whereas it used to be fairly clear that, if you did certain things, your planning and everything else would be approved, there was a feeling in some circles now that the industry would go into a meeting, despite having done what it thought it could do. However, it still did not know what the outcome would be, and it would very much depend on which councillors turned up. We were given an example of one in Lochaber, where the four local councillors turned up and opposed the application, but six outside our councillors turned up and supported the application and overruled the local ones. On that specific area, do you feel that it has become less predictable over time, or are there problems with that? I think that there is probably not an issue of regulation per se, but more an issue of local democracy. I doubt that anybody, certainly nobody in the AILG, would be advocating the lack of local democracy. Where you have different views of different councillors on any particular committee is simply a function of our democracy, and it is a good thing, and it is up to us in the industry to make sure that we inform councillors when decisions are to be made. I think that I would echo really what Stuart Stewart said. Particularly with planning, we have now got a pre-application process, screening and scoping, and the full planning application, which gives the industry a pretty good steer on whether or not an application is worth pursuing. There are always going to be some areas that, as much as we try to make everything objective and scientifically based, are going to be subjective. There is always a risk that the decision goes a different way than you had imagined, but that is part of the game. That also allows a lot of local democracy, which is not a bad thing. One question at the end, which we shied away from—or I encourage you to shied away from, because I was hoping that I might get a chance to answer it at the end—is that what has become evident to me during this inquiry is how much the industry has moved from where it was when it started and a different knowledge base that the industry has developed. It appears, and certainly from our visit over to what was lost earlier this week, that there was some agreement that maybe some farms were located in areas where perhaps today it would be inappropriate to site those farms. I have also heard during the evidence session that farms are limited by the amount of mass of fish that they can hold in it. That echoed, I think, from the evidence that we heard from the wildfish sector. It is a sort of general question that has industries moved on, whether it is locations due to wildfish or due to other fish or even to, I think, it was milebeds that we heard about in the Eclare committee. Do you think that there is some scope for industry to reconsider the positioning of their farms to less environmentally sensitive areas, to less environmentally sensitive areas, and part of that process to increase the size of those farms elsewhere to allow them to remove them from industry elsewhere? Grant, you touched on that. It is important that all of you have a chance to answer that, and I am certainly going to give you the chance to answer it. Grant, would you like to answer that? I think that it is a process that is currently on going. I mentioned earlier on, back in 2010, we were operating on 33 sites and now we are operating on 17. Most of those sites that we have chosen to shut down are relatively sheltered. The reason that we are moving away from them is that, because they are sheltered, they have less ability to sustainably support a large amount of fish. Also, because they are sheltered, they tend to be areas that, possibly, you get worse sea-lice issues in, you may get worse problems with gill health as well. The other thing that has changed over time is, thanks to Stuart and the people in the supply industry, the level of equipment that is available is now much more robust than it was previously. As technology moves on, we are able to move out into more and more open waters. That is definitely something that should be encouraged by regulation, which is the movement away from the inshore sites, freeing those up for other water users to use and us moving offshore. I think that the process of the Crown estate, where we are essentially being charged for not using sites, is encouraging us to give up those sites. The same thing is now happening with SEPA, so we are not holding on to sites that can be freed up for other purposes. I think that a move out to bigger, deeper sites would be beneficial. The other thing is that it might be worth looking at how marine spatial planning can help us to do that in terms of identifying areas that are perhaps more suitable for aquaculture. That is where we want the industry to move to. The Scottish Salmon Company was essentially made up of seven small farming companies that were put together, and Lighthouse Caledonia was formed from that Scottish Salmon Company. Being small farmers, those farms were traditionally small in local areas and isolated so that the small farmer costs were down to look after the fish. We had a lot of 7,800-ton sites, which today is miniscule. In Norway, there are 5,000-6,000-7,000-ton sites. What we have been doing is a process of moving and closing down those smaller farms and with new applications already moving them out, Grenamol in the north used, which is pretty stormy in other areas. We would support that and look at moving away from our smaller sites, as we have already started to do. I think that there is a real opportunity to take down some of the conflicts that exist with the various stakeholders in the industry, particularly between the industry and the wild fish sector. It should be evidence-based. You cannot come to a farm and say, I presume, that it is having an impact and therefore it should be relocated. The evidence needs to be presented if that farm has been operating there for some time legally and in a good way. One startling factor on the numbers is that Norway produces around 1.2 million tonnes of salmon and it has 250 active farms. We have reproduced 170,000 tonnes, give or take, and we have 207 active farms. The farms are fundamentally smaller and we have had a policy within SIPA that has kept the farms small. We have farms that are 2,500 tonnes and sustainably could be 5 or 6,000 tonnes. If you did a consolidation activity to reduce the stakeholder issues and at the same time maintain the social benefits and the value and wealth that this industry creates within those areas, then you could take a real environmental gain from that. Although people have that in mind and many of the companies and regulators are working towards it, there is not yet a single body within Scotland that has taken hold of that and said, okay, this is a way that we can have a step change within the industry and take this industry forward. Scott, you have probably been saving yourself from previous questions. I tend to agree with the comments made by the other members of the panel. I think that it is also important to note that that really is a consideration of the AILG. That is part of the discussion, is how do we move forward into greater and more exposed sites and also Richard's earlier question about how we had 160,000 tonnes in 2002 and we have got 177,000 now. Fundamentally, we have been self-regulating. I know of one company in West of Shetland that has got consent for 30,000 tonnes that it is not using, because it just feels that it is too much of a biological and environmental risk. That is where we are and therefore in order to optimise the consent that we could have, we should be moving to more appropriate sites. If I might say characteristically, perhaps just a note of caution on the use of words like offshore and open seas and such like, I think that it is not perhaps very well understood but very easy to say that farms should move offshore and to more open sea environments. There are other issues and constraints around about that. It is harsh, it is a hostile environment, it is dangerous, we are talking about people also working there. I encourage the committee not to feel that this is just a panacea. We must move offshore on bigger sites. That must be a progressive process, which while we do have much more robust equipment nowadays, that needs to be a process of feeling our way and moving our way slowly forwards. It is not an unlock and all of a sudden everything moves offshore. It is a difficult, challenging environment, not just for people but also for fish, for containment and other environmental challenges that can come from that. I would just want to add a note of caution to the thinking round about that. I would like to thank all the witnesses, as I am sure that the committee would for their input, Scott, Ben, Craig and Grant. I hope that you all feel that you have had a chance to say all you needed to say. Thank you very much. We are now going to move into private session. Before we do so, we will allow the witnesses to depart. Thank you very much.