³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That ties into a couple of points. As I said in response to Beatrice Wishart, I will write about more work that is being undertaken on planning; I know that that is not specific to aquaculture, but it is relevant. There was a recent consultation about ensuring that planning authorities have the resources and skills that they need, as well as other matters around fees.

The consenting pilots will help with that, because they are all about identifying a lead person in SEPA and the local authority to take things forward. It would be helpful if I sent more detail, because that work is being led by ministerial colleagues. I will provide more of that information, as that work will help to address some of the problems.

As Charles Allan outlined, there have been discussions about how there can be greater collaboration. If the FHI picks up particular cases when it is undertaking inspections, it refers them to APHA. However, I am always open to considering how we can strengthen the role of APHA when it comes to protecting fish welfare in Scotland.

Charles, do you want to elaborate on that?

I think that the industry is already doing everything that it can and, as I have outlined today, we are assisting in some of the work to drive down mortality as much as it is within our control to do that.

I do not think that there could be a bigger incentive to drive down mortality than there is at the moment. Having high mortality levels does not make economic sense, and we do not want to see it from a fish health perspective, either. The rate could go down, but that could change, depending on the environmental conditions. That is where the work that I talked about is critically important—it is about identifying the challenges, thinking about how to address them and trying to predict what the next challenge to come down the line might be.

Yes, you are absolutely right. It is in nobody’s interest for there to be high mortality rates, not least the industry. It is key that we try to address that.

To touch on comparisons with other countries, we are not comparing like with like. We have warmer waters in Scotland than they do in Norway and the Faroes. The challenges are sometimes similar, but they can also sometimes be very difficult.

Our levels have stayed at the consistent level of around 25 per cent, which is higher than that of other nations. However, the environment in which every nation is farming is very different, so there are a number of different causes. We work with other nations and engage with them to try to get a better understanding, and we consider where it makes sense for us to work together to try to address those challenges. Hazel Bartels will probably have more information on that.

Are you asking about the stock in biomass?

Charles Allan might want to come in on that.

Ultimately, that is a matter for SEPA to determine, based on the information and evidence that it has.

We have touched on a lot of the modelling work that is done before licences are issued. On top of that, there is the monitoring that happens. I understand that SEPA would undertake that on the basis of the level of risk. If that level of monitoring is what SEPA believes that it needs in order to ensure that businesses are complying with the regulations, ultimately, that is for SEPA to decide, as SEPA holds all the information and is the one undertaking all the monitoring work.

That would be a matter for SEPA to determine, based on the information that it had and on the monitoring and surveillance that had already been undertaken.

I believe that it would be consistent with that recommendation. We cannot underestimate the amount of monitoring and surveillance that would be undertaken on top of such visits. As Charles Allan touched on in his evidence to the committee on 12 June, enforcement is the end but the critical point of enforcement is compliance and ensuring that businesses comply with the regulations that are in place.

A number of steps can be taken in relation to enforcement action. I believe that, between the initial modelling that is undertaken and the monitoring and surveillance that SEPA undertakes, we have the right systems in place to enable enforcement and that any enforcement action that is taken is proportionate.

Individually, fish farms must be able to operate within environmental limits, otherwise licences would not be granted. I again come back to the important pieces of work that have been undertaken since the previous committee’s inquiry. We have talked about the overall finfish framework that SEPA introduced in 2019 and its implementation. There is also the further roll-out of the sea lice framework, which will take place over a period of time.

Between those exercises, we can identify the areas where there are challenges. That comes back to the work that Jill Barber touched on earlier, and which the committee may touch on later in its questions about the consenting task group and the work that it is taking forward. Ultimately, we are looking to guide development to the right places. That is what we are trying to achieve through those frameworks and through this work. Some of that work is at the initial stages, but that is the general direction.