³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

There are a few points in there. I would touch on Jill Barber’s earlier response about all the various packages of work that are under way. I also touch on the point that Emma Roddick raised about the appropriateness of sites and how that could be looked at. Again, there is a package of work under way in relation to that.

On your point about requiring farms to reduce mortalities, I struggle to see what the purpose of that would be. If, for example, an environmental challenge arises that could not be predicted, how does a farm deal with that? How does a farm deal with a situation that could lead to an increase in mortalities that is outwith its control?

Again, I stress that there is no bigger incentive than already exists for the industry to reduce mortalities. Mortalities are not good, not least in terms of fish health impacts but also for the business overall, from an economic point of view. It is in everybody’s best interests to address mortalities, and—as Hazel Bartels said—to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to tackle mortalities and, through scientific work, to address the causes. In that way, we can try to get ahead of some of the challenges that we know will continue to come down the line.

There are a few points in there. You say that SEPA has not produced compliance assessments. First, all that information is published, but the specific compliance assessment is a piece of work that SEPA will introduce next year. The levels are published at the moment, but SEPA is actively working on the compliance aspect and will be taking that forward next year.

As you say, it can be difficult for people to extrapolate the information that they need or make comparisons, because of how the data is presented. It is collected in those ways for different purposes and for each of those organisations’ reasons. What the industry needs that data for could be different from what we need that data for in the marine directorate, what FHI needs it for or what SEPA needs it for.

I just mentioned the work that we could take forward on setting out a document that could help explain all that information and bring it together in a better way. All the general information that we have in relation to aquaculture is published on the Scotland’s Aquaculture website. More work could be done overall on the ease of accessibility of that information, but that comes back to a prioritisation discussion. All the general information is published on that website, and a website or information technology overhaul could be a very expensive process.

I have outlined some of the pieces of work that are on-going in relation to the consenting task group. SEPA’s sea lice framework is being implemented, so the issue is about how that work would fit in with our overall prioritisation.

Steps are being taken to make more of the information more communicable. SEPA is introducing its work next year, and we will be working on trying to get an explainer together, particularly in relation to mortality.

Yes.

It comes back to the overall causes. A whole heap of information is published—it is reported openly and transparently. Again, as I have just outlined, every body that is involved collects it for a different purpose, which is why it is set out in different ways.

I would not want that to be interpreted as meaning that there is a gap in regulation. We covered the mortalities in the previous set of questions about interventions. I am sure that Charles Allan will correct me if I am wrong on this, but we have talked about the environmental causes of those mortalities and, if they were caused by a listed disease, the fish health inspectorate has the ability to take action in relation to that, where those powers are set out. However, when there is an environmental cause, such as the harmful algal blooms, that is outwith the control of the fish farmers themselves.

Charles Allan can explain a bit more about the powers in relation to listed disease and where that has been seen to be a problem.

As I outlined in my opening comments, we realise that there is always more work to be done. This is one area in which we agreed with the recommendations, and we still intend to take them forward.

However, as I have mentioned today, the issue is how we prioritise this work. Overall, it was felt that, as we already have a regime in place for escapes, the priority should be to address potential gaps. That is why there has been a focus on taking forward the work on sea lice, and there is also the work that we are doing on the consenting task group.

It is therefore not possible for me to set a definitive timescale at the moment, but we are still intending to deliver that work. Again, it is a case of factoring it in alongside all the other work that we are taking forward at the moment.

Charles Allan wants to come in and then we will turn to Hazel Bartels.

I believe that a lot of progress has been made. As I hope that I outlined in my previous response, we need to look at some of the developments that have taken place in relation to points that were raised about sea lice in those recommendations. We have the introduction of the sea lice framework and the regulatory review that we have undertaken to try to get to grips with the issues, and we have driven forward work on that through the consenting task group. There is also the work on science and innovation that we are taking forward. We have identified the areas where work is still to be done, and we have set out that we are still keen to take that forward.

However, we are in a completely different place from where we were in terms of overall openness and transparency. That situation has very much improved over the period since the report was published. I am pleased with the progress that we have made on the recommendations, although, as I said, there are some areas where we still need to do further work.

My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy is leading the work in relation to marine planning. I would be happy to provide a written update on the status of the Shetland plan, if that would be helpful.

I think that it absolutely is. In our vision, we set that out as an area that we are keen to look at and to progress. A consultation is open on extending the range of local authorities’ planning powers out to 12 nautical miles—at the moment, those powers apply only to the area out to 3 nautical miles. There was discussion about that a few years ago, but the zone was not extended because we were not considering offshore development in that space. That consultation will be open until about mid-December.

When I went to Norway last year, I visited an offshore fish farm, and it was really interesting to see such a development. I think that that was the first place in the world to have an offshore site. From the evidence that we have seen, that approach is better from the point of view of the environmental impact, and it has positive impacts on fish health and welfare.

It is a new area for us, which is why the consultation that we are undertaking is important. One of the benefits of being offshore is higher dispersal levels, but we need to consider all the issues in the round and ensure that the move offshore would have a positive impact on fish health and welfare, too.

All businesses will have to comply with the tighter standards by the end of the period. That will give them time to adjust. If the industry has any concerns about the transition, we will continue to have discussions with it.