Chamber and committees

I take those points. I want to emphasise, again, the urgency and the concern about the sea bed.

The Scottish Association for Marine Science report for the 2018 parliamentary inquiry into salmon farming said that

“Scotland’s target of producing 200,000 tonnes salmon in 2020 will likely emit organic waste equivalent to that of about half of Scotland’s human population”,

which at that time was 5.3 million people. That is an incredible amount of waste. The fact that there are 72 sea bed survey results that have not been analysed makes me really concerned that we do not really have a clear picture or a robust sense of what is going on in our sea bed.

We know that emamectin benzoate causes harm to crustaceans. A challenge that we face is that a very high percentage of Scotland’s inshore fisheries are dependent on crustaceans for their livelihood. It is important to factor that in. I am concerned that we are potentially favouring one sector over another and not making sure that those people’s livelihood can continue.

That is very helpful. I am speaking to recommendation 29 from the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee report, which said that

“it is essential that the issue of waste collection and removal is given a high priority by the industry, the Scottish Government and relevant agencies. It is clearly one of the main impacts on the environment and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.”

That report, from 2018, is now several years old.

My concern is that there is an “urgency” in the recommendation and that—although I understand that eDNA monitoring and other things are being done—when we look back at the REC Committee report’s recommendation, that urgency has not really played a role in a lot of what we have been doing.

How can the committee have confidence that SEPA has the ability to fulfil its role in a meaningful way?

Did you say 12 cases? You read that very quickly.

I come back to the opening recommendations around a moratorium, because the industry is clearly in a problematic state. By downsizing and having less biomass, with fewer fish in the cages, we could potentially get the industry to a more manageable situation.

Okay. I am still not sure that I am getting the answer on the recommendation for robust interventions in that situation. but I will leave it there.

Ben Hadfield from Mowi Scotland talked to the committee about wanting to get to 5 per cent. Do the marine directorate and the Scottish Government have some kind of role in supporting farms to move to that humane level?

One thing that has come up through talking to all the different regulatory bodies as part of our inquiry is that mortality does not really sit anywhere. We heard from Charles Allan, when he came in with a different hat on—I think it was a different hat—that the fish health inspectorate, for example, does not have powers to limit production following a high mortality event. That is related to recommendation 10 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report, which says that

“there should be a process in place which allows robust intervention by regulators when serious fish mortality events occur.”

There is also an issue about gathering that data and getting that information. If it is the case that nobody has the powers to oversee that issue, something needs to be done about that. How would you define a “robust intervention”, and where would that intervention sit, so that we get that clarity around the situation and that mortality data?

I have another general question, which, again, is probably for all of you, although you do not all have to come in. I asked Paul McLennan—I mean Duncan Maclennan. I asked Professor Maclennan when we will know when a housing emergency is over and what that will look like. I will probably ask Paul McLennan that; maybe I have already asked him. I put that to Duncan—sorry, I mean Gordon MacRae.

Willie Coffey has a number of questions.