Chamber and committees

Thank you. I appreciate everything that you said there.

I am thinking that the simple act of the fish escaping should be a deterrent in itself that encourages farmers to prevent escapes. We have had witnesses before the committee who have struggled to state what could prevent fish escapes. Given the volatility of the numbers year on year, do you believe that there are enough ways and means open to farmers to prevent escapes to justify putting a liability on them if fish end up escaping?

Okay. Thank you for that.

Your report identified good practice in Norway by an organisation called OURO, which is responsible for removing escapee farmed fish from bodies of water. Can you explain to the committee how that process works and whether a similar practice could be implemented in Scotland?

Absolutely.

Thank you, convener.

Given that we have heard evidence that lice numbers per fish are fairly consistent—except in some circumstances where there has been an admission that those numbers are out of control and work is needed—would it be more realistic to aim for fewer lice per fish or to tackle the interaction between lice in farmed and wild salmon?

I am thinking about where the lice exist in high numbers. Are enough actions being taken in those circumstances—such as actions to reduce biomass, which you mentioned—or does there need to be more enforcement in reaction to growing numbers?

As you say, escapes must be reported, so where has the reporting fallen down? People are obviously not reporting, so what needs to change in how that is officially reacted to and in enforcement?

My question has been answered, convener.

Good morning, minister. What was the justification for not including transfers in the original order?

That is me finished. Thank you, convener.

I am thinking about people’s ability to make those changes if it were allowed within the rules. Is funding for housing improvements and building flexible enough to react to needs in the community as things stand?