Chamber and committees

So, since 2018, that recommendation has not been met, largely because it could not be met?

On the consenting process, what would you like to see more as standard from growth and expansion in a particular community?

That is interesting, because it has been identified that other fishing is going on in the area, and the impact on that is assumed to be negative. Is there a way of balancing that through the consenting process?

I have a question for Sarah Evans on the environmental impact. What more could be done now on enforcement, without creating new legislation or powers, to mitigate pollution and the impact on the marine environment?

So, the data may be held centrally by various bodies, but external organisations cannot get anything from it.

I note that most of the welfare-focused recommendations made by the previous committee in the last parliamentary session looked at mortality. That is understandable, because that is easy to collect data on, but what other indicators do we need to achieve that overview of fish welfare that that committee also asked for? What would be the key indicators beyond mortality that you would want fish farms to look at?

Earlier, we heard some uncertainty around what can be done to prevent fish escapes. How can the recommendation to take a precautionary approach be met by farms, if it is unclear what can be done to prevent escapes from occurring in the first place?

I want to come back to fish welfare but, if we can, focus on the environmental impact for a moment. John Aitchison mentioned that the SEPA framework is showing good indications. How long does that need to bed in before we know whether it is enough, and what more needs to be done?

I assume financial benefits, but there certainly could be others.

I will be very quick. In terms of the risk to cetaceans, are there alternatives to the ADDs that also pose threats to cetaceans?