Chamber and committees

What is the trigger point for sending a fish off for further investigation?

The fish health inspectorate’s letter to the committee describes a mortality rate of 0.55 per cent from that week. Is that based on your 447,563 fish or the initial stock?

We can expect that one in four salmon in a farm will die early. Is that good enough welfare? Do you believe that salmon living in cages currently have high welfare standards?

Yes. I clarify that I am not suggesting that any individual does not care. I am recognising as a fact that documents on fish health that were sent to this committee initially were about economic impact. That is what was given to us—it was not my creation.

The commitments in the “Fish Health Plan 2024”—which, incidentally, do not feature in the condensed version—include a commitment,

“Where appropriate”,

to

“introduce long-term strategic changes to how we farm our fish”.

What long-term strategic changes have been brought in since the publication of the plan?

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommended that

“no expansion should be permitted at sites which report high or significantly increased levels of mortalities”.

Mortalities continue to be a problem. What is the industry learning from incidents of high mortality, and how are those lessons being applied to actions to prevent recurrence?

In 2023, the fish health inspectorate data showed 17 million salmon deaths, which was the most ever recorded. In 2022, the figure was also record-breaking. You expect this year’s figures to be drastically improved.

The fish health plan was raised earlier. I was grateful to Salmon Scotland for circulating it ahead of our visit a couple of weeks ago. Very little space in that document is given over to fish health. Before you get to the commitments, you have to read quite a lot about the economic benefits of salmon farming and the number of jobs that it sustains. Is there a reason why the focus of the fish health plan is not on fish health?

I am aware that wrasse struggle more with the likes of freshwater treatment than salmon do, and that it is just not possible to fully separate them before such treatments are administered. Is that fair to the wrasse? Is that not a welfare concern?

Earlier, I quoted from the fish health inspectorate letter that the figure for mortality was 0.55 the week of the visit, and you have said that it was 0.29. That is a discrepancy, is it not?

But it is not really twisting science to say that there is an impact. The impact and the relationship in that respect have been noted in scientific research, and we know that the half-life of the chemical is 140 days and that it can spread 39km, so is there really no concern?