Chamber and committees

Okay, but the farm did not know that the fish had escaped. It did not report an escape.

I have one further question. Do you expect the processing site to reopen? I have visited it and have seen the skills of the workforce there. The staff will have moved on and, I hope, found other jobs. How do you protect a workforce with that level of skill and rebuild it after closure?

Perhaps we could write to you about that. I am sorry for putting you on the spot but it was worth asking the question while you were here.

I have been listening to the responses, which make it clear that freshwater treatments have been beneficial, but I am picking up a wee bit of reluctance. I understand that fish handling is an issue, but I am hearing concern that possible future regulation might make that a requirement, rather than something to be done when the need arises.

Thank you.

Could I be included in those discussions? After all, I represent an area where the issue is crucial.

What difference does that make? One imagines that, if they are not accredited, you cannot really give out scientific information from them.

When will the labs be back on site?

If there is an issue, will the Government look favourably at allowing more time for the spending to be made?

The real concern is about the timeframe. In the farming community, there are already concerns about the length of time that it is taking to produce the rural support plan and all the bits that are attached to it.

The timeframe in the regulations creates a fear that we could still be on 2018 funding for LFASS in 2030, because, if we pass this legislation, there is nothing that the committee or the Parliament can do to change it or to force the Government to change it. That funding rate could just go on, and that is not acceptable. That is what we are trying to say loud and clear. You can give us assurances, but you cannot set it in stone that that will not happen.