Chamber and committees

A few pieces of work have been undertaken that are relevant. We have talked a bit this morning about the development of the sea lice framework and how that work has been progressing. We have had the salmon interactions working group report, which we responded to. That response is a key part of addressing some of the recommendations that were made in that report.

On wild salmon, we had our wild salmon strategy, and a wild salmon implementation plan was announced earlier this year. Across five themes, that made 60 recommendations on how we can address the different pressures that affect wild salmon. One pressure is sea lice but, broadly, 12 pressures that affect wild salmon populations have been identified.

The development and delivery of the sea lice framework is a critical piece of work. We had a consultation on the framework last year, and another consultation, on its impacts and what those might be, is due to be issued soon. It is a risk-based framework that will look at the cumulative impact of a number of pressures through the modelling that it uses. That will be a big step forward in addressing some of the issues that we face.

I am sorry, but I do not know whether there is more detail that Jill Barber wants to add to that.

I hope that I made my reasons for that clear in my response to the committee. By no means have we said that we will not proceed with that at all, but it is more pragmatic to let some of the work that I have outlined today bed in before we look to potential implementation.

One of the key pieces of work is SEPA’s sea lice framework, and there is due to be another consultation on the impact of that on the back of a consultation that was held last year. That framework will potentially have an impact on the average sea lice numbers that could be permitted. It is important that we work through and complete that piece of work before we look at revisiting the decision. I hope that it is clear from my report that the industry’s levels are, largely, far below our minimum thresholds anyway.

For those reasons, as well as the one that you set out, we decided not to proceed with the decision at this point. We will, of course, continue to keep it under consideration as the new framework beds in and we see how it is operating. I am sorry that I cannot give you a more definitive timescale at the moment. We are due to have the consultation, so I cannot give a precise date for when the framework will be in place. We need to go through the processes first.

That feeds into the work that I mentioned in my opening comments—the consenting task group and the pilot projects that it will take forward. You are right: numerous processes and bodies are involved, from Marine Scotland, the Crown Estate and local authorities to SEPA. We know that improvements can be made to the process. When Griggs gave evidence to the committee, he talked about how, in Norway, there is perhaps a one-stop shop, or one person who takes the application and goes to the other bodies.

Through the consenting task group, we are looking to pilot multilateral engagement at the start of the process. That will involve engaging with the community as well as all the bodies that are involved. The group is keen to take that work forward and pilot it with an application at some point. Malcolm Pentland can give a more detailed update on the work that the group is taking forward.

Yes—absolutely. Those are exactly the issues that we are looking at through the sea lice framework and the work that is being taken forward from that.

You will be aware that that work is being led by my colleague Màiri McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition. I have not seen the consultation responses yet, so I cannot go into any detail about what they contain, but I know that the salmon sector and the fishing industry have expressed concern about the process. We have had the consultation, and we now need to analyse the responses.

Those are definitely issues that we want to take forward as we look at and revise the regulatory regime. I am more than happy to take that on board and to consider it as part of that work.

That is the third time that you have asked me the question, convener. I cannot give a definitive response. Of course, we want to do what we can to drive down the rate from the current figure. It is in our interest and the industry’s interest to do so.

SEPA is ultimately answerable to the Scottish Government. We have a positive working relationship, and the work that we take forward through the Scottish Aquaculture Council is really important in that. It brings together all the key stakeholders: industry, environmental organisations and the key regulatory bodies that are involved in aquaculture in Scotland. I am really trying to facilitate those wider discussions. Last week, as I said, we had a meeting at which we went into detail about the science report that we received on some of those recommendations. We have positive relationships there.

Again, it is not possible for me to give a definitive figure for that. We want the level to be as low as possible. With some of the figures that you talked about, it is hard to say, because there are things that we cannot predict. I talked about what could have been a specific event last year; we do not know whether that could become a trend that would become more of an issue.

I want to correct your point that it is not mandatory to report mortality. The industry must record it—that is a mandatory requirement. We talked about the inspection regime, how that information is collected and the role of the fish health inspectorate. I want to be clear on that point.

As I said, there is a mandatory requirement for industry to publish the figures. The fish health inspectorate has a role to play in that. Its role is to audit that information, and it also undertakes inspections. We therefore inspect, audit and check.