Chamber and committees

I will bring in Emma Roddick.

I think that everybody understands the importance of fish as part of a healthy diet and the ability of aquaculture to deliver a low-carbon-footprint food source, the need for which will grow in the future. Given that the representation of the salmon farming industry in the media appears to be quite negative most of the time, how do we get the balance right? Whose job is it to do that? Last week, Professor MacKenzie said that different voices seem to have different impacts with regard to how information is delivered. We want to make sure that we have food security in this country, and salmon and aquaculture play a part in that. However, there are negative connotations around the industry. Whose job is it to get that balance right?

I do not know whether Rhoda Grant was touching on this, but do we need, say, the Scottish Scientific Advisory Council to carry out a cost benefit analysis and to clearly and transparently identify the risks and benefits that you know about, make a decision on whether those risks are worth taking for the outcomes and then decide what should be consented to, while still applying the precautionary principle to the unknowns that you cannot quantify?

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I will kick off the questions with a nice easy one. Can you briefly outline the role of the Scottish Science Advisory Council and explain what initiated your review entitled “Use of Science and Evidence in Aquaculture Consenting and the Sustainable Development of Scottish Aquaculture”?

One of the RECC’s recommendations was to identify significant gaps in knowledge, data analysis and monitoring, but your report also identified a gap in funding for policy-driven research on aquaculture. Do you think that there remains that gap in funding but also a lack of co-ordination on research and the funding that ties it together?

Do you believe that there are actually gaps in the knowledge, or is there just a lack of co-ordination to pull all the research together? Where should the funding for that research come from? Why is there a funding gap? Given all the examples of people doing fantastic research out there, why is that not better co-ordinated?

I will tease something out a little. You suggested that there is a lack of data out there. Does that put at risk some of the decisions on consenting? The argument can be very polarised. The industry says, “There’s nothing to see here. We’re making improvements, and we have made significant improvements over the past five years,” and other groups, including non-governmental organisations, and individuals say that we still have the status quo from when the first report was done. Is there a risk that we do not have enough data in order to make properly evidenced decisions on consenting? Do we run that risk from day to day at the moment?

I have a query. SEPA published a fin-fish aquaculture sector plan with key outcomes. Two of the outcomes jump out at me. One is:

“Communities are confident that the environment is protected by being well informed and engaged with businesses operating on their land and waters.”

Another is:

Communities have a high level of trust towards regulators and businesses and benefit from open and transparent dialogue.”

Anecdotally, it has been indicated that that is not happening at all. Do you think that you have made progress on that? What do you intend to do over the coming years to ensure that those outcomes are arrived at?

Our fourth item of business is the consideration of consent notifications for two UK statutory instruments: the Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2024.

No member wishes to comment on either instrument. Are members content to agree with the Scottish Government’s decision to consent to the provisions that are set out in the notifications being included in UK, rather than Scottish, subordinate legislation?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I do not think that we have any further questions: you have covered everything. [Laughter.]

I will kick off by asking whether and how SEPA has changed since 2018-19 and whether you think the organisation is now fit for purpose in line with the aquaculture industry’s wish to increase at the rate that was suggested, which I think was for a doubling of output. Is that still your view? Do we have a regulatory framework that will allow aquaculture to expand, bearing in mind the environmental impact that it might have?