Chamber and committees

Our third agenda item is evidence from two panels of witnesses in our follow-up inquiry into salmon farming in Scotland.

First, we will hear from representatives of the Scottish Science Advisory Council. We will discuss the council’s report entitled “Use of Science and Evidence in Aquaculture Consenting and the Sustainable Development of Scottish Aquaculture”, which was published last year. We have approximately one hour for this session.

I am pleased to welcome to the meeting Professor Nick Owens, who is a member of the SSAC, and Christine Lawson, who is head of the SSAC secretariat. I thank both of you for joining us.

Edward Mountain MSP is also joining us today. I will let him ask questions after committee members have asked theirs. Do you have any relevant interests to declare, Edward?

Emma Roddick is joining us remotely.

Yes.

Yes. Finally from me, we have heard that other countries have research pens or research farms. Why do we not have those in Scotland? What are the barriers to our having them here?

Thank you.

You say that you are doing that and that communities are well informed, but I still have queries about whether there is a high level of trust. Judging from our evidence sessions and written correspondence, that trust does not seem to be there at all and the arguments are polarised. What are your objectives? What are you going to do to ensure that we can build that level of trust?

In effect, then, you are saying that you do not think there is any environmental impact from the increased use of cleaner fish.

So, you do not foresee any negative environmental implications of the increased breeding or increased use of cleaner fish. It is not on your radar.

Rachael Hamilton has a brief supplementary question.

To put it simply, should somebody do a cost benefit analysis as part of the consent process, and should that be a body such as your organisation, or should it be peer reviewed? If we make the decision on the basis of the protein that could be produced from one salmon farm for the whole population of Scotland, it is probably fine. However, if we look at it on a community basis, and there are 300 people who might be affected, that is a different scenario. Who should make the decision? It should not be the aquaculture industry, and it perhaps should not be the community, so who should undertake a cost benefit analysis and make a decision on whether a new site should receive consent?

Does that make the question more complicated?