Chamber and committees

We will now hear from our second panel of witnesses, which is made up of aquaculture scientists. I welcome to the meeting Professor Simon MacKenzie, who is head of the institute of aquaculture at the University of Stirling; Professor Sam Martin, who is the director of research in the school of biological sciences at the University of Aberdeen; and Dr Helena Reinardy, who is a lecturer and teaching fellow at the Scottish Association for Marine Science. Joining us remotely are Dr Annette Boerlage, who is a research fellow in aquatic epidemiology in the school of veterinary medicine at Scotland’s Rural College, and Professor Lynne Sneddon, who is the chair in zoophysiology in the department of biology and environmental sciences at the University of Gothenburg.

I am glad that I got my lips around all of that. We have approximately 90 minutes of questions, and I will kick off with a fairly straightforward one.

The Scottish Science Advisory Council’s report on the use of science and evidence in aquaculture concluded that science on aquaculture is “not sufficiently visible”. Do you consider public understanding of the salmon farming industry to be based on reliable information?

Yes.

There is a public perception of aquaculture, and views on it can be quite polarised, as are so many topics these days. Is the public understanding based on accurate and reliable information? The job of the committee in the piece of work that we are doing is to see whether there has been progress in the past five years. It is important that we base our decisions on accurate information. Professor MacKenzie, is the information that the public have reliable and sufficient for them to make up their minds on aquaculture?

We are looking at environmental impacts. If you do not have a question, I have one and then we can move on to the next one.

Who is keen to respond?

Okay—that is helpful.

One of the report’s recommendations was for

“coordination with the data ... and comprehensive overview of all fish health, welfare and treatment issues across the sector”.

Have we made improvements over the past five years to ensure that there is co-ordination of fish health data? Is it better than it was five years ago?

The response to that might be very similar to the response to my question, unfortunately. If nobody feels that they can offer a view on the interaction between wild and farmed salmon, we will leave it there.

Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2024 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. We have received apologies from Rhoda Grant. I ask everyone to ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to review in private the evidence that we take as part of our follow-up inquiry into salmon farming today and at future meetings. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

Would anybody else like to come in on that?

Would any other members of the panel like to comment? If not, Rachael Hamilton has a supplementary question.