Hansard

Finlay Carson is absolutely right about the transparency of the information that is provided. More information is provided for salmon farming than for any other sector. However, I recognise that there are difficulties in translating how some of that data can be used and in how it is communicated.

I make it clear that I would not hesitate to take action or introduce regulation, if there were a problem with getting that information in the first place. However, there are no issues there. It brings me back to the point that any regulation that we bring forward has to be proportionate, and that is why, as I said to the committee, I do not intend to introduce any regulations in that regard. My response to the committee carefully prioritises what I believe is achievable not only for Government but, importantly, for the range of partners that we work with. We need to be cognisant of the cumulative impact of our work programmes on all stakeholders.

Another factor that impacts on delivery and which affects Government in its entirety is the on-going challenge of ensuring that we manage effectively within our means. That means prioritising how and when we take work forward. I want to be open and transparent about the balance that Government is trying to strike to ensure that we are delivering on the most important issues, and it means that, while we work within resource constraints, we have to continue to make careful and difficult prioritisation decisions.

Another key point of the committee’s considerations that I want to address—and which the convener, Finlay Carson, has touched on—is the reference to and talk of moratoriums on either new sites or expansion at existing sites. Despite the finding from the previous committee’s work that there was “insufficient evidence to support” a moratorium on future development, and despite the fact that significant progress has been made since those inquiries, I am disappointed that the committee has signalled that it would like to revisit the issue in a year’s time. I welcome that the committee has outlined that it would not support a moratorium at this time—albeit that that position was not, I recognise, supported by all members—but there should be no question about whether we want salmon farming in Scotland. We do.

Any move towards some sort of moratorium would deprive Scotland of the benefits of salmon farming for our economy and our communities, without adequate justification that the potential environmental harms were not being managed appropriately. A moratorium could stifle the very investment in science and innovation that will ultimately support fish health and environmental and productivity goals.

We are committed to ensuring that Scotland is a good place to do business, with effective but proportionate regulation that protects our environment now and in the future. We take matters of fish health and welfare and the protection of our environment seriously, and I hope that my response to the committee is clear on those issues and provides an insight into what work is being prioritised and when, in the context of our work plan.

What I hope that I have also managed to convey in my response is openness and transparency about the Government’s intentions, and that we are being absolutely clear about what work we intend to deliver, when we will deliver it and why. Having set that out and having carefully considered our response to the committee’s findings, I hope that colleagues across the chamber can see that we have committed to a number of actions across all areas and that we take the committee’s time, deliberations and recommendations seriously.

We have already made significant progress on key areas, including reducing environmental impact, improving fish health and streamlining planning and consenting. Beyond that progress, I have, in my response to the committee, committed to a range of further actions. Although I do not have time to cover all of them this afternoon, I want to set out some of the priorities that we are taking forward.

We will explore with partners how the existing data collections that we have touched on today can be better presented and how accessibility can be enhanced, including through improvements to the Scotland’s Aquaculture website. We are working to analyse mortality data, exploring thresholds for persistent high mortality and whether fish farms with persistent high mortality actually exist. Based on the evidence that the committee received, we will be undertaking an analysis of options, including statutory and other alternatives, to understand how improved welfare standards can best be supported.

The detail of those commitments is broad and is set out in our written response to the committee, but I hope that what I have set out briefly today shows that we are listening, we are acting and we are continuing to make progress.

In drawing to a close, I thank committee members again for their in-depth consideration of the matters. I look forward to keeping the committee updated as we make further progress across the important areas to ensure that we continue to support the sector’s development, to operate within environmental limits and to deliver the range of social and economic benefits that we know that it brings.