Seòmar agus comataidhean

What period is that for?

I just want to know because I felt that there was no context.

It is on the record, so, in fairness to you, because it is out there, I am giving you the chance to answer. I am sure that the convener will be happy to forward the information to you.

That would be useful.

I am just seeking clarity. Our briefing says:

“Data published by Salmon Scotland shows that Dunstaffnage recorded a mortality rate of 56.5%. In its report of the same story, Scottish Sea Farms told The Guardian that this high mortality was a result of a micro-jellyfish event and the mortality rate in the current production cycle was 3%.”

My question is quite simple. What was the production cycle when the mortality rate was at 56.5 per cent, and what is the production cycle now that it is at 3 per cent?

When you are given notice of a visit—I understand that you are given notice of most inspection visits—how much notice are you given?

I am just trying to get clarity. You are going to write to us about the 18-month period. The mortality rate in that period was 56.5 per cent, and it was caused by an invasion of jellyfish or whatever. Is 3 per cent the current rate?

As the climate changes, you are changing production methods and perhaps the amount of stock that you have in pens.

This is not in any way an attack on you, or your presentations as witnesses, but I point out that someone has sent me something supplementary to my question about mortalities at Dunstaffnage. I mention it in fairness to you, because this is being circulated, and you should have the opportunity to answer it.

They say that they decided to check the figures for mortalities on the Government’s website. In brief, they say that the publication of figures is very slow and that nothing has been posted since June 2024. They also attach a spreadsheet. They say that the short cycle is “puzzling” and the operators should be asked to explain. They also say that it looks as though 706 tonnes of reasonably mature salmon have been brought in from elsewhere and survivors removed “after very high mortalities.”

I am not saying that that is the case; I am simply giving you the opportunity to answer.

I thought that, to be fair, I should put the issue to you, Mr Scott, because it will be recycled round everybody.