The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16852, in the name of Finlay Carson, on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, on salmon farming in Scotland. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons.
14:58
I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and to speak to the findings of our follow-up inquiry into salmon farming in Scotland.
I begin by thanking all committee members, the clerks and Scottish Parliament information centre staff for their diligent work throughout the inquiry, and in producing what I think is a thoughtful and balanced report on a subject that can often attract very polarised opinions.
We took evidence on our inquiry from June to October last year, hearing from a range of stakeholders who are involved in the industry, as well as from regulators and the Scottish Government. In September, we carried out a fact-finding visit to Oban, where we held a community engagement event, visited a marine research facility and went to see a local fish farm. On behalf of the committee, I thank the many stakeholders who provided evidence, written and in person, to us over the course of our inquiry.
Our main focus was to follow up on the recommendations in the 2018 inquiry report “Salmon Farming in Scotland” by our predecessors in the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. We aimed to understand whether, seven years on, the Scottish Government has been successful in efforts to place the industry on a more sustainable footing. We assessed progress across four main themes: fish health and welfare, environmental impacts, interactions between farmed and wild salmon, and the location of salmon farms.
Overall, our committee found that, although positive steps have been taken on some of the key findings of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee report, in most areas, the sector still has a way to go to realise the ambitions that that report set out. It is evident that recommended changes to regulation and enforcement of the industry have not been taken forward with the urgency that was called for in 2018, and we believe that that presents a barrier to securing the long-term viability of the industry. At the end of my contribution, I will set out some of the steps that our committee believes need to be taken, but for now I will touch on a selection of our report’s key findings.
The industry’s record on fish mortality rightly attracted a lot of scrutiny by the committee. We were disappointed that the industry had been unable to significantly reduce its overall mortality rate, which remained roughly the same as it was in 2018, at around 25 per cent. However, I was encouraged by recent figures from Salmon Scotland that suggested that there would be a drop in mortality rate to about 18 per cent this year. The committee will be watching eagerly to see whether that progress can be sustained.
We also heard that the operating conditions for fish farmers have become harder in recent years as a result of the emergence of new environmental challenges, such as micro jellyfish and other harmful impacts of rising sea temperatures from climate change.
The committee suggested three interventions that could help to support a further reduction in farm-fish mortality over the longer term. The first is to commission more research into the environmental causes of mortality to help the industry get ahead of future problems as they emerge. Secondly, we want to achieve greater transparency by enhancing how mortality data is collected and published by the Scottish Government, through the introduction of mandatory reporting requirements. Finally, where farms are consistently failing to control mortality at their sites, the committee believes that the regulations must secure improvements in performance. That is why we have called on the Scottish Government to provide new powers for regulators to limit or halt production at sites that record persistently high mortality rates, and for those criteria to be set out in collaboration with the industry.
It is regrettable that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands did not support the committee’s proposal for mandatory reporting, on the basis that it would be an additional burden on the sector.
Does the member recognise, acknowledge and welcome the fact that, since 2018—seven years ago—the sector as a whole has invested a staggering £1,000 million in addressing many of the issues that he raised? It has increased survival rates to a four-year high, and sea lice rates are at an historic low.
Absolutely. We recognise that the industry has gone some way in innovating and looking at how it can tackle some of the challenges. Of most concern to the committee was whether the rate at which climate change challenges are being addressed is effective.
During our visit, we learned that fish farms already collect a lot of data for onsite audits and management purposes. The cabinet secretary’s position on mandatory reporting is even more concerning, given what I have said about the need to improve regulatory oversight of farms when it comes to mortality. We do not believe that reporting would be an additional burden, given that much of that data is already being collected.
However, the cabinet secretary has not completely rejected our proposals for new enforcement powers but has said that further analytical work is required before she can come to a view on that. I hope that, in her contribution to the debate, she will elaborate on precisely what that work will entail and when it will be completed.
The committee was also concerned to hear that specific welfare standards for farmed fish are set voluntarily rather than required by regulation. The committee feels that it is time, and that it would be good for the industry, which often goes above and beyond statutory requirements in other areas, for the statutory regime to keep pace with knowledge about what constitutes good fish welfare.
That was communicated to the committee in great detail in the evidence that was provided to us by the likes of Professor Lynne Sneddon and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. For that reason, the committee recommends that the Scottish Government introduces new regulations to set specific baseline standards for farmed fish. Those standards exist for most other farmed animals, so why not for farmed fish? The cabinet secretary said that that recommendation would require further analysis and that she would update us on what she intends to do in September. Again, I hope that, in her remarks today, she will say more about exactly what that analysis will look like.
The committee was also pleased to see that the industry is making improvements with regard to reducing sea lice. That progress has, in part, been made by tightening the enforcement thresholds and by the introduction of mandatory reporting of sea lice counts. That is to be welcomed, but it makes me question even more why the cabinet secretary seems so reluctant to take a similar approach to tackling fish mortality.
The committee also took evidence from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the changes that have been made since 2018 to the regulatory framework for controlling the amount of waste that is discharged from fish farms. We are supportive of the revised regulatory framework and of the additional monitoring of the sea bed that it requires, but significant gaps in knowledge and understanding about the environmental footprint of salmon farming, which were identified back in 2018, remain, largely due to the lack of scientific evidence.
To address those gaps, the committee feels that there is a case for the Scottish Government to establish research pens to develop scientific evidence about the environmental impacts of salmon farming and how those can be reduced. The cabinet secretary seems to agree with that in principle and said that the Scottish Government would take forward further discussions on that.
The interactions between farmed and wild salmon are another area on which the committee felt that minimal progress has been made since 2018. Shortly after the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee inquiry, the Scottish Government commissioned a working group to review its policies on the issue. However, the former chair of the group told the committee that the Scottish Government had implemented only one of the group’s 42 recommendations. The committee is disappointed by that and has said that a clear timetable for delivering those recommendations is urgently needed. In response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government has now provided more information on the status of each recommendation, but that seems to be more of an update on progress, with minimal detail on the timescales for the recommendations to be delivered.
The committee noted that the industry felt the most frustration about the difficulty of navigating the consenting and planning process for the siting of new salmon farms. In 2018, the REC Committee called for immediate dialogue between the Scottish Government and the industry to develop a mechanism to allow farms to relocate to sites that are more likely to promote good fish welfare and allow for the mitigation of environmental impacts. It is disappointing that there is no evidence that those discussions have taken place, and the committee recommends that that is now progressed as a matter of urgency, alongside a detailed analysis and assessment of the potential risks that that could have for fish health and welfare and of the economic and social impacts on fish farm staff and communities.
Time is short and I have managed to cover only a fraction of the report, but I will conclude by saying this: in light of the lack of progress in certain areas over the past seven years, the committee seriously considered recommending a moratorium or pause on new salmon farms or on the expansion of existing farms. However, the committee agreed to give the Scottish Government one year to implement our recommendations and for that work stream to have dedicated ministerial oversight to ensure delivery.
Finlay Carson makes an important point about the fact that the committee wants to see progress within one year, but can he tell us exactly what the committee believes are the measurable actions that need to be delivered in those 12 months and what process the committee will undertake to measure and assess whether the concerns have been adequately addressed at the end of that period?
Please answer and conclude, convener.
We take those points on board. It is very important that, before the 12 months are up, the committee has the opportunity to see whether there has been satisfactory progress. We now have a timetable, but we have to ensure that the Government actually sticks to that.
The committee had hoped that our report would be a wake-up call for the Scottish Government and that it would see that its current approach is not working. However, having read the cabinet secretary’s response, I cannot help but feel a bit dismayed about how few of the committee’s recommendations the Scottish Government has committed to act on.
I also struggle to see the Scottish Government acknowledge the seriousness of the challenges that the industry faces. That is important, because it is vital that the sector can overcome those challenges so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits that salmon farming brings to the Scottish economy and to support the jobs and economic development that it provides in rural communities. I am sure that we can all agree on that.
In the spirit of the report, I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen carefully to the feedback from members across the chamber this afternoon about how we can build a more sustainable and prosperous salmon farming sector in Scotland. I look forward to hearing the contributions of all members but, for now, I commend our report to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s 1st Report, 2025 (Session 6), Follow-up inquiry into salmon farming in Scotland (SP Paper 720).
Thank you. Before I call the cabinet secretary, members might wish to be aware that we do have a little time in hand this afternoon.
15:10
First, I am grateful to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its thorough exploration of the issues that salmon farming faces and for members’ consideration of the progress that has been made since the “Salmon farming in Scotland” report of December 2018. I do want to address a comment that the convener, Finlay Carson, has just made by saying that the Scottish Government does take the report’s recommendations very seriously and has given consideration to them.
Secondly, I am grateful for the opportunity that the debate brings to discuss those matters more broadly across Parliament, to outline the key work that we as a Government have delivered since that initial report and to discuss our response to the committee’s recommendations in more detail.
In 2023, I published the “Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture”, which sets out our ambitions for the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector. The sector provides invaluable benefits for our nation, particularly the coastal and island communities where it operates. Our vision sets out how we see that sector developing, operating within environmental limits and supporting our local communities and economies.
Last year, Scottish salmon was once again the United Kingdom’s top food export, achieving a record high of £844 million-worth of exports. The sector contributes significantly to our economy, with around 2,300 people directly employed and many more employed throughout its supply chain, covering a variety of different disciplines such as fish health, engineering, feed, vessels and equipment manufacture.
Salmon production largely takes place in our Highlands, rural areas and islands, where it provides high-value, high-skill, long-term employment opportunities that contribute to the on-going vibrancy and vitality of those communities. The committee heard evidence on the wide range of community benefits that the sector brings, including the direct and indirect jobs that it generates and sustains, the provision of housing, financial and in-kind support to local projects and community interests, and the underpinning of populations.
As we work to tackle the climate crisis and grow Scotland’s economy, we are looking to enable the sector’s sustainable development. I know that the committee will share my view, set out in our vision, that economic benefit must not come at the expense of our environment. Our strong regulatory framework already provides the important safeguards that are necessary to preserve our environment now and into the future.
We know, however, and would agree, that there is always more to do. Our policies and regulations should always be informed by the best available science and evidence. I hope that members across the chamber agree that it is important that our interventions are evidence based and that they balance proportionate regulatory improvements to protect our natural environment against the impact that regulation could have on the sector’s economic potential.
I am sure that all members are aware that salmon farming is a sector that attracts many and varied stakeholder opinions.
It has been more than a year since the Long Loch Salmon semi-closed containment project was called in for a decision by the Scottish Government. We are talking about economic development, but the length of time spent waiting on a decision reflects badly on the planning system and could discourage investment in Scotland; indeed, the company still has no indication as to when a decision could be made. Can the cabinet secretary help in that regard?
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to provide Beatrice Wishart with an update on that. As I hope that she can appreciate, I am not the minister responsible for dealing with that. However, I know that the report and its recommendations are being given full and proper consideration, and I am sure that a decision will be made as soon as possible.
It is absolutely right that all sectors, including salmon farming, are scrutinised and held to account. However, in the case of salmon farming, in which polarised opinions are, as we know, commonplace, it is more important than ever that we take the time to collaborate to shape and deliver policies that ultimately bring people and communities together, rather than divide them.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I am happy to take an intervention.
I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Griggs report’s main recommendation of having a lead individual responsible for driving forward progress, as is the case in Norway, and ensuring that consents, for example, are dealt with swiftly, as they are in Norway, would help achieve the objectives that she has set out?
First, I appreciate the work that Professor Griggs undertook and his recommendations. We are taking forward work through the consenting task group to look specifically at his recommendation on consents and to address the challenges in that respect, because we know that that process can be more straightforward. I am looking forward to the update on the consenting task group’s work, which is due shortly.
Returning to my comments on polarisation and the different views on salmon farming, we must, in the work that we are taking forward, collaborate and consult, and that takes time. I absolutely recognise the committee’s call for the Government to act urgently in this area, but there is a need to build consensus on the way forward and, as far as possible, build relationships. Focusing too much on pace will not necessarily lead to good outcomes.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary giving way to me, because I know that she is not really getting into her flow with all of these interventions.
However, we have heard from the salmon industry that Scottish salmon farmers provide the highest animal welfare standards across the world. The industry already collects a lot of mortality data, so there should be no extra burden in that respect. One of the reasons for the polarisation that she referred to is a lack of confidence in the figures being provided, but surely if we were to put that on a statutory basis, it would give a far better understanding of how the industry is performing.
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.
15:21
I am delighted to be able to open this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Before I go any further, I remind Parliament of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery. I have had that interest for 45 years, during which time I have been involved in watching salmon farming around the coasts of Scotland.
I, too, would like to thank committee members for all the work that they have done. I know how difficult it has been, as I have been there before, when the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee considered the issue in 2018.
As a Conservative, I support businesses. I support businesses that bring a great deal to Scotland’s economy in terms of employment and opportunities, and in terms of our balance of payments. However, we must be clear that those businesses cannot do that at any price.
It would be wrong to scoot past without reminding members of the fable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Members will recall that, in that story, events resulted in the Emperor going out undressed because people were incompetent and gullible and pretended not to know what was going on. I am none of those things and, when it comes to salmon farming, I will not be any of those things.
In 2018, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee told this Parliament that there were things wrong with salmon farming. It made 65 recommendations, and I am disappointed that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, having looked at some of those recommendations again, is having to acknowledge that a lot of them have not been complied with.
I remember sitting on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and hearing calls for a moratorium on salmon farming. In the end, two members dissented from the part of the report in which we did not call for a moratorium. I was one of those who did not want a moratorium, but my position might have changed.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will give way to my colleague Jamie Greene, who I think was on that committee.
I was keen to listen to today’s debate, and I indeed sat alongside the member during the deliberations on that report all those years ago. I am still surprised to hear that many of the report’s recommendations have not been implemented or fully addressed. I find that deeply disappointing. I hope that the Government will respond to that in the closing speech.
I share the member’s disappointment.
If I had known where we would be today, I would have joined those committee members who called for a moratorium in 2018, because that would have made the industry pay attention. I will explain why we need it to do so.
The figures for 2023 show that 33,000 tonnes of salmon died that year, and that the use of antibiotics was still going up at that stage—in fact, according to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, there has been a 24 per cent increase since 2017. The industry will say that the level went down the following year, but the issue is that, overall, the use of antibiotics is still rising.
Let us look at the figures from 2024. Mowi lost 600,000 fish in the first nine months of the year, and it was closely followed by Bakkafrost, which lost 543,000. A huge amount of fish is being lost, and I do not believe that there should be any excuse for it. I am a farmer so I know what it is like: I know that, where there is breeding and where farming goes on, there is also a certain amount of dying.
Let us be clear, however: the fish that are put to sea—and 25 per cent of them are dying when they are put to sea—are probably the most mollycoddled animals that you could have. They are given treatment before they go out to sea, to stop them getting sea lice, and they are looked after carefully in the pens.
I appreciate what members have said so far today about the fish mortalities and I do not think that anybody is willing to accept the current level of mortalities. However, does the member accept that some of the reasons that can lead to such mass mortality events, such as algal blooms, micro jellyfish or the other issues that have emerged, can be outwith the salmon farmers’ control?
Of course I accept that fact—as a farmer, I am well aware of it. Let me give an example: on the farm, sometimes we get blackleg. If that happens, it will kill the animals, so we stop producing the animals in that area, move them to a different area, reduce our stocking and look for ways to prevent the disease. The problem is that the salmon industry has not been doing those things; it just keeps going.
Will the member take another intervention?
I will take one more if I have time.
In the evidence that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee heard, there was one example of a specific mortality event that happened because of micro jellyfish, which were not seen again for another 20 years. Does the member accept that what he is suggesting would not work in that type of situation?
I accept that there need to be adaptable controls in particular areas. The Kishorn A, B and C sites continually have a high mortality rate, which calls into question whether the approach is appropriate.
The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee demanded that mortality should be reduced—it was clear about that in its recommendations. When I attended that committee—I attended nearly every single session—we heard from the industry that it was predicting a reduction in mortality in fish farms of only 2 per cent each year.
The figure that has been quoted today was based on the mortality rate in 2018. Let us go back to 2017, when the mortality rate was 17 per cent. If we are to get back to that rate of 17 per cent but the industry is only going to reduce mortality by 2 per cent a year, that means that we will have to wait 19 years to get back to a mortality rate that was judged by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee to be unacceptable.
The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s recommendations are commendable. I like the idea of a road map—I am disappointed that we never had one before for the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s 65 recommendations. I am pleased that the data on fish mortality is to be much more open and consistent, and that there is more concern about waste discharge. Across all these committees and all these reports, what we are trying to achieve is for the industry to be a good neighbour—not just for wild salmon but for the other industries that work around their pens.
For the industry to succeed—and I really want it to succeed—it will have to be much more open and transparent than it is at the moment. It will have to show considerable improvements.
I caution the industry against sending letters such as the one that it sent to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee after the committee published its report. I believe that such letters are threatening. I do not like being threatened by the industry and I do not think that any parliamentary committee should be threatened. We need to make sure that we build on the report through consensus.
Denial and defence by threatening are not going to save the industry. I believe that the industry is in the last-chance saloon. It has had two strikes from two separate committees in the Parliament. I hope that the industry will succeed, but it will have to do a lot more than it is doing at the moment if it is to remain as it is.
15:29
The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s report was difficult to compile, because it represents an appraisal of changes that were put in place following the report by its predecessor, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. It was difficult to measure change, because the challenges that the industry faces today are different from those that it faced when the previous report was written. However, we found that there had been no significant change with regard to transparency, regulation and governance. Even though salmon farming faces even greater challenges today, it appears that little progress has been made since the REC Committee’s report.
It is for the Government to improve regulation and reporting, but, time and again, we discovered information that had not been published in a timely fashion. Although that information is gathered, it is not transparently or accessibly available. That feeds negativity towards the industry. I welcome the fact that, in her response to the committee’s report, the cabinet secretary admitted that and agreed to look at how such information could be made more freely available.
There are members of the committee and of the wider public who would like there to be a moratorium on all fish farm development. If they were honest, they would admit that they want to close down the industry altogether, but they forget that fish farming provides benefits. We need food, especially oily fish, which salmon farming provides. In rural parts of Scotland, where such farms are based, there is also a need for the jobs that the industry provides.
Recently, I read in the West Highland Free Press that a company in Skye, Organic Sea Harvest, has stopped farming at two of its farms in Skye, which will lead to the loss of 16 jobs in a part of Skye where local population retention is really challenging. That is the number of people who are directly employed by the company, but I fear that more jobs will be lost downstream in local support industries. In an already overheated tourism and second-home market, in which local people struggle to get a foothold in the housing market, such jobs are essential in allowing them to do so.
From press reports, I understand that the reason why the company has stopped farming at those farms is to do with our slow and clunky planning process, with blame lying at the door of Highland Council and the Scottish Government. We are talking about a small local company that the Government should be supporting, which has fallen foul of a complex and expensive bureaucracy. It is little wonder, therefore, that most of the aquaculture industry is now owned by large multinationals, which have deep pockets and patient capital to see them through the planning process. The situation must change, because those jobs are crucial to our local economy.
Good governance not only is transparent but cuts bureaucracy and makes trading easier, without cutting standards. Good governance also protects our international reputation and the reputation of the fish farming industry. Therefore, the Government is failing the industry and those who work in it by not acting on the concerns.
I was brought up in a rural area, where the arrival of a fish farm provided permanent well-paid jobs that allowed young people to buy a home and stay in the community in which they had been brought up. We need more of that. We cannot simply hand over such communities as playgrounds for the rich, but the lack of good governance structures means that it is close to impossible for small companies to succeed. The planning system sets communities against one another and creates time lags that only those with the deepest pockets can survive.
The industry is also impacted by climate change, but the Scottish Government’s marine laboratories have been all but hollowed out. We need research and development to take place to ensure that the industry is world leading, rather than being left to wither. We saw what a catastrophic effect the micro jellyfish had. What research was carried out to identify that up-and-coming challenge before it arose?
Does the member recognise that, in addition to the significant investment that the industry makes in research and innovation, we provided funding to the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre to do the very work that she is suggesting needs to be done to tackle those challenges? There needs to be broader recognition of that.
I recognise that, but those catastrophes happen and have really damaging impacts on the industry and on the international reputation of one of our largest exports, so we must do more and foresee the challenges that global warming is bringing.
It was sad to see that the public and media response to the catastrophe caused by the micro jellyfish was to pillory the industry. When there have been on-land farming disasters such as foot-and-mouth disease and, more recently, bird flu and Schmallenberg virus, there has rightly been empathy and care for those who have worked hard to raise flocks and herds and have faced devastating losses. However, there is no such empathy or sympathy for those who work on fish farms—it is almost as though people believe that they deliberately set out to bring that catastrophe on themselves.
When the Scottish Government responded to the committee’s concerns about climate change impacts, it highlighted work on issues that have already played out to a certain extent, but we need to look at future proofing, consider what changes are likely to occur and prepare for them. Otherwise, there will be more catastrophic impacts on the industry in the future.
The report looked at wrasse, which were brought in as a response to the previous committee report that focused on sea lice. Wrasse are a natural way of dealing with sea lice, because they are a type of cleaner fish that eat the lice. The value of those wrasse actually exceeds that of farmed salmon, so we must protect them, because they are doing a job in protecting salmon but are, all too often, simply discarded at harvest time. The committee recommended that a fisheries management plan or other protective action should be developed to stop the overfishing of wrasse and to look after their welfare at harvest time.
We also looked at spatial management of the sea, which is a subject that comes up far too often in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. The many competing pressures on our seas are not being managed. Those pressures relate to aquaculture, fishing, leisure and energy transmission and generation, so we need a zonal approach to planning on our seas to ensure that there is room for everybody and that people can continue with their businesses. Another issue that came up in the report was that fish farms should be able to move out of the way of things such as micro jellyfish, but the fact that planning is so cumbersome makes that nigh-on impossible.
The report is clear that the Scottish Government is letting the industry down. If we are to continue to reap the rewards of a world-renowned product, we must get governance and transparency right. The committee has set a deadline for that and has left the door open to return to the topic next year. I hope that the Government will now act to ensure that we do not have to do that.
15:38
Scotland’s seas are being sacrificed for profit. Beneath the surface of our lochs and waters, the salmon farming industry leaves a trail of pollution, suffering and harm to our coastal communities. That is not the Scotland that we want to hand over to future generations.
When the committee published our report, we laid out a clear and urgent call for action to protect our seas and marine life and the people who depend on them, but the Government’s response has been little more than empty words and half measures. My views are made clear in our committee’s recommendations:?we must pause expansion and new farms until the industry cleans up its act. That is not about shutting the industry down; a pause would give us the time to strengthen regulations, protect our environment and safeguard Scotland’s international reputation.
Can Ariane Burgess tell me what impact assessment her Green colleagues have made regarding the knock-on effect of having a pause in the industry, or has that just been asked for on a whim?
I will go on to outline that. My greatest concern is for our communities, which are dependent on that industry and will be left with nothing when it collapses in the face of climate change.
The Government claims that it has made considerable progress since 2018, but how can we possibly share that optimism when the evidence tells us a different story? With rising sea temperatures driven by climate change, the days of salmon farming in Scotland as we know it are numbered. The latest Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership report says that warmer waters mean that mortality is going to increase in our farms. Either we force the industry to change or it will be finished.
With colleagues, I have called for stronger regulation, transparency and accountability. The committee heard clear evidence of farmed salmon dying in shocking numbers. Mortality rates have soared from 7 per cent a decade ago to 25 per cent today. That means that one in four farmed salmon die before they reach harvest. When we add the freshwater stage into the reporting, one in three salmon suffer and die before they reach people’s plates, yet the Government still refuses to implement comprehensive mortality reporting, ignoring cleaner fish and the freshwater stage entirely. Without full transparency, how can we possibly hold the industry to account?
The Government insists that missing data and no counts will not be tolerated in the future. However, just this week, reports revealed that one farm completed the required sea lice count while another that is less than 3km away claimed that it could not do so due to the weather. The system is failing, and the Government’s assurances about future enforcement simply carry no weight.
With colleagues, I have called for greater welfare protections for our fish, which can feel pain just as other animals and our pets do. Our neighbouring nations have moved towards higher welfare standards while Scotland clings to voluntary schemes that leave millions of fish unprotected.
I have called for greater protections for cleaner fish—the wrasse and lumpfish that are used to control lice. Those species are taken from the wild and placed into cages by the millions, only to die in appalling conditions. That is wholly unethical. We do not even have public data on how many wrasse are being caught and where.
With colleagues, I have called for effective monitoring of marine discharges—the chemicals, waste and pollution that flow into our seas. Years are going unchecked, yet the numbers are not small, given that the waste from one farm can be equivalent to that of a town of 49,000 people. How have we allowed an industry to grow so huge without even knowing its full impact?
With colleagues, I have called for accountability on farm escapes. Recently, Iceland fined a company more than £650,000 when 80,000 farmed salmon escaped, yet the same incident in Scotland had no consequences. It took two years even to come to light, because there is still no legal requirement for transporters to report farmed fish escapes. Scotland has fallen behind countries such as Iceland, Norway and Canada, where stricter regulations and tougher enforcement hold salmon farms to account.
The salmon farming industry boasts of economic benefits, yet in 35 years it has directly created just 253 full-time jobs in the Highlands and Islands. Let us be clear that this is not a jobs boom; it is a false promise. Meanwhile, the industry’s pollution threatens the real livelihoods of our coastal communities—the fishers, the marine tour guides and the small businesses that rely on healthy seas.
While Scotland claims to be a world leader in aquaculture, other nations are already far ahead in regulating salmon farming to protect their environment and wildlife. When did we decide that corporate profits were worth more than our environment—our wild rivers and sea bed—and our future?
Let me be clear that there is still time to turn this round. However, to do that, we must be bold enough to change course, and that starts with one decisive action—pausing the expansion of salmon farms until we fix the serious problems in the industry. Other countries have raised their standards, and Scotland must do the same.
We have a choice—to let destruction continue unchecked or to stand up and protect what is precious. I believe that we can choose a different and better future, but that choice must start now.
We move to the open debate.
15:44
In my view, salmon farming is one of the greatest success stories in modern Scotland, yet I believe that it is the most undervalued. Furthermore, I am not aware of any other industry that is the subject of more politically motivated, unjust and ill-informed attacks than our aquaculture sector. I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary defending the industry against some of the arguments that are so frequently made.
My patch, Inverness, has the headquarters of Gael Force Marine, which was founded 40 years ago by the then young Stewart Graham and which is now operating internationally with great success and to high standards. The industry has invested massively and arguably more than any other industry in Scotland—£1,000 million. Salmon Scotland’s briefing says that it provided evidence to the committee that the investment has resulted in a significant improvement in fish survival, as well as record low levels of sea lice. Recently published Government statistics reiterate that, but Salmon Scotland says that, sadly, the committee’s report
“did not cite this evidence that was provided by the sector and Scottish Government regulators.”
I have discussed some of the issues and achievements with industry leaders whom I know quite well from my time as cabinet secretary. I think that they need to blow their trumpet a little more loudly and frequently, because the industry has taken action to cut mortalities and successfully tackle sea lice, and, as the cabinet secretary rightly indicated, there have been matters entirely out of the industry’s control that have led to great problems. The industry has not ignored those; it has tackled them.
Does the member acknowledge that the committee’s report absolutely appreciated the reduction in mortality due to sea lice and the efforts that the industry had made on that? It lies at the door of the Scottish Government to drive collaboration between all bodies to ensure that they can be more fleet of foot in addressing future issues.
I will come to that. In principle, we all want to work well together. I hope that that is a high-level answer.
The industry has done enormous things, including investing in modern hatcheries. I was privileged to open Mowi’s hatchery in Invergarry. Modern hatcheries will advance fish health, because young salmon spend more time there and less time at sea, which is a good thing. Those fish will be out more in open sea waters, where there are fewer fish. Those are all good things—should we not recognise that? We do in every other industry, so why is the salmon industry singled out for such rampant abuse?
In a debate in the chamber on Tuesday, Ariane Burgess said that, in the Highlands and Islands,
“only 253 full-time roles have been created over the past 35 years ”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; c 30.]
That is utter nonsense. I received a briefing yesterday indicating that, in the north-west Highlands, there are 1,000 direct jobs, and there are 470 in Shetland and 180 in Orkney. Bakkafrost has 60 sites and employs more than 500 people, and I believe that more than 1,600 people are employed by Mowi. Overall, the industry employs 12,500 people, and, for every person who is directly employed by a salmon farm, there are eight others employed in the supply chain. I hope that the Green Party will recognise that it is—I will be careful about the words that I use, Presiding Officer, as I do not want to transgress any rules, even by accident—peddling matters that are simply untrue. It is talking Scotland down and damaging our most remote communities.
I agree with every word of Beatrice Wishart’s brilliant speech in the debate on Tuesday. During my time as cabinet secretary, my visits to Shetland reinforced the huge importance of fish farming and of carrying on the seafaring and fishing traditions of the great people of the isles of Shetland. I think that it is time for a bit of truth about the value of the salmon industry.
Critics also argue that the industry attracts foreign investment, as if that is wrong. Well, hang on a second. I am talking not about Mr Mountain, but about non-governmental organisations and the Green Party. Was it not Mr Trump who said that foreign investment is bad? Why are the NGOs and the Greens adopting the language of the current President of the United States? That is absurd. Scotland is an open economy. We rely on investment in all our sectors, and we routinely praise our performance—second only to London—on inward investment. Why not in salmon farming?
This is the critical point. I have been to these islands, I have visited these communities, I have been in the cabinet secretary’s job and I know that, without this industry being encouraged to achieve its great potential, as it should do with the implementation of the Griggs report, to which I alluded, and with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—and perhaps the marine directorate, too, in some cases—acting as a blockage, we cannot achieve what we need to achieve. And if we do not do that, the depopulation problem in the Highlands and Islands, which is already acute, will become fatal.
If the Greens had their way, there would be no communities left in large swathes of the Highlands and Islands. They should go back to the wine bars, prepare for the revolution over the Chablis and let the salmon farming industry continue to contribute greatly to the commonweal and the wealth of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
15:51
I am grateful to all the contributors and to be part of this important debate on salmon farming in Scotland. In fairness, much of the work went into the report before I joined the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee late last year, so I thank all those who have served on the committee for their work and the many who gave evidence.
In reply to Fergus Ewing, I want to be clear from the outset that the Scottish Conservatives understand the economic importance of Scotland’s salmon farming sector. We want to support the sector where possible. Mr Ewing is absolutely right. More than 2,500 people are directly employed by the sector, which had an historic high last year of £844 million in exports. There is no doubt that the sector is a success story for Scotland, but—it is not much of a but, but it is a wee bit of a but—the Scottish Conservatives also want the highest standards of fish welfare. That is important not just for ethical reasons; it is also vital to maintain the high standard of the salmon products that we produce and, as a result, protect the globally recognised provenance of Scottish salmon.
What I do not want to happen is the negative stories that would ultimately come out if mortality or diseases continue to increase, which would put down an industry that is so vital to Scotland. Fergus Ewing is absolutely right about putting down the industry. We must protect it, but we must also ensure that it is there for the next 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years.
Does Tim Eagle recognise that, in many parts of the industry in Scotland, we are already seeing performance that is above the regulatory baseline and reaching world standards when it comes to welfare and reduction in chemicals? The Government, by increasing the bar, might increase confidence in the industry and show it to be one of the world leaders.
I completely agree, and I am coming on to that. I am not for massive regulation; I am for small state. However, there is a role for the Government in ensuring that the industry is sustainable for the future.
It is too large a report to touch on everything, and I do not have time to do so, but I want to touch quickly on a few key parts. Mortality is a very serious issue. Mandatory mortality reporting to the fish health inspectorate is a positive, so that we can all ensure that significant events do not occur and that, when they do, everything is done to work out why. The Government has said that it will look at issues around persistent high mortality and consider regulatory powers to limit or halt production at sites with high mortality rates. That is welcome, and I look forward to seeing that progress.
A number of serious concerns have been raised around welfare. I welcome a new assessment of options, which will be completed prior to the September update to committee. As my colleague Edward Mountain mentioned, it is vital in any farm system that robust health and welfare standards are in place, which includes good monitoring and ensure long-term sustainability and ethical management practices.
The use of wrasse was an important discussion for the committee. Wrasse plays an important role in natural habitats, helping to maintain the balance of marine ecosystems. For that reason, they are widely used in aquaculture as an alternative method of controlling sea lice to chemicals. The committee heard evidence that almost a third of cleaner fish die within a few weeks of being deployed in marine pens. More worrying than that for the committee is the great concern about the impact that the catching of wild wrasse is having on other fish stocks and the health of our marine ecosystems.
The Scottish Government recognised that, in the light of evidence in the University of Glasgow’s report on wrasse, an assessment of the fishery should take place before the opening of the season in May 2025. I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary is due to speak again in the debate, but, if so, it would be great to hear more about that assessment in her closing remarks. If she will not speak again today, perhaps she could write to the committee on that point.
It is disappointing to see that the Government does not support the collection of data that would include wrasse mortality. I recognise that the industry is producing a lot of data, but it would have been good to know about levels of wrasse mortality. Such data would have given us useful insight into how efficiently or otherwise the sector currently uses wrasse.
It is absolutely vital that we remember the massive importance of wild salmon to our natural environment. In 2023, we saw the lowest wild salmon catch since records began, with a 25 per cent reduction compared with the figure for 2022. I come from an area with rivers that once teemed with fish. It is devastating to see our rivers now nearly empty. I do not blame the farmed salmon industry, but, like all of us, it has a role to play. It must ensure that wild salmon genes are not mixed with those of farmed salmon through escapes and that, where they might cross paths, habitats are healthy. The committee stopped short of calling for a pause or moratorium on new site expansion, but, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, it is no secret that various groups and individuals have called for that.
The most important point that I want to press is that, for the protection of our wild fish stocks, our communities and the farmed salmon industry, it is absolutely vital that the committee’s recommendations, along with the measures in the cabinet secretary’s response, are implemented. It might be that we need to put more regulation in place, or that sites need to move further offshore. Some areas might no longer be suitable. However, it is only through discussion and action that we will have the sustainable and thriving salmon farming sector that Fergus Ewing described, for all who are involved.
15:56
Salmon has become synonymous with Scotland, at home and the world over, whether it be through idyllic scenes of fly fishing for wild salmon on our rivers or from enticing restaurant menus that feature farmed salmon as part of our world-famous food and drink offer. During the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s follow-up inquiry, it was important that we kept sight of the significant value of our salmon to our economy and our communities. However, it was also imperative that we took a hard look at where improvements needed to be made, to protect not only the welfare of our fish and our planet but the reputation and longevity of our industry.
I will focus on three areas that are important to me: wrasse and lumpfish cleaner fish, the need for species-specific legal welfare standards for farmed fish and for wild-caught fish that the industry uses as tools in such settings, and the interaction of farmed and wild salmon.
The committee’s report makes several recommendations on wild wrasse fishery, which is closely associated with the salmon aquaculture sector. I fully support the recommendations on data, transparency and a fisheries management plan. Our wrasse fishery is lightly regulated, but those regulations require a closed season between 1 December and 30 April each year. The marine directorate has said that the closed season should align with the spawning season, which is best practice for sensitive fisheries such as wrasse. However, in response to a freedom of information request, the directorate has also pointed to a detailed paper on the subject, which was produced in 2017 by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, or CFAS, which sits within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Entitled “Northern European Wrasse—Summary of commercial use, fisheries and implications for management”, it shows that the Scottish wrasse fishery is almost precisely open when it should be closed and closed when it should be open.
Salmon aquaculture uses five wrasse species, three of which—corkwing, rock cook and cuckoo wrasse, which are easy for me to say—spawn exclusively during the open season. The Scottish fishery also opens for four of the five months when the two other species—goldsinny and ballan wrasse—spawn. However, that is not the case in English waters. For example, in response to that report, the Devon & Severn Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority closed its wrasse fishery between April and mid-July to ensure maximum protection.
There are real risks here. Not only are wrasse economically important to the salmon industry, but, as we have heard, they protect crucial habitats for spawning species, both commercial and non-commercial. There will be economic and ecological consequences if wrasse stocks should crash, so I therefore hope that the minister can confirm that future management of the fishery will respect the closed season indicated by the 2017 CFAS paper.
I encourage the Scottish Government to fully consider the committee report’s recommendations to bring forward additional regulation and official guidance under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 in order to set specific baseline standards for the welfare of farmed fish. Although I appreciate that there is an industry code of practice and an RSPCA Assured scheme that producers can sign up to, farmers raising terrestrial animals must comply with species-specific requirements under law, and additional detailed guidance is published for most species that describes how farmers can not only meet their legal responsibilities but go beyond that minimum to achieve higher welfare.
Farmed fish are offered no such legal protection beyond not having to suffer unnecessarily. I know that there has been significant investment by the industry to grapple with persistent welfare issues of farmed salmon and cleaner fish, but I believe that it is imperative and morally just that those animals are protected in the same way that we protect those that reside on the land.
As someone who resides right beside a river that was once full of wild salmon—Tim Eagle said the same thing—I urge the Government to publish an updated timetable for the implementation of the agreed recommendations from the salmon interactions working group. When asked about the interactions between farmed and wild salmon and the delays in implementing the working group’s recommendation, the cabinet secretary told the committee that she recognises the
“criticism that the progress is not fast enough”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 13 November 2024; c 44.]
Stakeholders such as Open Seas have also stated that the open-net pens used in the marine stage of salmon farming can lead to impacts on the marine environment, with sensitive habitats and species being of particular concern. Open-net pens allow the free exchange of water but also allow discharges from the pens, including waste, chemical treatment and sea lice, and can lead to escaped salmon interacting with our wild and endangered salmon species. We should remember that wild salmon is a red endangered species. We do not want to lose that iconic species, which draws many tourists from around the world.
Closed-pen technology could directly address those concerns by minimising environmental impact and protecting Scotland’s wider marine ecosystems, fisheries and tourism industry. I ask the Government, as other colleagues have asked, to urgently work with the industry to innovate in that area. Companies are ready to start deploying such technology. Given our rapidly warming waters, which we have heard about, it is crucial. Industry can do as much as it can with the technology that it has today, but that does not address the fact that our waters are getting warmer, and industry will have to contend with that. Closed-pen technology could help in that respect.
16:02
I genuinely enjoyed taking part in the inquiry; it felt like proper scrutiny work. There were really tricky bits of contradictory evidence, and we were asking questions that we did not know the answers to. I changed my mind a few times throughout the process, going back and forth with colleagues from different parties. I say a huge thank you to my committee colleagues, the clerks, SPICe and everyone who came forward with evidence for us.
I move on to the less positive bit. I am a huge fan of Scottish salmon—it is delicious, and I love it with scrambled eggs, but I have questioned a lot during the inquiry how much damage my enjoyment of salmon has done. I do not want that to be the case. I want Scotland to be proud of the industry and the product; I want to have confidence in the product and to be able to tell others that it is an ethical purchase.
When we look at the issues, the mortality rates of farmed salmon are of great concern to me. It is particularly frustrating that many different types of death do not have to be reported. The Coastal Communities Network highlighted in evidence that the current fish health inspectorate data
“exclude all deaths below quite high weekly thresholds of 1.5% or 1% of salmon in each farm (depending on their weight) as well as any smolts that die in their first six weeks at sea”,
as so many die when they are first put in salt water. It also said:
“These figures exclude mortality in the earlier freshwater stage, during which more than 30% of fish often die, before the survivors are put to sea.”
Thanks to that, I could not say with confidence that at any stage in the inquiry I had a full understanding of the true scale of deaths in the salmon farming industry.
It is all very well to point to the quantity of available data, but I am far more concerned about the quality of the data, because I was frustrated by it. Many people who gave evidence were also frustrated by it, and it is a complaint of many constituents who have reached out because they have been unable to pin down the true impact of nearby farms.
We discussed in detail the fact that many drivers of salmon mortality are not within farmers’ control. They cannot reasonably predict or prevent climate change, extreme weather, jellyfish or algal blooms, but that does not change the number of dead fish on the farms.
The stark difference in average mortality between Shetland farms and Argyll farms and the difference in risk of interactions with wild salmon between those areas suggest that some places are more suited to hosting salmon farms. I hope that progress on marine planning in the future might give greater clarity to the industry and affected communities.
I apologise that I cannot remember its number, but one recommendation in the REC Committee report was that salmon farms should move further offshore so that there is greater churn in the sea and a chance to keep temperatures lower, so that the farm is less likely to attract some of the pests and jellyfish that are attracted inshore. That does not seem to have happened. Would that be a useful way to reduce mortality on salmon farms?
I can give Emma Roddick the time back.
I think that there is disagreement on the question of being offshore or onshore and on the distance that is most suitable for salmon farms but, overall, more thought needs to be put into how we use marine areas. It is clear that some places are already warmer than others. Given climate change, we should be thinking about the best place to have salmon farms.
On welfare standards for salmon, despite people on both sides of the debate being pressed, it was very difficult to come to conclusions about what a happy fish looks and acts like. Before visiting the farms, I spoke to animal welfare campaigners and asked them what to look out for, but it was not really possible for visiting MSPs to know, from just standing at the side of the pen, what the fish’s experience was. I enjoyed feeding the salmon and watching them leap, but I could not tell members what their welfare standard was.
Pinned up on the wall in the barge on the Dunstaffnage farm was a copy of the welfare standards for farmed animals. Those who are familiar will know that many of those standards are not relevant to fish, and it was painfully clear that there is no consensus on fish welfare. Professor Lynne Sneddon’s evidence on the pain and distress of salmon that are subjected to various lice treatments in particular was very helpful. I highlight her comments to the Scottish Government as a great place to start if we are looking to create welfare standards, which I sincerely believe that we should. I look forward to further information on that in the next year.
My understanding of the treatment of cleaner fish on salmon farms suggests an even graver situation, and data and welfare standards for those fish are desperately needed. Concerns were raised about the impact of salmon farming on wild wrasse populations, which is also deeply worrying.
It is never easy to go against the grain, and I felt a lot of pressure to just say, “Let them get on with it,” because the industry brings in money and jobs and there is a view that we must let it keep on growing without question. However, we do not have to do that, and the industry should be as sustainable as it is possible for it to be.
As the inquiry went on, I felt more and more strongly that there was justification for a pause in expansion until issues around mortality, welfare and the use of cleaner fish and other lice treatments were sorted out. By the end, I felt that doing any less would be irresponsible, both for the animals that we are discussing and for the industry itself. That is why, after debating every detail of the recommendations running up to it, I could not put my name to the final section of the report, which stated that the committee did not feel that a moratorium was justified. I hope that I am wrong, and I hope that I will come back with the committee next year astounded by the positive progress that has been made. I will be happy to have a red face, and I will approach any new evidence next year with an open mind.
I agree with Edward Mountain on the Salmon Scotland letter that responded to the inquiry. The tone was one of indignation and even offence at being scrutinised at all. That really highlighted that this is not an industry that will change practices unless it is forced to.
I hope that colleagues can hear that I have given this a lot of thought, and I appreciate that there is great disagreement on many of the points that I have outlined. With hand on heart, I can say that I feel that there needs to be more urgency from the Government, regulators and industry to get things up to scratch.
I want to get behind Scottish food and drink, and I do not want to have hesitations. There are strong recommendations in the committee’s report, and I hope that they serve as a catalyst for progress and that another committee does not meet in another five years, confused about how few have been heeded.
We move to closing speeches.
16:09
Imagine a future where people look back and say, “They made the right choice. They protected Scotland’s seas, wildlife and coastal communities.” That future is still within our reach, but only if we act now.
The expansion of Scotland’s salmon farming industry must be paused. I reiterate that this is not about ending salmon farming; it is about pressing pause in order to tighten regulations for existing farms, safeguard the environment and preserve the international reputation of our farmed salmon. Right now, intensive salmon farming is damaging our marine ecosystems. Pollution, sea bed degradation and unchecked sea lice infestations are destroying biodiversity. If we allow the expansion to continue, the damage may become irreversible.
Scotland’s wild salmon populations are already in crisis. Their future is in the balance. Sea lice spread from farms to wild fish and weaken them, which is why we called for no more farms to be placed on migratory routes. Without urgent action, we could lose this iconic species from our rivers for ever.
From our inquiry, it is clear that the industry has failed to meet environmental and welfare benchmarks. Voluntary improvements are inadequate and have been far too slow. Existing regulations are toothless. A pause would be our chance to implement stronger, enforceable protections and species-specific guidance that brings us in line with what other nations did long ago.
Will the member give us an example of where the Scottish salmon industry has failed to abide by the environmental legislation that is in place?
Let me be clear about environmental standards. We have a duty to apply the precautionary principle, which demands action in the face of uncertainty to prevent potential catastrophic harm. Despite overwhelming evidence of environmental damage, the Government continues to allow expansion, and that is reckless. The Government says that the precautionary principle can be applied flexibly, which is wrong.
The numbers tell the story. The proportion of fish that die in salmon farms has more than tripled in the past decade. Compared with previous rates of 7 per cent, the most recent figures are not a cause for celebration. At some sites, the rate is catastrophic. More than 86 per cent of salmon at one farm died in the previous cycle and the figure was 82 per cent at another farm, with no consequences or action being taken afterwards. The Government’s response is to say that
“analytical work is required to understand ... sites with ‘persistent high mortality’ ”.
Why has that work not been done? That level of mortality would never be tolerated in any other farming sector, so why are we tolerating it in our salmon farms and our seas?
Some claim that a pause would hurt jobs, but let us look at the reality—I hope that Fergus Ewing is paying attention. According to fish farm production survey data from 1990 to 2023, salmon farming has directly created just 253 new full-time jobs in the Highlands and Islands since 1990. Meanwhile, the environmental damage that it causes takes jobs in marine tourism and wild fisheries away from our communities.
A temporary pause would be a measured and responsible step. It would give us the breathing room to put in place effective environmental and welfare standards. It would allow existing farms to catch up with the higher standards of newer farms. It would ensure that Scotland’s natural resources are protected for future generations.
Let us be honest that the Government has been far too slow. Of the 65 recommendations that the REC Committee made, only a fraction have been implemented. We have called for action on those recommendations and more, and yet the Government still asks for more time. It evades responsibility and asks us to trust the industry to act in the best interests of our salmon and our seas. However, we have seen the millions of dead fish, the environmental harm and, most recently, the industry’s appeals against sea lice limits—none of which gives us confidence or trust.
The Government says that it is protecting wild salmon but it refuses to penalise the industry in relation to sea lice numbers or escapes or to stop new farms on migratory routes. We cannot allow this destruction to continue. If we care about the future of Scotland’s seas and if we want to protect our coastal communities and to preserve our natural heritage, we must act now. That is why I am calling on the Government to introduce an immediate pause on fish farm expansion. A pause sends the message to the industry, our export partners and the people of Scotland that we will not sacrifice our seas for corporate profits. Future generations will judge us on what we do now. Will we be remembered as the ones who ignored the warnings or as the ones who took action? This is our moment. Let us make the right choice.
16:15
In the previous session of the Parliament, I was a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which carried out the inquiry on the salmon farming industry nearly seven years ago. It was one of two thorough reports at the time: the other was from the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee the year before. I welcome the work of the current Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in following up the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report, and I thank the committee members for that work.
However, from reading the findings, I can see that it is a case of déjà vu in far too many areas. As a member of the REC Committee in 2018, I was one of the two members whom Edward Mountain referred to who dissented from the committee’s conclusion to completely reject a moratorium. The committee report recorded my view that
“a moratorium should be considered if sufficient progress is not made to address regulatory deficiencies and fish health and environmental concerns.”
I took that view at the time, not because I was arguing for an immediate moratorium, but because I had no faith that the Government or the industry would properly address the regulatory and welfare failures that our committee had highlighted, or that they would, at the very least, not do so unless a moratorium was a serious option that could be considered. It gives me no pleasure to say that, seven years on, that now seems to be the view of the majority of members on the successor committee.
The committee is right to condemn the slow progress on improving the environmental impact and the governance of the sector, and it is right to highlight the fact that, seven years on, dozens of the REC Committee’s recommendations have still not been implemented.
In its submission, animal welfare charity OneKind said that
“there has not been meaningful or urgent action and the status quo is still very much evident in terms of animal health and welfare.”
Salmon deaths have reached the tens of millions over recent years. As the committee report highlights, the coastal communities network referred to information from biomass data, published by SEPA, that estimates that 17.5 million fish died in 2022—a level that Professor Simon MacKenzie from the University of Stirling told the committee was not “a sustainable practice.” In one of its written submissions, Animal Equality UK pointed out that
“17 million on-farm mortalities is the tip of the iceberg”,
and that the true scale of deaths in Scotland’s salmon farms is masked as a result of underreporting.
Last year saw record freshwater deaths and, although 2024 saw a welcome improvement, mortality is still more than twice the 2018 level. The slow rate of progress in tackling mortality rates is not good enough, but what is more concerning is the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report and recommendations, which fails to acknowledge that.
There are some positive aspects of the Government’s response, such as its commitment to considering putting basic baseline standards for the welfare of farmed fish on a statutory footing, which is something that OneKind suggested in its submission to the committee.
Is the member as shocked as I was to see that, by its own admission, at the rate at which it is progressing, it would take the industry 19 years to get back to 2017 mortality levels? Does the member think that that is acceptable?
I certainly do not, and my concern is that we might not even get back to those levels, given some of the issues that I will come to talk about in a second. I fear that the Government fails to acknowledge the scale or the gravity of the serious challenges that the industry faces and their welfare consequences.
Where the Government does not openly reject the committee’s recommendations, which it does in many cases, its responses are vague and non-committal. There is no commitment to provide the fish health inspectorate or another appropriate body with the powers to limit or halt production at sites that have persistently high mortality rates. There is no commitment to introduce stricter conditions for accepted reasons on no counts.
There is no commitment to end siting of farms in the close vicinity of known migratory routes for wild salmon or for mandatory reporting of mortalities to the fish health inspectorate, even though that data is collected—a point that Finlay Carson highlighted in his contribution.
The member has just said that the information is already collected. What is the point of regulation, then, given that all regulation should be proportionate and balanced in relation to the impact that it can have on the industry? As I said to Finlay Carson, I would not hesitate to introduce regulations if there was a problem in collecting that data.
I will give you the time back, Mr Smyth.
Thank you very much.
Let me turn that question around. Why is the Government against consistent mandatory reporting of mortalities and publication of that information? I am not clear why the Government is against that and has rejected making that commitment so openly.
There was also no commitment to publishing an annual fish health report detailing the health and welfare status of all farmed aquatic finfish. Those are reasonable recommendations that have been, in my view, unreasonably rejected.
I recognise points that have been made in the debate that the reasons for the high mortality rate have changed—they are less about sea lice, in relation to which we have seen welcome improvements, and more about climate change. The committee concluded that tackling such causes is
“not currently within the operational capability of industry”.
When she intervened on Edward Mountain earlier, the cabinet secretary almost suggested that, because many such things are outwith the direct control of the industry—which has no plan to deal with them—we should tolerate high mortality rates. I simply do not accept that. Rhoda Grant was absolutely right to express concern about the lack of Government support for research and development on such issues to see whether we can find solutions to them.
I recognise the points that have been made in the debate about the economic and social benefit that the salmon farming industry brings to rural and island communities. The year-round stable and direct employment that it brings to communities, often on good wages—higher than in other employment, given the appallingly low levels of pay that still plague rural Scotland—is important to those areas. Those jobs help to keep people in the community and to keep rural schools, shops and community halls open—although the dependency on those jobs maybe says a lot about the lack of alternatives and the fragility of those rural communities.
I also recognise that many indirect jobs are created through supply chains across Scotland. Indeed, I visited AquaGen in Dumfries, which is world leading in the production of genetic starter material for the sector and has created some high-skilled jobs in my area.
However, the real threat to jobs and the salmon industry is not the demand for more action to address the welfare, environmental and regulatory failures of the sector, which the committee report highlighted, but the reputational damage that will be caused by failing to act. As Rhoda Grant said, it is only with good governance that we protect our international reputation. Business as usual is simply not an option.
The future of the sector—sustaining the jobs that it creates—requires that we hold the industry to the highest environmental standards, that we ensure that the sector takes animal welfare in aquaculture more seriously, and that we demand that the Government put in place the regulatory framework to achieve that, rather than it simply shrugging its shoulders about mortality rates. The changes that the committee’s report calls for are not about placing unreasonable burdens on the sector, but are about supporting the industry to make necessary improvements.
Not every person who raises genuine concerns about the status quo is simply anti-salmon or anti-industry—many are pro-animal welfare, pro-environment and pro-communities, and want meaningful action to secure the long-term viability of the salmon farming industry.
I want nothing more than to see the committee conclude in 12 months that adequate progress has been made in addressing those concerns, but we will not get that if the Government stands in the way of enabling the sector to grow sustainably, and in a way that takes welfare far more seriously.
16:24
I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for all its work on the follow-up inquiry, and its clerks for putting together this latest report on Scotland’s salmon farming industry. I also thank all the organisations that provided briefings and insight for this afternoon’s debate.
Salmon farming takes place across the region that I represent. As others, including Fergus Ewing, have said, it is an important industry for the Highlands and Islands. One is never far from a salmon farm in the waters of Scapa Flow, which my home in Orkney overlooks and is home to a number of farms.
As other members have highlighted, the industry makes a considerable contribution to Scotland’s economy and an important contribution to many local economies, where other employment and opportunities can be limited.
However, as we have heard today, the industry and Government face a number of challenges, which they must overcome. They include the significant natural and environmental challenges that members across the chamber have rightly highlighted. We have heard that progress has been made on some issues, but I suggest that the majority opinion, and certainly the opinion of the committee, is that—to quote the convener of the committee, Finlay Carson—
“in most areas, the sector still has a way to go in realising the ambitions”
that that report set out, and that
“It is evident that changes to regulation and enforcement of the industry have not been taken forward with the urgency that was called for in 2018.”
Mortality rates continue to be one of the stand-out concerns for many members, as does the impact of farms on the natural environment and on wild salmon numbers. The Scottish Government has many questions to answer, including about why it has failed to implement the previous recommendations, which would have led to real improvements in the industry.
What is clear from a number of contributions today is that this cannot be another report that Scottish National Party ministers profess to welcome, then file away and fail to act on. The Scottish Government must listen to the new recommendations from the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and take them forward with an urgency that it has, so far, failed to show.
The RAI Committee convener, Finlay Carson, highlighted the committee’s calls for Scottish ministers to ensure that regulators are given new powers to limit or halt production at sites where there are persistently high mortality rates, and for ministers to work with the industry to set the criteria for those restrictions. He also highlighted concerns over the interaction between farmed and wild salmon, as did Tim Eagle.
Tim Eagle also highlighted the impact on wild salmon and the worrying reductions in wild salmon catches in Scotland’s rivers. That is a real concern, given the importance of salmon fishing to so many communities across Scotland, including many that are served by the great salmon rivers of the Highlands.
Tim Eagle also highlighted the role of wrasse as a cleaner fish, as others did, and the mortality rates of captured wrasse. He raised concerns about the impact of fishing on wild stocks, the lack of assessment of wild stocks before now—while recognising that such assessment will now happen—and the lack of data on mortality. Lack of data is clearly an issue that seems to have concerned a number of members today.
Edward Mountain, who was involved in the original inquiry in 2018, was right. If the Government is, as he has said, a true friend of the sector, it will want the industry to do well—as we all do—and will recognise the value of the jobs and the contribution that the sector makes to the economy. Pretending that nothing is wrong is not the way forward. He said, as others have, that mortality rates are still too high and that the action that is needed has not been taken. He also called for openness, transparency and improvement, and he warned that
“the industry is in the last-chance saloon”
in respect of the need to deliver on the recommendations of the RAI Committee.
I will turn to some other contributions. Cabinet secretary Mairi Gougeon asserted that the Scottish Government has taken the report and the recommendations seriously, but we are here today because of failures to act in full on the previous report—the proof of the pudding will, very much, be in the eating, regarding whether the latest report goes the same way.
Rhoda Grant talked about the closure of two sites in Skye, which is in the region that we both represent, due to planning decisions. I am afraid that planning decisions and the slowness of getting them through is a challenge that is faced by a number of businesses, particularly in our Highlands and Islands region.
Ariane Burgess called for a pause, but in the answer that she gave him, she was unable to provide any evidence to Finlay Carson on how the Greens actually came to that position.
That is a fair point. Back in 2018, when we had the debate on the moratorium, the implications of it were discussed. However, given that we once again have a parliamentary committee coming to the conclusion that a moratorium should be considered if progress is not made, surely the implications of that option should be looked at by that committee or others.
Does Jamie Halcro Johnston believe that a piece of work to look at the full implications of a moratorium should be done, or will we just keep coming back to the moratorium discussion without fully going through those implications?
I thank the member for that intervention and welcome the question, but I will say that I am not a member or substitute member of the committee, and that the issue that he raises is for the committee to decide. I think that the report makes clear the committee’s position on that issue.
As always, Fergus Ewing gave a—
Rumbustious.
Edward Mountain is heckling me with “rumbustious”, but I think that we should say “impassioned”, as Mr Ewing gave an impassioned defence of an industry that we all absolutely value, and spoke of its contribution to Scotland’s economy and the investment that the sector has made over the past few years in seeking the improvements that have been mentioned.
I was delighted to hear talk of wine bar revolutionaries again, although I am sure that Ariane Burgess was less so. Mr Ewing made a serious point about the importance of the sector and the risk of depopulation. In those communities there are often not a lot of opportunities, and the industry can provide well-paid jobs that it is important that we support.
This has been an important debate about an important report. As I said, it has been a passionate debate at times, and I think that the inquiry has also been impassioned, on occasion, although it has also featured a number of measured and knowledgeable contributions. However, the report will mean nothing if the Scottish Government does not act on it.
We all—well, nearly all of us—recognise the importance of the salmon farming industry. We recognise the money that it brings in and the jobs and livelihoods that it supports in our communities. However, in protecting all that, we need to ensure that it is conducted using the highest possible standards, and that there is a focus on honesty, openness and transparency.
We cannot afford the successor committee in the next session of the Parliament to find itself in the same position as this session’s Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, and having to launch an inquiry into the Scottish Government’s failure to implement its predecessor committee’s recommendations.
I call the cabinet secretary. You have a fairly generous seven minutes.
16:31
I have been taking copious notes throughout the debate because of the number of issues that have been raised, and I will try to work through them as effectively as I can.
First, I reiterate my thanks to the committee for its work and to all the organisations and stakeholders who gave their time and evidence to support that process and the debate this afternoon.
As I said earlier, the salmon farming sector attracts many and varied stakeholder opinions. Although the sector is rightly scrutinised and held to account, it is important that that scrutiny leads to the kind of open and respectful dialogue that is rooted in clear evidence.
In our response to the committee’s report, we have committed to a number of actions that will, I hope, build the necessary transparency and accessibility of data and will also examine more closely some of the assumptions that have been made about the sector.
It is quite clear from the debate that the value of aquaculture is recognised—that has been widely acknowledged by MSPs across the chamber. We all value the really important role that it plays in supporting employment. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it supports 2,300 direct jobs and there are more than 10,000 roles more broadly in the supply chain, many of which are skilled and provide average annual incomes that are well above national and regional averages. We also value the £324 million in gross value added by the salmon sector to the Scottish economy and the £1.1 billion that the sector was worth at the farm gate—those are the figures from 2023. That is why the Government continues to support the sustainable development of salmon farming in Scotland. Our response to the committee’s report, alongside our “Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture”, sets out how we will support the development of the sector to continue to operate within environmental limits and deliver social and economic benefits for Scotland.
I turn to some of the key points that were raised during the debate. I understand the issues around the delivery of the recommendations and the criticisms that I have heard across the chamber in relation to that. We are committed to working with the sector and other stakeholders to realise improvements in performance as rapidly as is practically possible, but we are mindful of the complexity of the issues that are under discussion and, of course, of the resources that are available to us to do that. We have set out in our response to the committee where we will take action within the next 12 months and where we expect to deliver other key strands of work as we prioritise those key actions.
I have to take issue with some of the claims that we have not made progress since the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s initial report. I expect to be held to account in the chamber, but I would say that significant progress has been made. I do not think that there has been much cognisance of the amount of work that has gone into addressing some of the key challenges that were identified in the initial reports. On the issues around sea lice that were addressed in the reports at that time, I note that sea lice levels are now the lowest that they have ever been. We have seen the recent introduction of the sea lice framework; we have seen SEPA’s revised regulatory framework, which has been tightening the benthic standards, and has resulted in enhanced modelling and monitoring; we have had the Griggs review and the associated recommendations; and we have seen the work that is being driven forward by the consenting task group that I mentioned.
One of the recommendations of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report was to remove salmon farms away from routes of migratory salmon on the west coast. I can name one fish farm that has moved. Apart from the one at Loch Maree, can you name any more?
Speak through the chair, please.
That is something that I would have to look at. The overall point that the member raises is important, and it was an important recommendation in the initial reports.
I think that it is fair to say that some fish farms are in areas that they would not want to be in, and they would look to move. That is why the work of the consenting task group that I mentioned is important. It is about streamlining the consenting process. I hope that the next stages of that work will also look at that issue. If a fish farm were to move, it would still have to go through the same regulatory processes as it does right now. I think that that is appropriate. The work that we are driving forward will be critical in that area.
I know that members would like to see action on everything everywhere all at once, but those are not small items simply to tick off. They are significant pieces of work that require collaboration, the building of relationships that I touched on earlier, resources and time. I have tried to be as transparent and clear as possible about realistic timescales for the work. I have offered to give an update to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in six months so that progress can be tracked against what we set out to do. However, there must be recognition of the significance of the work that is being done and that is still to be done.
The issues around our changing climate were predominantly addressed by Ariane Burgess. I disagree with the member that climate change means that the sector’s days are numbered. There are new challenges from the changing climate. The industry continues to invest in trying to address those challenges and adapt to them—as do we and our research institutions. I say that in direct response to the comments that were made by Rhoda Grant and Colin Smyth.
The marine directorate has engaged with the Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership to improve understanding of the effect of climate change on aquaculture. As I mentioned in an intervention, we are funding the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre. The centre has done more than 70 projects on a variety of topics, such as gill health and optimising fish nutrition, and it has leveraged overall funding of around £63 million via the farmed fish health framework. There have been studies to identify practical actions to help to address harmful algal blooms. It has standardised mortality recording across salmon farms and done work on medicines and their more effective use.
That brings me back to a point that Edward Mountain made earlier and some of his assertions. Antibiotic use has dropped by 57 per cent, so I dispute Edward Mountain’s assertion that it is on the increase.
I appreciate that the cabinet secretary is using the figures that are in front of her. I am using the figures that were produced by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as quoted in the House of Commons. Those are the figures and the percentages that it uses. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that she disputes the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s figures that were used in the House of Commons?
First, I want to make sure that we are not talking at cross-purposes. The initial figures that Edward Mountain used were based on data from 2017 or 2018, I think. I am more than happy to follow up with him to make sure that we are using the appropriate figures.
There is, and will continue to be, much work to do to address the challenges of our changing climate.
Another key point that was touched on was about data transparency. I reiterate that more data is collected and published on salmon farming in Scotland than is published on salmon farming in any other jurisdiction, or on terrestrial farming sectors. I do not believe that it is necessary at this stage to mandate through legislation any further collections of mortality data. However, even though we publish a lot of data, I recognise that it is not necessarily easy for people to navigate. That was clear from the evidence that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee heard, as were the wider frustrations about it.
I come back to the point that I have made throughout the debate: any regulation that we introduce must be proportionate. If I believed that there were issues in collecting data, I would not hesitate to consider them.
However, I recognise that improvements could be made in how the existing data are presented and explained, so I will explore how that can be improved. We will work with partners to scope out how the Scotland’s Aquaculture website can be refreshed. That will include looking at the financing of that. We will progress that work over this year and into next year, but we anticipate that implementation—especially if we look to make changes to the website—might take longer than that. I will keep the committee updated.
Another important topic that a number of members touched on was that of wrasse and cleaner fish more generally. Since the publication of the initial inquiry report in 2018, we have introduced a number of improvements, including mandatory measures to regulate the wrasse fishery. We are continuing to improve the evidence base on and the management of the fishery, and we have invested in research to continue to inform our decision making in an effort to protect the stocks.
As I informed the committee when I appeared in front of it last November, we are currently undertaking a fisheries assessment, which includes a habitats regulations appraisal and appropriate assessment for the wild wrasse fishery. I will, of course, keep the committee updated on how that work is progressing.
On welfare more broadly, we will undertake an analysis of options—statutory or otherwise—to understand how welfare standards can best be supported.
I can see that my light is flashing, which indicates that the Presiding Officer would like me to draw to a close. I am sorry that I have not been able to address the myriad issues that have been raised during the debate.
I again thank the committee for its work, and I thank members for their contributions to the debate. We have heard a wide range of views. Although I would not agree with every point that has been made on every issue, I am grateful for the consideration that has been given to these important matters. I reassure members that we are listening.
Our response to the committee’s report sets out our planned actions. The salmon farming industry is of vital importance to our economy, and it is of particular importance to our rural and island communities. I hope that we can work together to ensure its continued success as a sustainable sector, operating within environmental limits and providing community benefit.
16:42
I am pleased to close this afternoon’s debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, as its deputy convener. I reiterate the committee’s thanks to all the stakeholders who engaged with our inquiry. Their views were invaluable to us in drawing up our report’s conclusions and recommendations. I also thank members across the chamber for their contributions to what has been, mostly, a constructive and thoughtful discussion about an industry that I am sure we all want to succeed in becoming more sustainable.
Members such as Rhoda Grant, Fergus Ewing, Tim Eagle, Jamie Halcro Johnston and Colin Smyth rightly spoke about the economic and social benefits that salmon farming brings to their communities. They made the important point that, as well as being directly responsible for supporting jobs in its sector, the industry is indirectly responsible, through the wider supply chain, for supporting jobs in areas such as transportation, engineering and food processing.
I have first-hand knowledge of how important salmon farming is in my constituency of Shetland. In fact, figures that Shetland Islands Council provided to the committee suggested that local aquaculture provides around 400 full-time jobs and accounts for around 12 per cent of our islands’ total GVA. The committee heard about the local initiatives that fish farmers support through their community benefit funds and the funding that is made available to local authorities, through sea bed leases, from salmon farm development.
However, at our community engagement event in Oban, the committee also heard that, for some, the benefit of that funding is not always clearly visible to the general public. That is why we recommended that the Scottish Government should develop good practice principles for community benefits from aquaculture developments. We think that that would help to provide greater transparency on community benefit packages and would help to ensure that they are tailored to the characteristics of each development and to their local communities.
The cabinet secretary said that the Scottish Government would explore our proposal on good practice principles with stakeholders to ensure that any decision is in place ahead of the 2026 Crown Estate Scotland lease fee increases. The committee will be keen to see how that work progresses over the coming year.
Many members spoke about the challenges that the sector is currently grappling with, including those relating to fish mortality. The committee was disappointed not to see more progress on that issue since the REC Committee report. I welcome the news of a reduction in the overall mortality rate last year and hope that that progress will continue, but that will happen only if the Scottish Government provides the support that the sector needs to adapt and innovate so that it can address some of the environmental and climate-related factors that many members touched on in their contributions.
Members spoke about the need for better regulation and enforcement of the industry to help improve performance. The committee highlighted mortality as one area where the Scottish Government must address gaps in accountability and governance. The committee was also concerned about the structure of the wider regulatory framework, which does not seem to take full account of how salmon farming impacts wild salmon. That lack of a holistic approach to regulation was consistently emphasised by stakeholders such as Fisheries Management Scotland in their evidence to the committee.
Members also discussed the need for more consistency and transparency in how data is collected and reported on by the Scottish Government and industry. Timely reporting of that data makes it easier to find on the Scotland’s aquaculture website and seems to be a reasonable solution to the issue. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary is now committed to modernising how data is presented on that website, but that work to improve accessibility is long overdue. It would certainly help the general public to understand more about salmon farming and might even help to dispel many of the concerns, myths and misconceptions about how the industry operates.
Another key point made in today’s contributions was about the need for improvements to research and scientific evidence. That would develop a more robust evidence base about the environmental footprint of salmon farming and the impact on the marine environment of certain chemicals that are used by the industry, while also addressing gaps in knowledge about the interactions between farmed and wild salmon. The committee believes that dedicated research pens would not only help to answer some of those questions but would help Government to make better decisions about policy.
Several members discussed environmental and welfare considerations about the use of cleaner fish in salmon farming. Although the committee acknowledged the steps taken by industry and the Scottish Government to better protect the welfare of wrasse and lumpfish, we remain concerned by evidence about the welfare of those fish, and especially about the high mortality rates being reported and about the sustainability of wild wrasse fisheries. I know that the Scottish Government is expecting further advice on that from NatureScot and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, and I am sure we all hope that that will translate into concrete measures to enhance the welfare of those animals.
Colleagues spoke about the welfare of farmed fish, and Fergus Ewing mentioned the £1 billion that the industry has invested to promote good fish welfare at farms. The committee was supportive of that investment to market Scottish salmon as a premium product. We also noted the industry’s need to balance treating fish to meet requirements regarding sea lice with the potential unintended consequences that that might have for fish health and welfare.
The committee recognises the economic contribution of the Scottish salmon farming sector, both as a successful national export and as a driver of prosperity in rural and island communities such as mine. It was also clear to the committee that the sector faces a number of environmental and fish health challenges, especially in the wider context of climate change and rising sea temperatures, which the sector and the Scottish Government must understand and adapt to.
This debate does not signal the end of our interest in the issue. The committee will return before the end of this session of Parliament to consider what progress has been made in implementing our, and the REC Committee’s, recommendations. We expect the Scottish Government to use its time wisely to make more tangible progress in future-proofing the industry.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Urgent Question