Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not share your confidence about the waste being dispersed or about the biomass, but I will leave it there for now.

As the convener said, I will move on to our second theme, which is environmental impacts. SEPA has confirmed that analysing sea bed survey results to assess regulatory compliance takes up to a year. It would be interesting to hear you outline all the steps that are being taken to actively reduce the length of time that analysis takes.

I will continue on the theme of emamectin benzoate.

During the inquiry, SEPA sent a letter to the committee showing that it has allowed 196 existing salmon farms to continue discharging the same harmful quantities of emamectin benzoate. In June, the Scottish Government confirmed that that will continue to happen until 2028.

In 2017, SEPA did its own sea bed sampling. In 2018, it published its peer-reviewed analysis, which concluded that emamectin benzoate has been causing harm to crustaceans around fish farms in Shetland, which are below the level of the current environmental quality standards. The result of that analysis is that it has increased the now substantial weight of scientific evidence that the existing standards do not adequately protect marine life.

The case has been made for applying the new technical standards to new farms or proposed expansions. However, from what I understand, they are not being applied to existing farms. If that is the case, I am interested in understanding why we are not taking the issue seriously.

Do you have an ideal target time for getting through that analysis? If there was a problem with the sea bed and it was not being analysed, there would be an environmental impact and it would potentially take up to a year to see that. There are 72 sea bed survey results that have not yet been assessed. Clearly, there is a problem, because we do not have proper information and data about the impacts of those sites.

And what were the actions?

That would be great.

Another point has come to my attention. We received a letter that said that APHA

“issues care notices to farm operators who need to improve fish welfare, and ... it prosecutes the most wayward of them, but APHA has acknowledged in FOI disclosures that it has never issued any care notices to salmon farms and that there have been no prosecutions of fish farmers for failing in their duty to prevent unnecessary suffering, or for failing to meet an animal’s needs”.

That is interesting. There is an implication in the letter that we received that APHA issues care notices to salmon farmers, but it has never issued any. Could you speak to that?

How would anyone know that? How is it tracked that they have visited? Does that come back to public data and transparency, or is that information on the website?

Good morning, and thank you for joining us.

Historically, Scottish ministers have not conducted the kind of cost benefit analysis required by His Majesty’s Treasury’s green book before making policy interventions around the salmon aquaculture sector. I am interested to understand why that has not been done and what steps will be taken in the future to implement a cost benefit analysis.

The Scottish Government does not think that it is of importance to do a cost benefit analysis in relation to the whole salmon farming sector, in terms of considering what kind of policies the Government might bring in on the back of the recommendations that we might make?

Do you have confidence in that data? I go back to the convener’s points about the voluntary nature of the reporting of that data. It is quite concerning, potentially, that you have an industry that is marking its own homework, which is a phrase that gets used a lot in this building.