Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will there be a risk assessment of the possibility of people losing jobs? Rhoda Grant said that people are unable to get homes in places where they want to live. If a salmon farm can no longer operate because the salmon do not survive and it has to move away, those jobs are lost. Are we assessing that risk?

Convener, the responses to your questions answered my questions.

In the Bute house agreement, there is a commitment to strengthen the regulatory framework around farmed salmon escapee incidents, and it is reassuring that that includes introducing proportionate penalties for fish escapees, which put at risk our wild salmon and other marine life. Currently, the revenue raised from that goes to support wild salmonid conservation and research, which is important. However, I am interested in hearing whether the Government will consider giving some or all of it to the regulating bodies to improve enforcement of regulations, given the high rates of non-compliance by salmon farming companies and the current reliance on self-reporting.

I want to pick up on another part of Rhoda Grant’s question, but this time my focus is not so much on housing as on jobs.

You are talking about trying to develop a sustainable vision on aquaculture. There is ample evidence of the risk that climate change and the resulting warming seas pose to salmon farming, especially on the west coast. Salmon stop eating when the water temperature hits 18°C, and they cannot survive beyond 21°C or 22°C. If the industry could become unviable on the west coast, should we be planning now for a just transition for workers, as well as regulating the sector so that the sea bed, in particular, has good environmental status when farms move from their current locations, or possibly even go out of business? Is the Scottish Government undertaking a risk assessment of the future of salmon farming on the west coast and the livelihoods that currently depend on it?

I need to get to this part, convener, please—

I understand that. What I am getting at is that there is a problem with non-compliance and the fact that the industry self-reports. I also understand that there are budget challenges. It seems that, if we brought in proportionate penalties, it would be great if that money went to supporting our enforcement in the sector. I understand that conservation and research are equally important, but given the situation in the salmon farming industry, we need to be stronger and more robust in regulating it.

I am not asking about that application. I am just providing an illustration, and then I will get to the point.

Okay.

I will make it less direct and more generic, then. Thank you for correcting me.

I have been contacted by a constituent who has scientific experience. Having done all that they can to express concerns, they have come to me with a sense of exasperation and have basically asked, “What can communities do to stop this industry completely wrecking the inshore waters on the west coast?” How will you reassure my constituent that communities will have a genuine say on new farms in their inshore waters and that such a right will be safeguarded and improved?

According to GBGB retirement data, more than 1,400 dogs were euthanised in a four-year period from 2018 to 2021, due to treatment-cost difficulties or to their being designated unsuitable for homing. That figure excludes dogs that died from natural causes or which were put to sleep on veterinary advice. Is it humane or in any way acceptable to euthanise greyhounds on those grounds, and have you experienced difficulties in homing greyhounds that are enough to justify that?