Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would like to dig more into welfare. We have heard a few times today that mortality is just one and possibly not the most important indicator of fish welfare. I am aware that the welfare standards used by fish farms are the same as those that are used for land-based farmed animals. What is the reason behind that? Is that a good enough indicator of welfare?

One of the standards is that animals should be allowed to conduct their instinctive behaviours. Could you describe what those are for salmon and how they are able to do them in a cage?

I want to clarify—

But that was not the most recent week reported in the letter.

There is also a commitment to undertake a comprehensive review of the code of good practice. Could someone give us more information on that review?

I am keen to ask about wrasse. The fish health inspectorate told the committee that its primary concern was that the mortality of cleaner fish is higher than it would like. The committee is also aware of concerns regarding the sustainability of wild wrasse fisheries. How are you responding to those concerns and what action is the industry taking to improve the welfare of those fish?

There must be concerns about sustainability if the industry is trying to move to fish that are not wild caught.

But in respect of those that are being eaten by seals and other aquatic life, that is just natural, right? They are not being farmed for human purposes.

I have just one final question. Throughout this evidence session, we have had disagreements on statistics, yet we have also heard that the data being published on mortality and fish welfare is robust. Can that be the case if one set of data that the committee has received this week on mortality from the fish health inspectorate is now being challenged by yourselves? Is that robust data?

On that week, it did.

It is not a concern now.