Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a bit unfair if it is just an official, because, if anything quasi-political came up, they would be in an invidious position. It is up to the Government to send somebody—if not a cabinet secretary, a minister, and if they are accompanied by officials, that is all good and well.

I will move on to the issue of mortality, but I will start with a quote from the review by Professor Griggs that was published in February 2022. He stated:

“Throughout the evidence gathering stage of this review a lot of what I have heard and seen resonates with other reviews of this type I have carried out.”

He went on:

“However in all the reviews I have conducted over the years, there are two characteristics that I have never come across before”.

One of those was:

“All the people and organisations that I have met with or had input from think that the current regulatory system for aquaculture is not fit for purpose”.

That is significant. This is a man who has done lots of reviews, and that seems to have taken him by surprise. It is quite a shocking statement.

That brings me on to mortality. I am interested in the welfare of animals, and we are talking about the factory farming of fin fish. What are the most recent figures for the mortality rate in salmon farming?

This is a new game to me, but I understand that major international companies are involved. Who are those companies? They are not small businesses; they are major international companies. Can you name them for me? I do not know who they are.

Yes—who are the key international companies that do factory salmon farming in Scotland?

Those companies are actually monitoring themselves and providing the data. They may have a mandatory obligation in law, but they are not independently assessed to establish whether the data is correct.

So, it is the records that are inspected.

This is my final point, as I know that others may want to come in. Let us say that I accept the figure of 25 per cent, although others may or may not. Are you content with that figure for animal welfare purposes?

How do you reduce the level?

We had better send a note of what was said in private. A note saying that queries have been raised could usefully be sent in advance to the Government, if appropriate, and circulated to the committee.

It is a matter for the Government to decide. Committees have priority, and there may have to be—I say this with inverted commas around it—a “political decision” at the end of the evidence session about what they do or do not do with the regulation. Therefore, I am not happy that it would be just an official.

I was not party to the original discussion, although I listened to it, or to the queries that were raised by members around this table. Perhaps they could be circulated and sent to the Government in a letter saying, “These are the problems that we have. It will be a brief session, but we would like clarity,” and so on.

Okay. That is fine.