Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are two separate issues in your question. One is about the presentation of the data, and I think that we absolutely need to do more work on how that information is presented and communicated. However, again, all the information is provided in an open and transparent manner.

The second issue is that of regulation, which comes back to what is proportionate. The industry representatives spoke about the various audits that are undertaken and how transparent that data has to be. Of course, records have to be kept, and there would be surveillance of that. We are confident in the information that is provided, but, if it transpired that there was a problem, we would look at that. However, again, any steps that we take with regard to regulation have to be proportionate.

As I outlined in my opening comments, we realise that there is always more work to be done. This is one area in which we agreed with the recommendations, and we still intend to take them forward.

However, as I have mentioned today, the issue is how we prioritise this work. Overall, it was felt that, as we already have a regime in place for escapes, the priority should be to address potential gaps. That is why there has been a focus on taking forward the work on sea lice, and there is also the work that we are doing on the consenting task group.

It is therefore not possible for me to set a definitive timescale at the moment, but we are still intending to deliver that work. Again, it is a case of factoring it in alongside all the other work that we are taking forward at the moment.

Charles Allan wants to come in and then we will turn to Hazel Bartels.

I believe that a lot of progress has been made. As I hope that I outlined in my previous response, we need to look at some of the developments that have taken place in relation to points that were raised about sea lice in those recommendations. We have the introduction of the sea lice framework and the regulatory review that we have undertaken to try to get to grips with the issues, and we have driven forward work on that through the consenting task group. There is also the work on science and innovation that we are taking forward. We have identified the areas where work is still to be done, and we have set out that we are still keen to take that forward.

However, we are in a completely different place from where we were in terms of overall openness and transparency. That situation has very much improved over the period since the report was published. I am pleased with the progress that we have made on the recommendations, although, as I said, there are some areas where we still need to do further work.

My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy is leading the work in relation to marine planning. I would be happy to provide a written update on the status of the Shetland plan, if that would be helpful.

I think that it absolutely is. In our vision, we set that out as an area that we are keen to look at and to progress. A consultation is open on extending the range of local authorities’ planning powers out to 12 nautical miles—at the moment, those powers apply only to the area out to 3 nautical miles. There was discussion about that a few years ago, but the zone was not extended because we were not considering offshore development in that space. That consultation will be open until about mid-December.

When I went to Norway last year, I visited an offshore fish farm, and it was really interesting to see such a development. I think that that was the first place in the world to have an offshore site. From the evidence that we have seen, that approach is better from the point of view of the environmental impact, and it has positive impacts on fish health and welfare.

It is a new area for us, which is why the consultation that we are undertaking is important. One of the benefits of being offshore is higher dispersal levels, but we need to consider all the issues in the round and ensure that the move offshore would have a positive impact on fish health and welfare, too.

All businesses will have to comply with the tighter standards by the end of the period. That will give them time to adjust. If the industry has any concerns about the transition, we will continue to have discussions with it.

I believe that we have adequate regulations in law. We have the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which businesses are required to adhere to. The Animal and Plant Health Agency deals with any issues in relation to that. I believe that it has recently appointed more people to work specifically in that sphere in order to ensure that it has the capacity and the resource that it needs to undertake that work and that role.

It is important that, as in any area, we have the right protections in place to protect and enhance animal welfare. We should always be striving to improve that where possible. A number of pieces of work on that have been undertaken, and we are actively considering those. The UK animal welfare committee was particularly concerned about the welfare of fish at the time of slaughter, and we are considering that. We always look to see whether there are areas where we can improve.

Considering the totality of the provisions that we have in place, including legislation, policies and operational practices, I believe that we have the right safeguards in place for the health and welfare of farmed fish. As I say, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 places that duty of care on fish farmers.

Charles Allan wants to respond on that point.