Seòmar agus comataidhean

As Erica Clarkson just outlined, on the basis of the feedback that we had, we worked on the guidance and refreshed it last year. Obviously, the onus is on the 71 relevant authorities that are in the schedule and that must undertake island communities impact assessments. Therefore, the focus has been on how they undertake that work and on ensuring that they meaningfully engage with people who will be impacted by the policies.

That is one area in which we are looking at strengthening the regulatory regime. I do not know whether the officials can give you more of an update on where that work is at at the moment. We have the code of practice that was published in 2021 and introduced essentially for the prevention of escapes. That is work that we need to do and that we will be taking forward. As I said, I do not know whether the officials have any further information.

Of course, we take all recommendations from committee inquiries seriously. We have made significant progress against a lot of the recommendations that have been set out. As I outlined in my response to Christine Grahame, there are a variety of reasons that can lead to the rise in the figures. We are not content with the figures, and I do not think that the industry is content with them either, which is why the work that we are undertaking to try to tackle some of the issues is important.

I have already responded to that in answer to Christine Grahame’s point. I am not content with the figure. We want to see mortalities at their lowest possible level, as I think I have made clear to the committee today. That is why this work is important.

You talked about a jump in the figures. The average number has stayed relatively constant over the past five years. I mentioned a specific example that we believe may have led to an increase in mortalities over the past year, which is why that needs to be investigated. The pieces of work that we are doing are critical in trying to address that. To be crystal clear, we want mortality to be at the absolute lowest possible level. We are not content with the current position, and I do not think that industry will be either. That is why we have to tackle those challenges.

It can vary between 15 per cent and 25 per cent.

Yes—absolutely. In previous responses this morning, I have touched on the work that has been undertaken through the farmed fish health framework. You are right: we are five years on from its establishment. There was a refresh in 2020. The group is chaired by the chief vet, and it brings together the producers, regulators and innovation centres. Fish vets are part of that body, as well. At the time of the refresh, the group looked to refocus its priorities, and the key priorities to focus on were climate change, looking at treatments, and trying to address mortalities throughout that time.

I mentioned in a previous response that one of the key achievements within that time has been the standardised reporting of mortalities. The group has worked on and produced the 10 overarching categories into which they would fall. Work has been done in partnership with SAIC, as well—SAIC has been leading on that—in looking at some of the issues that we know that the industry faces. For example, that work has looked at harmful algal blooms. They are also looking at potentially trying to remove the barriers to vaccination.

A lot of work has been undertaken, and a lot of work is on-going. If the committee would like a fuller update on the work that has been undertaken through the farmed fish health framework, I would be happy to provide that.

The industry publishes the mortality rates by percentage and cause. That is not mandatory, but the industry has a mandatory requirement to record the information on mortality.

We received the Scottish Science Advisory Council report, and we are considering its recommendations and how we respond to it. We had quite a detailed discussion on it at the meeting of the Scottish Aquaculture Council last week, which was very helpful for our consideration.

You are talking about looking ahead and climate change. It is important that the frameworks that we have in place are adaptive and that we are able to look ahead and ensure that we have mechanisms that are flexible to the challenges that we might meet in the future. The farmed fish health strategic framework is important in that regard. A key strand of that work is looking at the challenges presented by climate change, and a few strands of work feed into that. We know that there will be more challenges in the future, so it is important that we have the capacity and capability to deal with them.

Yes.

We have not undertaken a risk assessment at the moment, but, as I have said, a huge number of pieces of work are under way, as should be clear from what has been set out against the recommendations as well as from previous inquiries. In that work, we are addressing some of the challenges that the industry currently faces and challenges that it will face in the future.