Seòmar agus comataidhean

To be clear, how does describing the national status of a species differ from recognising that a species could become endangered?

Indeed: I was looking for examples of what you might have deemed positive or negative regarding that designation of responsibility.

As a committee member, I find it very difficult to understand the interaction between the responsibilities of the fish health inspectorate, NatureScot, local authorities and the other bodies that make key decisions, which all seem to operate underneath the single regulatory body. I would like more clarity about how all those organisations interact, because it seems, at the moment, that certain organisations blame—if I can use such a strong word—others for certain areas that they do not have responsibility for. Is that a fair assessment?

Going back to my question on the Scottish Government’s announcement on the commitment to doubling salmon production by 2030, what sort of impact has that had? Has it had a negative or positive impact on the relationship between the salmon farming sector and the wild fish sector?

Thank you.

How are the statutory consultees weighted when an application is granted? You said that the process is about the salmon farm rather than about interaction with wild fish, so how does the weighting work for the risk assessment?

When WildFish gave evidence on 5 June, it said that it takes SEPA a long time to gather evidence of harm caused to wild salmon. The representative from WildFish said:

“SEPA estimates that it will take five years to collect that evidence. That is the opposite of precautionary.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 5 June 2024; c29.]

Is there a problem with the time that it takes to collect evidence of any harm caused by specific farms?

Among the various witnesses who have come before us, some organisations are not happy that SEPA has the capability to effectively regulate wild and farmed fish interactions. Although you are quite positive about the responsibility in relation to sea lice that SEPA has as the single lead body, are you concerned that it does not have the capability to regulate effectively?

How will the evidence be gathered if there is no transparency on SEPA’s website?

Is that what you meant by a holistic approach? Ultimately, should this committee recommend that the REC Committee’s recommendations be updated to reflect that?