Seòmar agus comataidhean

So you will take back your refuting what I just said.

Who determines the membership of ARIOB, and what criteria are used to decide that membership?

Assurances were previously given that replacements for the legacy schemes such as LFASS would begin from 2027. Indeed, Humza Yousaf, the former First Minister, said so at the NFUS annual general meeting. What is your opinion as to why the replacements for legacy schemes such as LFASS are now being kicked down the line to 2030?

That brings me back to the absolute crux of the problem. Do you regret listening to advice that suggested that this SSI, for the reasons that you have given, should extend the SRDP to 2030? Why did you not just say, “Look, that does not seem sensible. Let’s just take it up to 2027. Stakeholders are being expected to deliver the transition that we are asking them to make in climate change and nature goals, and we can give them certainty.” Minister, I think that this is just a mistake, is it not?

I appreciate that response, minister. My preference would be for stakeholders to be able to come to the committee to explain why this payment schedule must be brought forward. That is needed so that they can have confidence and look ahead.

You know about this, minister, because you yourself have looked after sheep on a hill. You know that people need certainty—they need a vision in front of them. If they are to do the things that the Government is asking of them with regard to nature restoration and climate change goals, they absolutely need that.

This is just a ridiculous date. There is no thought behind it, and it does not give the committee confidence. The committee could have confidence if you changed the date or if you paused this, and you would still have 40 days before the deadline.

You did not answer why it was not consulted on. The consultations that were relied on were from 2018, and those payments were based on stocking levels in 2009.

Ben Hadfield, you talked about the compromising of fish health. Professor Martin also talked about breaking the life cycle of sea lice.

SEPA is rolling out the regulatory framework, and we will not see that full roll-out until 2027. I have learned a lot today about how things are changing because of the climate and other aspects. Do you believe that, as things develop, some of the regulatory framework will adapt to take into account the issues that we are seeing and include things such as measures to break the life cycle of sea lice, as well as what salmon farms are doing?

I do not know whether anyone can answer this question, but do you believe that it is right that new farms should not be granted authorisation, particularly if they are not reaching the standards? What are your views on the sea lice numbers in those places that are not getting on top of the problem?

My questions are about sea lice regulatory reform and wild salmon interactions overall. In a previous committee session, WildFish expressed concern about the reliability of the sea lice count data. How often do you carry out sea lice monitoring? How reliable is that data? Will you comment on the assertion that there is a big gap in the data when it comes to sea lice reporting?

Okay. We had a very long discussion on the gill health situation, which seems to be a huge problem. In a previous evidence session, Professor Martin said that, in such circumstances, the treatments that all the witnesses have spoken about could not be used to treat sea lice, and that secondary infection would therefore become the reason for mortality.

Do you think that we are now overly focused on sea lice and that we should be looking at the issues with gill health? I do not want to suggest that there should be more reporting, but how is gill health reported? Are issues with gill health overtaking the issues of sea lice?