Seòmar agus comataidhean

In summary, then, one of the main issues—if not the main issue—is the extension of the deadline to 2030. Although it could be argued that that gives some certainty, it is not the sort of certainty that the industry needs. In effect, it does not send a message that we want to get the job done.

Given that there is time for the instrument to be laid again and to come before the committee and be approved prior to 1 January—that is clear, because it is a 40-day process—would the minister be minded to withdraw the instrument and re-lay it with an extension to 2027? That is all the clarity that we have at the moment with regard to the route map, but it would send the right message that the Government is serious about building the new schemes and the co-design process, and that it will not, by extending the deadline to 2030, potentially kick those schemes into the long grass.

It is not a big ask, and it would not affect payments. Moreover, it would let the industry see that the Government was serious about putting in place the new schemes. It would be simple to withdraw the instrument and re-lay it with an extension to 2027 rather than 2030. Based on the consultation responses that we have had, that would make a lot of difference.

As there are no further comments, I conclude agenda item 1. We now move to formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Rural Development (Continuation of Operation) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]

I am very disappointed that the minister will not consider withdrawing the instrument and bringing the date back from 2030 to 2027, given that the majority of the responses that we have had through the call for views suggested that that was the main issue.

One response that we got was from a former NFUS president. and I will quote from it, because it says it all. The respondent said:

“while I recognise that this flexibility is to be appreciated as the new policy is developed it also indicates that there is little confidence in concluding this soon. As a farmer, it creates many dilemmas in making business decisions not knowing what policy will be in place and at what time.”

The request to consider a date of 2027 is not unreasonable, given that we have no indication of what the route map will look like after 2027. Despite our asking the minister, previous to this session, no clear reason has been given as to why the 2027 date could not be adopted.

I am sure that, had that been the case, the instrument would have passed without debate, and it would have sent the message to the industry that there was a desire to keep the pace up and deliver the necessary change that is needed by the industry. I am disappointed, therefore, that there seems to be, as Rachael Hamilton has said, a degree of intransigence over something that really should not cause any problems.

Minister, would you like to respond?

In your experience, how often has the fish health inspectorate been on site when dead fish have been removed from a pen?

I just caution everyone that I think that we are revisiting statements that we have already heard. If we could try to consider whether there is any new information that we need, that would be helpful. I appreciate where you are going, Ms Roddick, but we are getting the same responses.

I will bring in Ralph Bickerdike.

I will bring in Kimberley McKinnell and Constance Pattillo briefly on the same topic.

Just before we move on from the topic, which is focused on the media reports, I have a question. In its letter to the committee, the fish health inspectorate told us that the site was stocked with salmon with an average weight of 2.6kg. It has been suggested that, on the day that the video footage was taken, 1,082kg of biomass was removed from the whole site. From what you have said, we are talking about 250 fish, so we can work out that about 650kg of fish was taken from one pen. There is a suggestion that the video footage showed that more than 250 fish were in the nets.

I am not an expert—I am not very good at guessing how many fish are in a net—but I am looking for absolute clarity. You are suggesting that about 650kg of fish, or 250 individual fish, were taken out of the pen that we are focused on in the morning of our visit, which would suggest that another 750kg were taken out of another pen. Is that correct?

Could we have a question?

On average, would the figure of 250 for that site be exceptionally high or unusually low?