Official Report 870KB pdf
Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [Draft]
Welcome back. Our second item of business is an evidence session on the draft Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025. We are very pleased to be joined by a panel of five stakeholders to discuss the instrument.
We have Sean Black, senior scientific and policy officer for aquaculture, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive, Scottish Fishermen’s Federation; Mike Spain, director of aquaculture, Crown Estate Scotland; Dr Iain Berrill, head of technical, Salmon Scotland; and—joining us remotely—Professor Paul Tett, reader in coastal ecosystems, Scottish Association for Marine Science. I thank you all for being here.
We had invited other stakeholders, but, unfortunately, they are unable to attend. It is disappointing that we do not have any representatives from our local authorities, because one of the major concerns is about their capacity to deal with this new legislation. However, we will carry on, and I hope that we will get some information from them before we have to make a decision on the instrument, in a couple of weeks.
We have allocated around an hour for the session, and we have a few questions to get through. Once again, I ask everybody to be as concise as possible with their questions and answers. I remind everyone that you do not need to operate your microphones—that will be done for you.
I will open with a very broad question, which I hope will set the scene. What are the possible risks and benefits of locating fish and shellfish farms beyond 3 nautical miles, and is the current evidence base and regulatory regime good enough to enable assessment of those risks and benefits of siting farms beyond 3 nautical miles before allowing developments to go ahead? Who would like to kick off?
The important point to start with is that the legislation already permits salmon farms to develop in those regions, so this is a discussion about who the appropriate authority should be.
In relation to the proposed change and who should be the appropriate authority, we think that it should be local authorities. They are currently doing this job out to 3 nautical miles. They have the expertise and local decision making is at the heart of what they do. Overall, they are best placed to carry out the role, and they have a framework through which to do it, which is a benefit.
The challenge for salmon farming is that we are slowly developing so that we can move into more exposed locations, which one might assume would be further offshore. At the moment, all of our farms are within 3 nautical miles. For us, the siting of farms is about identifying the right location and the right conditions for them. Some of those conditions might well exist between 3 and 12 nautical miles, so the benefits are that we open up the zones and we can move to farm in the best locations for our fish, the environment and wider stakeholders.
You said that local authorities are best placed to deal with the issue. Do they have the expertise and the capacity to make informed judgments about the appropriateness of fish farms beyond 3 nautical miles?
I believe that they do. On the question of their expertise, they have a framework that allows them to understand the pressures, to bring people together to make the decision and to bring in stakeholders who might support a planning proposal or might have concerns about it. The framework allows for that stakeholder engagement.
It is not necessarily a step change; we should think of it as more of an incremental change. The local authorities will be learning as we move further into more and more exposed locations. In that respect, they do have expertise.
In relation to their capacity, a lot of us have concerns about the resources of local authorities. Where that sits within the discussion is a difficult one for me. I feel that there is a discussion to be had around the principles of the proposed change and identifying the right body to be the competent authority. That competent authority should be properly resourced. Regardless of whether this measure comes into play, resourcing is already a challenge.
Good morning. Like the other major food producers from the sea, the fishing industry has some views on the matter. It was disappointing that the Scottish Government did not draw its consultation directly to our attention. Fortunately, we spotted it ourselves, but it was disappointing that we were not on the list of organisations that the Government contacted directly.
We have a number of reservations about and objections to what is set out in the instrument, as you will have seen from our consultation response. As committee members will be aware, we are primarily concerned about the increasing spatial constraints on our waters, as so much of the sea bed becomes exclusively leased for other activities, such as aquaculture or offshore wind. One of our concerns is that the cumulative impact of that is squeezing our industry into less and less space over time.
We also have concerns about the potential safety risks that those new developments will pose to people in our industry if and when they become a feature in Scottish waters. I understand that the developments will be very large, and, because they will be in deeper waters that are further offshore, they will need extensive and elaborate mooring systems so that they stay where they are put. Anything that is subsurface creates a snagging hazard for the fishing industry, and anything that is above the surface creates an area that we cannot go into.
Our sectors already have challenges, such as when fish farm site equipment goes beyond site boundaries and floats free. Sometimes, smaller inshore vessels become entangled with fish farm debris, which is a safety hazard for our industry.
Over time, we need to understand more about the new systems—indeed, we understand that the structures will look very different from conventional fish farms. What technical assurances will given about their robustness and ability to withstand conditions further offshore?
We have also raised concerns about our not yet knowing what will be the environmental impacts of moving the industry further offshore. We have concerns not just with fish farming but with other structures in the sea, such as wind turbines. Do they present a potential network to allow invasive non-native species to come into our waters?
Iain Berrill touched on local authority resource issues, which is a concern that many of us probably share. Local input and decision making on those issues is important. However, the issue is not just whether local authorities, which are under many pressures, are adequately resourced to get more involved, but whether assessments might become more complex if such sites move further offshore.
Good morning, committee. We are primarily looking at the welfare of the farmed fish. When it comes to the benefits and risks, we are focused on the fish.
Our questions are about the evidence base. As Iain Berrill highlighted, no farms in Scotland are located beyond 3 nautical miles, and very few are around the world. The evidence base on the impact of, for example, current speed and wave height on farmed fish is unknown. We want to see either a commitment from the Government, industry and other research bodies to focus research on farmed fish welfare or more work in other countries on that front.
What are the positive impacts of moving the farms offshore? Is there less of an impact on sea lice, plankton and jellyfish? What are the negatives? How do maximum current speeds impact on the swimming ability of farmed fish? There is some evidence about the maximum current speed that fish, particularly salmon, are able to swim in. We want to ensure that any farms are not overly stressing the fish, because that has a negative impact on their welfare.
There are other aspects, too, and we are seeking assurance as to what farms will do. If the structures are offshore and, as Elspeth Macdonald said, they are very large, how will farmers perform their standard husbandry practices? How will they ensure that the fish are in good health? That can probably be done in a number of ways, but we want assurances about what that looks like. How will they perform welfare outcome assessments and undertake a lice count? At the moment, there are a lot of unknowns in this area.
We do not have an opinion on the local authority issue—it is not within our remit to talk about that.
11:45
Good morning. It is important to note that Crown Estate Scotland approaches the issue not as a regulator but in our role as manager of the sea bed for the benefit of Scotland as a whole. As the lessor of areas of the sea bed, we want to ensure that a robust and consistent regulatory framework is in place to support responsible and sustainable development, and we see that as being in line with the Scottish Government’s objectives with regard to the growth of the aquaculture industry more broadly.
We are not qualified to speak on the scientific or local authority issues, but I should say that part of my remit as director of aquaculture and marine ecosystem services is to have an understanding of what ecosystem services might derive from the proposed approach. Given that shellfish were mentioned, it might be useful to highlight an offshore mussel farm that sits beyond 3 nautical miles off the south coast of England—off Devon, I think—where the deployment of spat naturally from that farmed site has led to the regeneration of the native mussel beds that had previously existed in the English Channel and that had depopulated. There might, subject to scientific research and confirmation, be benefits from mussel expansion to ecosystem services.
Professor Tett, would you like to comment?
Yes, and thank you for the opportunity to give evidence remotely.
First, I would point out that SAMS’s interest lies especially in the west coast of Scotland, where the area of sea within the 3-nautical-mile limit is already very large. The limit goes from the coastal baseline, or from headland to headland, which effectively includes most of the seas in the Inner Hebrides and around the Outer Hebrides and the Minch. Therefore, the extension to 12 nautical miles will go a bit further beyond that. In any case, if we are talking about the west coast, we are talking about a very large area of sea; indeed, it means that, within Argyll and Bute Council’s remit, there will be more sea than land. That brings to mind my first question: do the local authorities and the statutory consultees on planning have, as other people have suggested, the resources and the expertise to deal with developments in that area?
Secondly, we are dealing with an interconnected body of water. After all, the sea does not stop flowing when it gets to the boundary of Argyll; water flows from the Mull of Kintyre north to Cape Wrath, then up the Minch and around the islands. That brings me to my other point, which is about the need for some strategic planning. Local authorities deal with operational planning in the sea—for example, they give consents for development—but, as far as I can see, there are no strategic plans for fish farming in the sea area other than those implied in the Scottish Government’s locational guidelines.
Again, drawing on comments that other people have made, I think that there is a need for strategic planning for the whole of these sea areas so that we can look at the requirements of all sea users, including the fishing community, the marine renewable energy community and the aquaculture community. In a way, it seems to me that, if we split planning between local authorities, the Scottish Government and other entities, we will not be getting the best kind of planning that is relevant here.
Our suggested approach would be to leave planning consent to local authorities, as proposed, but to consider further implementation of regional marine planning partnerships alongside the idea of a joint partnership for the whole of the west coast of Scotland, whose remit would be to devise a strategic plan for aquaculture and identify areas suitable for offshore aquaculture on the west coast.
That question was certainly a good opener, as the responses have probably touched on every other question that we are about to drill down into. Therefore, please do not make any apologies for reiterating or restating what you have already said in what could be regarded as your opening statements.
We will now move to a question from Mark Ruskell.
Before I move on to my question, convener, I want to get a bit of clarity from Iain Berrill. Does the industry see the instrument as effectively being about the relocation of salmon farms from inshore to a more high-energy environment offshore? Alternatively, is it about expansion—retaining existing salmon farms but then expanding into the offshore environment?
As I have said, we want to locate farms where it is most appropriate to do so, and some of those locations might be further offshore. In cases where we believe that farms in sheltered environments are not better placed, that would result in a relocation. The discussion about relocation is complicated, because the consenting system is difficult. As an industry, we want to expand, but we want to do so with the right farms in the right locations. That is key for me.
If we look at the matter in the round, the concerns that have been raised today are legitimate. For me, the issue is that we have primary and secondary legislation that already defines that the planning of aquaculture facilities—salmon farms and shellfish farms—can occur out to 12 nautical miles. What we do not have is a clear, competent authority to make that decision or a framework for how those issues are brought together and appropriately discussed for individual planning applications. My understanding is that any developer would need to put in an application to Scottish ministers, for them to decide on, but without their having a clear framework in which to do so.
A planning framework would allow stakeholders, such as those around this table and others, to bring together those points, and it would provide a clear mechanism for discussing them in relation to individual applications and for those applications to be given consent, or not, on their merits or otherwise.
We will probably come back to that in future questions.
Sean Black, you touched on what appears to be a lack of evidence of the animal welfare implications. I assume that the RSPCA is not in a position right now to update its salmon farming certification in order to allow the certification of salmon farms that are located in an offshore environment, because you do not have that data and you therefore cannot set the standards. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. We would consider offshore farming to be a novel technology, which means that no standards exist within our current welfare standards for either Atlantic salmon or rainbow trout, so—
Does that mean that, if those salmon farms were involved in production, we could not buy that fish with RSPCA accreditation from Marks and Spencer or anywhere else?
Yes—that would not happen automatically. There could be considerations, and we would want to work with the farmer and to look at some research, but that salmon would not automatically be able to go on sale under our scheme, RSPCA Assured, if that makes sense.
Okay. Let us turn to the impacts on animal welfare. I am interested in several different areas. First, cleaner fish—lumpfish and wrasse—have not evolved in a high-energy offshore environment. I am interested in the evidence and the standards in that regard.
Secondly, I am also interested in what you said about salmon. What could be the implications of rearing salmon in that high-energy environment over a long period? What do you know about the welfare implications of that? What aspects have already been studied?
There are a couple of studies that look more broadly at Atlantic salmon in that setting—for example, at their maximum swim speed and what current speed they can hold a swimming pattern in. I think that they can hold a steady swim at a current speed of around 0.6m per second. If the current is going to be above that all the time, the fish will become very stressed; I think that we would all agree that that is suboptimal. If the current speed is below that, they are not stressed out all the time, and they can drop below that.
Those studies are done in a wider setting—we can also get current speeds in inshore locations such as the Pentland firth, so I do not think that that applies specifically to offshore, but it is a consideration.
There is a good paper from the Institute of Marine Research in Norway that examines the welfare impacts on offshore fish farms, but it is more about the research that is already available. That paper is from 2023, so the research would have been done before then.
There are still a lot of unknowns. What happens with wave heights. Are there fewer sea lice? What is the impact of a larger current? Is the oxygen at a higher level all the time? From our point of view, there is not enough research, and we want to see more, as well as a cross-collaboration between different countries, for Scotland to be able to—
What about cleaner fish?
We suggest that cleaner fish should not be used in offshore farms. As you suggested, they are used to much more inshore locations. Many farms in the inshore environment—within the 3 nautical miles—decide not to use cleaner fish because the areas are too tidal. In particular, lumpfish are not suitable for those locations, so they would not be suitable in high-energy offshore farms, even with the use of hides and refuges.
From the industry perspective, how easy will it be to monitor fish health in what is, in effect, an offshore environment? I am thinking about adverse weather conditions.
The producers who are currently in Scotland are looking at incremental changes and development in different environments. To my knowledge, at the moment, companies have no direct plans to move immediately into that location. We need to learn and develop expertise and understanding.
We already have camera-based systems on our farms that allow remote monitoring of health and welfare. Our fish are monitored effectively on cameras and can be monitored at any time. Those systems can be operated remotely if need be, but they also be operated when people are on the farms. Those are the farms that are in existence now. A lot of companies are developing remote feeding systems that can be managed from a central location on a shore base, in an office in a city or anywhere.
That remote work is already in place, but it does not get us away from the fact that having individuals on a farm is very important for monitoring the fish. We are already moving into that area where we understand—and are increasingly monitoring—our fish and their health and welfare on a day-to-day basis.
You just said that you are not ready to move into the offshore environment.
I am saying that the producers who are here at the moment are making incremental changes.
In the inshore environment.
I am talking about more flushed or exposed locations that are further away from the coast.
There are companies that have facilities in other countries—Norway, specifically—and are in those locations at the moment. They have some links to our companies, but those that are operating here at the moment are doing that work in an incremental manner.
That leads us on nicely to a question from Elena Whitham.
My original question was around the resourcing of local authorities to undertake that work. It was interesting to listen to Professor Tett outlining the issue around the wider strategic planning and how that could work in practice in regional partnerships.
I do not want to stray into other members’ lines of questioning, but I am interested to understand what Elspeth Macdonald thinks about that. Obviously, spatial conflict would arise, but it is about the complexity of how a local authority would undertake the assessment of what could operate beyond the 3-nautical-mile mark. How would that impact on your organisation and members?
Clearly, a lot of policy work around planning in our seas is going on at the moment. A new national marine plan is being developed, and a lot of work is going on there. That work recognises that, whether it is business sectors, conservation interests or climate reasons, a lot of different activities and policies are impacting on our marine environment, and the existing national marine plan needs to be updated to accommodate that impact. That work is on-going. Obviously, that will be a national marine plan for Scotland, but I expect a lot of sectoral elements to sit underneath that.
12:00On how the particular issue that we are talking about today will operate, thought needs to be given to how it will fit with the wider strategic piece about how you connect the local issues with the bigger part of it. It also touches slightly on the question that Mark Ruskell asked Iain Berrill a moment ago about whether it is relocation or expansion. I am also keen to understand a bit more about that. We have a question in our industry about the size at which we might be able to move fish further offshore. Do we still need sites in inshore waters to rear them to a particular size before they are big enough or strong enough to move out into more high-energy areas? We are yet to understand all those things. Is it about more sites or replacement sites?
I also appreciate what Iain Berrill said about the change being incremental. The industry here has not worked out how to do this. There is a lot that we are talking about here today that is very specific to the planning zones, but it needs to be seen very much in the context of what the national marine plan will set out, because that should be what sets out the framework for our future marine planning.
I am not personally close to the specific activities of the local authorities in relation to their role in consenting or planning consents for aquaculture. However, when we take a system in inshore waters that is probably quite well understood by the local authorities that are involved with it and we move it further offshore, where the marine environment is different, the situation becomes more complex. Professor Tett has spoken about the fact that there are no neat boundaries in the sea. There is a question about not just whether local authorities have the resources to undertake the task, but whether they have the expertise to do it and whether they are plugged into the wider national marine planning framework, which should be the overarching framework for all of this.
The second point that I was going to come back to is about expertise. The issue is not just about capacity in terms of resourcing but about the individuals who undertake work in closer-to-shore activity in the marine space, especially those who work for local authorities. We are thinking about high-energy waters and trying to understand how a site could work in that space. Is there the expertise for that?
It sounds a little bit as though I am an avid advocate of local authorities, but I want to be clear that they are already dealing with a process and a framework that involves multiple layers of understanding around regional development plans, local development plans and the national plan. Although I do not disagree that there is perhaps a requirement for specific plans at different scales, and they are in development—some of them are further behind, which is for others to comment on—the structure and framework of the planning system means that, when they are making decisions and sometimes making recommendations to local committees, planners have to have due regard to those regional, national and local development plans and structures. They are already set up for that.
Putting the resource issue to one side, local authorities already have the expertise and the framework to do this, so they are the right people to continue that work. Although this is very much about a change from 3 to 12 nautical miles, we must not necessarily see it in that way—we must see it as a continuum of going further off the shore. It just means that local authorities might encounter different plans that require consideration within the framework that they are already under.
As a former chair of a council planning committee, I understand how the system works, although I did not have marine in my planning authority. I can think about it in terms of being on a planning committee during the proliferation of wind energy and understanding that from its beginnings and as it expanded rapidly, with the planning committee members and officials having to increase their knowledge base rapidly. It is important to look at it in that respect, because the local authorities are not coming from a standing start. They have knowledge, but how do we ensure that, if this goes forward, they have knowledge beyond their current capacity as well as expertise that they can draw on to make the best decision in a very busy space? I guess that was what I was trying to get at.
I apologise if I am speaking out of turn—I want to temper expectations that, once it has been clarified, all of a sudden, development kicks off in huge swathes of the sea. It is an incremental process of learning how we can do it, learning about the environmental benefits and potential impacts and learning how we will farm our fish in those locations. It is important to have the competence and authority so that you can be involved in that journey, which we are already on, as we move into more flushed locations further from the shore. It is not about a step-wise change; it is about having clear legislation and a clear consenting system, so that everybody knows whose responsibility everything is when we get to the point of development. However, getting to that point will not happen next week. We need to work towards it.
I have a quick supplementary question for Elspeth Macdonald. We hear a lot about spatial competition around the coast of Scotland. Can you furnish us with any good examples of planning and development in areas that have worked really well that we can learn from in national, local and regional planning?
There are some good localised examples. Generally, it helps when people speak to the fishing industry earlier rather than later. For aquaculture, seaweed farming or offshore wind sites, for example, the earlier we can start discussions about where we put a site that has the least impact on you while it still meets our objectives, the better we are able to find accommodations around it.
Such examples tend to be the minority of cases. It tends to be that fishing has to accommodate other users of the sea. An argument that is sometimes made to us about offshore wind development is that offshore wind could be co-located with aquaculture—that fish or shellfish could be grown alongside it and that you could double up the use of spaces so that two activities can happen in one place, rather than fishing being excluded from some areas. I do not know how practical that is; there would be all sorts of other constraints to consider. However, my sense is that there are good examples, albeit localised, but that they tend to be in the minority.
We are in discussions with a fish farm developer on the west coast who wants to develop a site that is in an important prawn fishing ground. We are having good and fruitful discussions about how to do that in a way that allows both industries to continue to operate. We are not there yet, but the discussions continue. The key is early engagement and a recognition and respect for both industries in trying to find a way through it.
Elspeth, you have touched on the fact that your sector has to work within the wider regulatory framework. How do the proposals align with the wider considerations?
When I read the business regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the draft Scottish statutory instrument, it was a little frustrating not to see any figures. There were a lot of statements in the BRIA, but there was not a lot of evidence. A lot of assumptions were made, one of which was that they did not foresee that the content of the SSI would put costs on businesses.
It feels a bit like I am dancing on the head of a pin, but, although Iain Berrill is correct in saying that the SSI is about who does it, I think that there is a bigger issue about whether it is the right thing to do. I would contend that expanding aquaculture from the 3-nautical-mile limit to the 12 nautical mile zone will potentially have a financial impact on our businesses. It is more that the regulatory change will have a knock-on impact on our industry than there will be a direct impact from the regulation itself.
Does the industry need a wider view to be taken in marine planning? Presumably, marine planning could be very helpful for fisheries if it is done in the right way and with a broader view rather than in a way that, as you say, squeezes fisheries.
The point that you make about doing it the right way is key, because we would contend that the existing national marine plan is quite a good plan; it is just that it has not been well implemented. We need to be careful not to spend a huge amount of time developing a lovely new national marine plan for Scotland that says all the right things, sounds marvellous and will deliver great solutions for everyone if it then does not do that or is not equipped to do that, whether that is because of the underlying infrastructure or because it simply is not implemented well. Things on paper might be fine, but it is about how they translate into the real world. That is the proof of the pudding, if you like.
That is helpful.
I want to comment on resourcing. To my mind, the resource issue applies not only to local authorities but to their statutory consultees—namely, the marine directorate, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and so on—who have to advise local authorities on potential environmental impacts and related issues. My view is that, at the moment, those consultees probably do not have the necessary resources to properly support local authorities in relation to offshore sites.
Before we move on to the next question, I note that, as part of its work on the salmon farming inquiry, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government commission research into the potential risks and benefits of moving fish farms further from the coast to more exposed waters. The Government did not respond favourably to that and, in effect, said that it was up to the Crown Estate, local authorities, SEPA, the marine directorate and other statutory consultees to do it. It agreed that there was an opportunity to use innovation sites to look at the impact, but it said that that would not be delivered until after a successor for the sustainable agriculture innovation centre funding had been set out. So, there might be an answer to some of the questions there.
Elspeth Macdonald has pretty much answered this, but does anyone else have thoughts on the impact of the changes on other marine users?
I completely understand the issue of marine spatial squeeze, because it affects our members as much as it affects anybody else. It comes down to the question of who makes the decision about any activity in any location, whether that decision is about an offshore renewable development, a salmon farm or aquaculture facility, or fishers being able to operate in an area.
We do not have a clear system in which, ultimately, one person or body makes the decision. As I said, we have regional plans, a national plan, an on-going consultation process and planning guidance, but—I keep coming back to the same point—we need somebody or an organisation to be the point at which all that information is brought together and considered in a legitimate way, along with the views of local communities, stakeholders such as Elspeth Macdonald and her members, and other organisations that are concerned, such as offshore energy companies. We need to enable everyone to come together at that one point to look at what the environmental pressures and the other business pressures are at that location so that a decision can be made.
In my view, the discussion that is being had here, and the issue that the committee has been asked to comment on, is about which organisation or body should perform that role. Again, my view is that local authorities are well placed to do that, because they have the expertise, which is what it comes down to. However, to be frank, spatial squeeze is a problem for every marine user.
12:15
Elspeth, do you want to come in on that?
I reiterate that it increasingly feels as though fishing gets the crumbs that are left that nobody else wants when it comes to spatial needs. There is massive ambition for offshore renewable energy. That is the case not only in relation to offshore wind—there is innovation, development and ambition in relation to tidal and wave energy, which might be more in inshore waters.
It is important to remember that waters closer to shore tend to be where our inshore fishing fleet operates, and it is not easy for them to simply go somewhere else. The bigger vessels can go further offshore, because they are able to work in harsher conditions and have a bigger range. However, it is important to remember that our inshore fleets that work in coastal waters face particular challenges and that it is not easy for them to simply go somewhere else.
I go back to my point that the spatial constraints are part of our concerns but that we also have significant safety concerns about how the fishing industry can safely co-exist with such developments as they move further offshore. We already have significant safety issues with our co-existence in inshore waters.
What processes take place to consult the fishing industry about all the developments, not just those in aquaculture? I ask that because it feels as though you will be squeezed and squeezed, especially in the case of some of the bigger offshore energy projects. I do not know whether you can work in between those, but I would not have thought so. Are you consulted? Are changes made to accommodate your needs?
That is a good question, and it is almost linked to what Professor Tett said a moment ago about resources, not only in local authorities but in the other bodies that are consulted on such matters. We are consulted on all manner of marine licensing applications, and it is important that we are consulted, because we have to understand whether there will be an impact and how we can make representations on that. However, that eats up an enormous amount of our resources. The amount of work that our organisation has to do now, particularly around offshore wind consenting, in an effort to protect our industry’s interest is huge. In the time that I have been in this role, we have had to massively expand the resource that we invest in that.
On aquaculture, we see a slightly patchy picture. Some local authorities are better than others at bringing us into the process early. However, when things are at the marine licence stage with the marine directorate licensing team, we are consulted. We tend to find that we make a lot of representations but that those do not result in much change—that is the usual position.
It goes back to my point that the earlier we are engaged, the better. The sooner a fish farm company or an offshore wind company, for example, that is thinking about a development somewhere comes to talk to local fishermen but also to us as the federation that represents wider interests, the better, because that is an opportunity for us to prevent problems from arising in the first place. That approach tends to be much more fruitful than our trying to effect change during the formal stages of the process. However, it is a big resource requirement on us, from the point of view of capacity and expertise.
My substantive question is about statutory impact assessments. Do any of you have concerns about how such assessments might, or might not, apply to aquaculture developments beyond the 3-nautical-mile limit?
I am not aware of any significant concerns about that, if I am honest. Can you clarify exactly what you are referring to when you say “statutory impact assessments”?
We have heard some concerns that assessments would apply beyond the 3-nautical-mile limit, while other feedback has suggested that they would not. There seems to be a bit of dubiety in that respect.
Okay—I see what you are saying. There should always be an appropriate impact assessment. Our members want to put the farms in the best locations—that is, locations where conflict can be avoided, as much as possible. Of course, that is not always possible, which is why I said “as much as possible”.
I agree that early engagement is really important, and appropriate full assessments should be undertaken, whether we are talking about a zone up to 3 nautical miles or further offshore. I would always argue that we want to go through the right process and ensure that it is thorough and that, if certain impact assessments are required to be undertaken, it is important that they be carried out.
Before we move on, I note that the Government’s response was to decide
“that a Strategic Environmental Assessment was not required”,
nor was “a Habitats Regulations Assessment”. Do you have concerns about that?
That was in relation to the consultation on the SSI. It goes back to my metaphor about dancing on the head of a pin. I think—if my recollection is correct—that the Government said that these things would be done as and when an application came forward. Basically, it had scoped them out of doing them as part of the exercise of bringing forward this legislation. I thought that that was a bit strange, because I felt that there should have been some attempt to have such assessments.
When I was rereading some of the papers this morning, I was a little confused about the reference to an island communities impact assessment, because that made it sound as though there had been a bit of one but not a full one. Bearing in mind that a great deal of Scottish aquaculture is set around islands, I would have thought—given that we are looking at the impact on island local authorities—that that point would have been relevant.
If my recollection is correct, the Government said simply, “There will have to be an SEA and an HRA as and when somebody comes forward with an actual proposal,” but, in the case of this specific instrument and the consultation on it, it did not feel that that was necessary. I would have thought that it would have been helpful to have made some sort of attempt at an SEA—a strategic environmental assessment—and an island communities impact assessment.
That would contradict what Professor Tett has suggested with regard to the flow of waters and the cumulative impact. If that sort of thing is not done on a far bigger scale, local authorities will be making a determination on individual sites instead of looking at the potential overall impact.
Rhoda, do you want to come back in?
It seems to me that it is not altogether clear what regulation with regard to impact assessments would be required. The information that we have is that strategic environmental assessments will not be required, but wider environmental impacts could be considered. It is just not very clear that, given the 3-nautical-mile limit, the legislation that applies further inshore does not apply that far out.
Any development will always need an environmental impact assessment—that is clear—and that impact assessment will develop and change. It is location specific, but it must consider the wider impacts, too. In other words, how will a development, be it a farm or, for that matter, anything else, impact on its environment, both at local level and further away?
That approach would stand; that is the planning system that we have at the moment, and the planners would require that. There has been some question about how the impact assessment might change as we move further off into the 3-to-12-mile zone, but I go back to my previous point about looking at this in an incremental way. That impact assessment has to be undertaken now to look at what is happening in that local environment and more widely; if we move the farm, the impact assessment has to be adjusted accordingly.
There will always be an appropriate level of environmental impact assessment. Whether the statutory instrument requires certain layers of assessment is perhaps more a question for the Scottish Government or the officials to take a view on, but any applications that come forward will always go through that detailed process. Arguably, it is one of the most detailed aspects of making an application at the moment.
Okay.
I appreciate that there is competition between private interests for the use of the seas, but the public interest in the room really lies with Mike Spain. After all, the Crown Estate could be leasing the sea bed.
Therefore, Mike, I am interested in hearing your views on the regulatory frameworks that are being established here. As I understand it, SEPA’s controlled activities regulations licensing will not apply when it comes to waste discharges, lice treatments, medicines and so on. Those things might or might not be necessary, but given that you will be leasing the sea bed in the public interest, can you tell us how that public interest is reflected in a regulatory framework that does not replicate what we have inshore, where there are some quite strict environmental limits that are monitored by a public agency?
You have been a little bit quiet this morning, so I would like to hear what the public interest says about what is before us and how you are managing private interests to ensure that the public interest in the environment is being protected.
Obviously, the regulatory framework is set by someone other than ourselves. As we are not a regulator, we have to take a step away from the regulations and how they are applied.
However, we need to ensure that, before anyone enters into a lease, they have fulfilled all the obligations and requirements of the regulatory framework that is set up. We hope that, with the development of the instrument and any other future legislation, a robust, transparent and effective set of regulations is put in place by those who are authorised to do so, to ensure that when we consider issuing a lease, all those requirements have been met in full. If they have not been met, no lease will be issued.
Moreover, it is important that, as we consider the impact of this change, we consider, too, the number of potential sites or applications that might come our way and on what timescale. I think that, as Iain Berrill has said, this represents a transition—that is certainly the feedback that we are getting. It is not going to be the equivalent of a gold rush, with people saying, “Let’s expand massively all at once.” There has to be a transition and an understanding of what is going on.
That is where our colleagues in marine science have an important advisory role to play. In developing the regulatory framework—which, as I have said, lies with others—those involved will need to rely heavily on colleagues in the marine directorate science branch and the likes of the Scottish Association for Marine Science, which is part of the University of the Highlands and Islands aquaculture hub, and, I would imagine, the institute of aquaculture at the University of Stirling. A lot of science needs to go into making sure that the regulations are robust enough to support a responsible, sustainable move. Only if those things are in place will we offer a lease, which will bring benefits back to the people of Scotland.
In that case, would you say that, when it comes to granting a lease, the statutory instrument before us sets out a robust regulatory framework, or do you think that there is still some way to go before you can confidently start issuing leases, knowing that the robustness is there with this regulation, as you would expect it to be with all the other leases that you issue for wind farms, inshore salmon farming sites, kelp farming and everything else?
12:30
I must confess that I have not had time to read this in detail, because I got a phone call inviting me to attend the meeting while I was on holiday last week. I have come back from holiday and straight into the meeting, so I apologise if I am not as fully prepared as I might like to be.
In that case, you might need to get back to us.
I am more than willing to get back to you on that detail.
As part of the salmon inquiry, we were informed about the pilots of the single-case flow approach, which co-ordinated SEPA’s CAR licensing process, along with local authorities. That was on-going in Shetland and the Highlands. The independent valuation was supposed to be published in April, but that has not been done yet, as far as I am aware.
On SEPA’s responsibility, the Scottish Government says:
“Work is underway to consider how best to implement assessment and regulation of fish farm discharges between 3-12 nautical miles”.
Do we have the cart before the horse? Are we looking to approve an SSI before the work has been done to allow those applications to navigate that process successfully?
That is not the case. Notwithstanding the gap that we are discussing today, we have consenting bodies that already have responsibility out to 12 nautical miles and further afield. It varies and, in the area of environment, that is the one space where it varies. We have a complex consenting system. That point was picked up in the inquiry that the committee undertook, in a number of strands of Professor Griggs’s work and so on. In effect, five permits, consents and leases are required. Although they speak to one another to a degree, what is material for the environmental licence is very much that you need an environmental licence and all these other things.
From that perspective, this is a slightly separate discussion to that about who should be the authority for planning, because we look at planning in its own right and then we look at the environment. On the environment, at the moment, responsibility for the 3 to 12 nautical miles zone would fall to a marine licence. SEPA would be a statutory consultee to that marine licence, and I have every confidence that the officials who would be required to undertake that assessment through a marine licence would have full dialogue with SEPA, which would therefore be working hand in hand with the team assessing that through the marine licence.
Therefore, although I appreciate that SEPA does not have responsibility out to 12 nautical miles, that does not mean that its views and its position would not be integral to the decision-making process, and it would therefore, de facto, be making the decision for the marine directorate under a marine licence.
I will touch on your question, convener, and on Mr Ruskell’s.
A moment ago, Mr Spain said that this is not likely to be a gold rush, and that made me think of what I tend to call the wind rush, which is the ambition for offshore wind and the number of sites that have been leased for offshore wind development in Scottish waters far exceeding the Scottish Government’s sectoral marine plan for wind. Indeed, there was no plan at all for the innovation and targeted oil and gas sites. They are now playing catch-up with planning, and we expect to see a consultation on an updated sectoral marine plan at the end of this month. The cart definitely came before the horse in that regard.
There is a regulatory gap, because we now have exclusivity agreements for offshore wind developments in significant areas of the sea bed, lots of developers with lots of ambition spending a lot of money and a regulatory system that is having to play catch-up, because it was not designed for the scale of floating offshore wind in particular. It is a novel technology, and there is not really a regulatory system for it.
We do not have a good understanding of the environmental impacts of offshore wind at scale. I am not saying that the expansion of aquaculture into waters further offshore is anything like the same. There is not the same public policy push behind it, but there is a parallel in that we can see that there is ambition for expansion from the industry sector and from the Government, but there are gaps in the regulatory system. It is having to play catch-up, and the plan is, in essence, being retrofitted to what has already been. It is not quite at the lease stage, but rights are certainly being given to developers to do things. The committee might want to dwell on and reflect on that.
Could you summarise any concerns about the proposed boundaries and how they align with the Scottish marine regions that are used for regional marine planning?
As Professor Tett said, it is very difficult to draw lines in the sea. I suspect that he might have more to say on that.
Would you like to comment, Professor Tett?
I believe that there is a fire drill happening at the moment, so Professor Tett’s connection is muted. Would anybody in the committee room like to respond?
We have a range of plans, at different layers, that need to be considered. I take the point that we cannot draw lines, but there has to be a line at some point, at whatever scale. The discussion on the draft Scottish statutory instrument before us is about where those lines are for local authority jurisdictions. I do not necessarily have a view on whether they are in the right place, but we have a framework for decisions on whether there should be development—aquaculture in this case, although it could be other development—and I believe that local authorities should have a decision-making role. They need to understand what their boundary is for that decision making.
I thoroughly take the point that it is very difficult to draw lines in the marine environment, but there have to be some lines for local decision making and regional planning. I will not comment on whether they have been drawn correctly, but I believe that there should be lines to assist the process.
If Professor Tett wishes to come in, I am sure that we can bring him in after the next question.
Do the witnesses have any other concerns that have not already been discussed that they would like to raise now?
We are talking today about an embryonic, next-steps stage in the aquaculture industry, as Iain Berrill has described it, certainly as far as fin fish are concerned. It is important, at the early stages, to also think about the end stages: the decommissioning of such structures, their life cycle, how long they are going to be there for, what commitments the planning system will require for taking things away and where the long-term liability sits for the structures and all the subsurface infrastructure.
From a fishing industry perspective, we would not want to be nearing the end-of-life stage of a development only to find that the company that developed the site had moved on or that the site had been sold or whatever, with a lack of clarity about who was responsible for taking the structure away at the end of its life. It is important not just to think about what might happen now; it should be ensured that whatever regulatory system is in place makes provision for appropriate and safe decommissioning.
Not in relation to that, but in relation to your question, Ms Wishart, there is something that we have not really delved into—although that is right, as it is not a key part of the proposal. There is a challenge around resource in local authorities. That needs to be addressed in a separate forum, and it was raised when the committee discussed and considered salmon farming more generally.
There have been calls from every stakeholder involved in salmon farming to improve the consenting system. For a consenting system to be improved, it needs clarity. For me, the proposed change improves clarity in one aspect, where things are a little bit murky at the moment. It is really important to get that clarity—albeit with all the caveats that we will not rush straight to the area concerned—so that, when we want to move there for legitimate reasons such as fish health or environmental benefits, the structures are in place to allow us to do that.
I want to go back to the point about decommissioning, which will be very important in this context, given that the size and nature of the structures will be significantly different if they are to be able to survive in the environment in question. As the landlord of the sea bed, we very much take the view that it will be a condition of lease that decommissioning is taken into account, and we are investigating with our legal advisers how to implement that most effectively in this environment to ensure that we commission responsibly and adopt the policy, as we do with the oil and gas industry, of leaving no trace wherever possible. Even in our inshore waters, we try to ensure that our tenants remove all obstructions at the end of the lease, and we wish that to continue.
Professor Tett, I think that your fire alarm has ceased. Would you like to comment not just on the Scottish marine regions but on any other issues that have not yet been raised and which you would like to put on the record?
Yes, I want to say two things, the first of which is about cumulative impacts. A normal environmental impact assessment looks at the direct effect of a new development on a site, but if, in the long run, we are envisaging a number of offshore farms, there is a question about the capacity of waters on the west coast of Scotland, particularly in the Minch, to assimilate the dissolved and particulate wastes. The advantage of being offshore is that the wastes are spread over a much larger area, so, individually, they get resolved in low concentrations, but we do not have a firm grasp on the overall capacity of those waters. That will be one of the tasks for regional marine planning.
The second issue, which I do not think has been touched on so far, is from the point of view of communities on the islands and in Argyll in particular. The offshore farms are going to be very large structures, and they will need maintenance, cranes and so on. The question that arises, therefore, relates to the port facilities supporting the structures. There is some scope to have synergies with offshore renewable energy installations, which, again, need large supporting boats. At the moment, though, I do not know whether there are places in Argyll or in the Western Isles that have the port facilities to support those offshore structures and that will need to be taken into account in planning. Again, that might fall within the scope of local authorities, or larger-scale regional planning might be needed.
I want to make two points. First, I reiterate that, as part of this, fish welfare must be front and centre. One reason for moving fish farms into offshore locations relates to fish health and welfare, but it is a bit theoretical, and we would want to see more evidence of the benefits and challenges—we have talked about some of them, such as cleaner fish—and get some of that empirical evidence down on paper. All stakeholders should be working on that together.
It is not my area of expertise, but there is one other issue that has not been mentioned. Our organisation also has a wildlife department. We have talked about spatial competition, but what will be the impact on the wildlife in the offshore locations? The developments could affect other species of cetaceans or birds, and there has been a lot of talk about the effect on offshore wind, too. I am sure that that impact is included in other assessments, but I just want to reiterate the point that there are lots of things to take into account, and we have to ensure that they are all taken into account, regardless of what we want to do at the end of the day. We must ensure that the regulatory environment supports the right decision being made for all stakeholders, including the fish.
As we have no further questions, I thank all of you for joining us today. Your evidence will certainly help the committee in a couple of weeks’ time, when we will have the minister before us and we will consider and dispose of the instrument.
I suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave before we move on to the next item on our agenda.
12:44 Meeting suspended.Disease Control (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2025 (SSI 2025/108)
The next item on our agenda is consideration of a negative instrument. Does any member wish to make any comment on the order?
I have a quick comment in relation to paragraph 4 on page 29 of our briefing papers, which says:
“The SSI includes ... An extension of the definition of ‘premises’ to include those without birds.”
Is that purely for infection control and the prevention of cross-contamination?
I think that that is the case, yes.
That very question had occurred to me, too. I was a bit worried about the SSI’s potential broadness, but my understanding is exactly as you have said. At the moment, the regulations allow such measures only within the avian context, but if the disease moves into mammals, the SSI will give a veterinarian the ability to say, “Actually, we need to close down these premises, because of the risk that it has now moved into X species and we need to prevent it from moving elsewhere.” I now feel secure about what is proposed—I do not think that the provisions would be abused. Indeed, I would be very surprised if that were to be the case.
That is my understanding, too. It is about ensuring that, if a disease moves from one species to another, regulations are in place to allow control. In fact, paragraph 5 sets that out when it talks about a virus “of avian origin”.
As there are no other questions, that concludes the public part of the meeting.
12:47 Meeting continued in private until 13:03.