The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-17895, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask Jamie Hepburn to move the motion on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [draft] be approved.
17:06
I acknowledge that we all share a common goal: to manage our marine environment in a way that is responsible, non-polluting and forward looking. The aquaculture sector is an important part of Scotland’s economy, particularly in rural and coastal communities, and I support its development—but only when that is evidence led and environmentally sound.
I have serious reservations about approving this SSI today. Although I understand that the intention behind it is to clarify consenting powers, we cannot ignore its wider implications. This is a significant geographical and regulatory shift that risks getting ahead of the science and the processes that we need to support it, and it raises more questions than answers.
The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee was clear that any relocation of farms to more exposed or offshore locations must be based on a full understanding of environmental, animal welfare and social impacts. Concerns were raised about stronger tidal conditions, colder waters and more extreme weather, all of which could harm fish welfare and increase the risk of escapes. The committee called on the Scottish Government to commission new research and consider the development of dedicated research pens before taking such a step. I believe that the SSI moves ahead of any of the evidence on that. That is why I called for a pause to allow proper research, strategic planning and safeguards to catch up before further expansion proceeds.
The Scottish Conservatives, too, will be voting against the SSI. Does Ariane Burgess agree that these regulatory changes are premature and that we need to see the evidence first—as, I think, she hinted—so as not to replicate the inshore industry’s issues offshore? As the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation set out in its evidence to the committee, there has been no investigation into what impact extending the boundaries will have on wild fish stocks and on migratory salmon.
I agree with Jamie Halcro Johnston on the issues that he has raised.
The welfare of farm fish in offshore conditions is still largely unknown. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others have highlighted, we do not yet understand how strong currents, wave heights or offshore husbandry practices affect fish health. That is not a minor detail; it goes to the heart of responsible aquaculture.
We also face a clear gap in regulatory oversight. Licences under the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s controlled activities regulations currently do not extend beyond 3 miles, which means that environmental monitoring of discharges and pollution risks falling through the cracks. That is not acceptable in relation to the marine environment, and it is not acceptable to communities that are being asked to trust the process.
Local authorities, too, are being asked to carry responsibilities that they are not yet resourced or equipped to deliver. Planning for offshore sites that are more complex, more technical and more interconnected with national priorities should not fall solely to overstretched councils. Even industry experts have acknowledged that that is a broader capacity issue. All of this comes in the same week as the United Nations ocean conference in Nice and the release of the film “Ocean”, which reminds us of the global urgency to work with—not against—our seas.
I am not arguing against offshore aquaculture in principle; I am calling for a more joined-up, evidence-based and strategic approach that brings national oversight, robust science and proper resourcing together.
17:11
Marine planning zones define the boundaries of designated planning authorities’ responsibilities for planning controls of marine fish and shellfish farms in Scottish waters. The purpose of the order is to update existing marine planning zone boundaries to deliver on principles that were already established in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
In 2007, the definition of “development” in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 was amended to include fish and shellfish farming out to 12 nautical miles, meaning that any proposed marine fish or shellfish farm that is located between 0 and 12 nautical miles requires planning permission from a designated local planning authority. However, the Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Order 2007 limited marine planning zone boundaries out to 3 nautical miles, primarily as a result of the extent of the powers that were used at the time to designate marine planning zones. In practice, that has resulted in a legislative gap, as there is no designated planning authority to which a developer may submit an application for a farm that is located between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast.
In recent years, there has been increasing interest from aquaculture businesses to move further from the coast into more dynamic regions of the marine environment, with developments in technology making farms in those regions feasible. Indeed, they have already allowed businesses to locate farms outside sheltered lochs in more exposed locations.
It is important to understand that my colleagues and I believe that we need to push some fish farms further offshore to reduce their impact, but does the cabinet secretary appreciate that we want the industry to learn not from mistakes but from good practice? Putting the SSI in place is effectively putting the cart before the horse, and the Government runs the risk of making the same mistakes offshore as it did inshore.
I do not quite understand the member’s point. If I may focus on the SSI, we are trying to close a gap in legislation, which I think is the perfectly right thing to do.
As I said, in recent years there has been increasing interest from aquaculture businesses to move further from the coast. The intention behind the order is therefore to create a consistent approach to the assessment of planning applications of any proposed development within the 0 to 12 nautical mile zone in Scotland by extending marine planning zone boundaries out to 12 nautical miles.
The provision supports the Scottish Government’s commitment to clarify the consenting process for aquaculture development between 3 and 12 nautical miles, as set out in our programme for government. I am confident that the enactment of the provision will provide certainty to businesses and stimulate investment in Scotland, while offering reassurance to other stakeholders that the planning process for aquaculture is consistent and robust.
The next item of business is consideration of six Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-17896 and S6M-17897, on approval of SSIs; S6M-17898, on approval of a laid document; and S6M-17899, S6M-17900 and S6M-17901, on designation of lead committees.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Restitution Fund (Scotland) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: Statement of Complaints Handling Principles (SPSO 2025/01) be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 1.
That the Parliament agrees that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
That the Parliament agrees that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.—[Jamie Hepburn]
The question on the motions will be put at decision time.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Decision Time