Official Report 844KB pdf
Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [Draft]
Good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2025 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Before we begin, I ask members to ensure that electronic devices are switched to silent. We have received apologies from Emma Roddick, and I welcome Christine Grahame, who is attending as a substitute member for items 1 and 2.
The first item on the agenda is further consideration of the draft Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025. We took oral evidence on the order in our meeting on 14 May and subsequently wrote to local authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for further information. Their responses are set out in the clerk’s note.
Due to the nature of the business, which is marine fish farming, I declare an interest as the convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare. I think that that is appropriate.
Thank you. I welcome to the meeting Ivan McKee, the Minister for Public Finance, and Joseph Triscott, who is the aquaculture development policy lead in the Scottish Government. I ask Ivan McKee to make an opening statement; we will then ask questions of the policy lead.
Sorry, minister—there is no sound.
That is us unmuted now. Can you hear me?
Yes—that is fine. Go ahead.
Good morning, convener and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear in front of you this morning, and thank you for your understanding in allowing that to happen virtually.
I want to take the opportunity to briefly outline the aim and purpose of this Scottish statutory instrument. The order provides a technical update to existing marine planning zones to deliver on principles that are already established under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In 2007, the definition of “development” in the 1997 act was amended to include fish and shellfish farming out to 12 nautical miles. Any proposed marine fish or shellfish farm located between zero and 12 nautical miles requires planning permission from the relevant local planning authority. However, the Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Order 2007 only designated Scotland’s marine planning zones out to 3 nautical miles, primarily as a result of the extent of the powers used at that time to designate marine planning zones.
In practice, that has resulted in a legislative gap, because there is no designated planning authority to which a developer may submit an application for a farm located between 3 and 12 nautical miles. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the ability of fish farming businesses to move further from the coast into more dynamic high-dispersal regions of the marine environment, with developments in technology making farms in that region feasible. Such technology has already allowed businesses to locate farms outside of sheltered lochs into more exposed locations. That type of development has the potential to reduce environmental interactions and to support fish health and welfare in line with the aims of our vision for sustainable aquaculture. There is also interest from the shellfish farming sector in exploring opportunities to site farms further from the coast, including co-location with other marine developments such as renewable energy installations. The planning process for fish and shellfish farming in the zero to 3 nautical miles space is already well understood by businesses, regulators and other stakeholders.
It is, therefore, the intention of the provision to resolve the gap in the planning regulations by extending the marine planning zones out to 12 nautical miles to ensure a consistent approach to the appropriate assessment of any proposed developments within the zero-to-12 nautical miles zone in Scotland. The provision aligns with the Scottish Government’s commitment to improve the aquaculture regulatory system as outlined in our vision for sustainable aquaculture and our programme for government.
To ensure transparency and fairness, we engaged with stakeholders and the wider public in consultation on the proposals to extend marine planning zones out to 12 nautical miles and on illustrative interactive maps that outline the extended zones. Responses were carefully considered and informed the progression of today’s provision.
In closing the legislative gap, we can demonstrate that Scotland supports the sustainable development of salmon farming in Scotland and the important role that it plays in supporting employment, with 2,300 jobs supported directly and more than 10,000 roles in the broader supply chains, many of which are skilled and provide average annual incomes well above national and regional averages. 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 regulatory process is consistent and robust.
Thank you, minister. I appreciate your opening statement. We move to questions now, and I will kick off. The question is for Joseph Triscott, who is the aquaculture development policy lead in the Government. In our evidence session, we heard stakeholders raise concerns about the unknowns of the impacts on the environment and animal welfare of salmon farms that could be located beyond 3 nautical miles. Following our salmon inquiry, the committee recommended that research be done to look at the impacts on those factors and asked the Government to do some additional work. Do you consider the evidence base to be good enough to support offshore fish and shellfish farms, or is the instrument a little bit premature?
Good morning, convener. Thank you for inviting me here. The evidence base is, in essence, that the regulatory framework outlines what evidence needs to be supplied by developers to satisfy regulators that a consent be put in place. There is wider research looking at high-dispersal environments by research institutions in Scotland and those further abroad, but it is the role of the regulators to consider the evidence as provided by the developer.
As the minister outlined, there are already farms that have moved from sheltered loch systems into quite dispersive and high-energy locations. Our most exposed site is 1 nautical mile from the coast, so there has already been an assessment of new farms operating in more dispersive environments. Whether developers are looking at locating a farm at 2, 3 or 5 nautical miles from the coast, the questions are whether that location is suitable for farming to occur and whether the technology is suitable to operate in that environment. You might have dispersive high-wave-height areas in an existing marine planning zone, as you would have beyond 3 nautical miles. In essence, what we are trying to do is give developers the opportunity to consider the full scope—outlined in the regulations as going out to 12 nautical miles—and decide where is best to operate.
Alongside that, there are obviously benefits to being in areas where there is greater dispersal. I was in the Faroe Islands recently, where they were quite clear that that could help with issues such as microjellyfish and sea lice. However, they were also clear that it could lead to more escapes, because the waters are more energetic. Is having more escapes a reasonable trade-off, because the farms are further out to sea so, especially with salmon farming, the fish are less likely to interact with wild fish?
It comes back to the point of developers needing to ensure not only that the locations in which they want to operate are suitable for good performance but that their equipment and technology is able to hold up in those conditions. Containment is a material consideration for planners in the national planning framework 4, so developers must provide evidence that they have assessed the environment; they must have the data on how fast the currents are, what wave heights are like and the direction of clearing winds; and they need the evidence from the attestations of manufacturers that their equipment is fit for purpose. It is already essential that that is carried out. We have seen farms moving from beyond sheltered lochs into more exposed areas around the small isles and the like. That risk is considered through planning and, if the evidence is not considered sufficient, that makes getting planning consent from the relevant local authority more challenging.
Is there not a role for the Government in initiating or facilitating research so that, when farms are potentially sited further offshore, it is not a case of learning on the job? They would know how the cages should be built and they would consider fish welfare, and it would not be trial and error. It is an opportunity for the Government and industry to get it right from the start rather than a case of dipping your finger in and seeing what happens. Should there not be more research before we allow the farms to operate? At the moment, that appears to happen on the basis of trial and error.
There is a growing evidence base from the fact that farms and equipment are being developed that can already go into quite exposed locations. There is academic research into what sort of moorings are best suited for that, and those are being established. In your evidence session two weeks ago, Iain Berrill from Salmon Scotland said that they are not looking to go really far out, that it would be a gradual process, that they are learning as they go and that it is about the development of technology. That work is on-going, and there might not be great value in the Scottish Government commissioning extra research.
In the current marine planning zones that go out to 3 nautical miles, there are already some very exposed regions, especially around more isolated islands such as Fair Isle and North Rona, which are way out, yet you could get a planning application and apply for a consent there at the moment. It is about building consistency.
Can I get some clarity on our current system or current lack of system for planning? There is a planning system out to 3 nautical miles. There is no planning system for fish farms beyond 3 nautical miles, but, if you were an innovative developer and you wanted to try to get a permission to put something beyond 3 nautical miles, which competent authority would you go to? Is that the marine directorate?
There is a planning system in place out to 12 nautical miles. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 identifies marine fish farming as a development out to 12 nautical miles, so a fish farm would require planning permission under the regulations of that act. It is merely the fact that there is no designated authority beyond 3 nautical miles.
As the minister said, when fish and shellfish farming first came under planning, in 2007, the boundaries were set to 3 nautical miles. That was because the act that was used to do that at the time—the 1997 act—went out to 3 nautical miles only; that was as far as it could go. The powers that we are using today under the 1997 act were introduced to that act a couple of years later. There was no scope at the time to go further, so it was not addressed.
The planning process is there; it is just about identifying the right people to consider an application. At the moment, planning permission is required but there is no defined authority to which you can apply, so it is a bit of a limbo situation.
Is there a route for developing any of those fish farms? If a fish farm developer comes to you and says that they would like to try it, notwithstanding the fact that the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has effectively not been implemented beyond 3 nautical miles, what is the route for that? Could they not just go to the marine directorate and ask it for a licence?
09:30
The marine directorate is not designated as the planning authority to consult on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. They could conceivably approach Scottish ministers directly and ask whether they would consider a special development order, but that is really for big infrastructure projects, so it would not be appropriate for that form of development—[Interruption.]
Apologies. I will go on mute for a moment. There is a fire alarm test in the background.
It seems to have passed. Have any developers come to the Scottish Government saying that they would like to push ahead with a development and asking it to grant them a special development order or any other kind of permission that would allow the developers to do it as a trial?
I apologise for that fire alarm—it has passed now.
No one has come forward to say that they want to apply now, but we have certainly had interest—[Interruption.]
It is a very thorough fire alarm test by the sound of it, but we are patient. Go ahead, Joe.
Thank you. Apologies again.
There has been interest from developers, who have asked us how consenting would work, but nobody has come forward to say that they want to do something immediately and to ask how they would do it. At various aquaculture conferences over the past several years, however, people have asked how, if they had the technology that was suitable for the environment, they would go about the development in practice. That is the kind of conversation that we have had.
Let us turn to an area where there is a regulatory gap because SEPA’s work applies only up to 3 nautical miles out. How will that regulatory gap be closed ahead of any planning applications that could come through for developments beyond 3 nautical miles?
The programme for government commits us to clarifying the consenting process for developments from 3 to 12 nautical miles out. Addressing the planning gap is one aspect of that, and the other is the regulation of discharges.
The difference is that there is an existing mechanism for the latter. Someone can seek a marine licence to regulate discharges. That is the marine directorate’s responsibility, and SEPA is a statutory consultee in that process. We acknowledge entirely that SEPA is the expert in that space. It has the resources and knowledge, and it has been working in the zero-to-3-nautical-miles space for so long that it is best placed to carry out that function. We are working with SEPA to understand how that process might best be implemented. However, if a farm is to operate, it must have all relevant consents in place to get a lease from Crown Estate Scotland. A developer could have a planning application in place but, until it had an appropriate discharge consent and authorisation from the fish health inspectorate, it would not be able to operate. Everything has to be in place.
We are clarifying the consenting process. That is the first aspect that we have worked on, and we are currently in discussions with SEPA to clarify the process for regulating discharges. Alongside the intention behind the planning SSI that is in front of you today, we intend to be as consistent as possible in the regulatory standards and processes for developments between zero and 12 nautical miles out, and the intention is to deliver those by the end of the current parliamentary session.
To go back to my original question, will the commencement of regulations to extend SEPA’s powers align with the decision on any planning application that is made under the regulations, should they be approved?
There are two separate licences for the same development, but they operate slightly independently of each other, although we are trying to align that process at the pre-application stages. All those consents must be in place for a farm to operate. We do not foresee a developer wishing to apply until the regulatory framework is understood and they are confident, having put their time and effort into identifying a potential site, that there is a route to the development going ahead at the end of the process.
The other point is that the discharge of waste licence applies only to fish farms and not to shellfish farms, so applying the provision to shellfish farms would mean that we would be able to start considering where there is an opportunity to develop them, and they would not require a separate licence.
We are working to clarify the whole process for developments between 3 and 12 nautical miles out, and we are making it as consistent as we can. A mechanism is in place, but we are in discussions with SEPA and we will advise ministers shortly on the best routes to formalising that. We will then consult on that as required, probably later this year.
I am curious about why the work has not been done already. Parliament has been considering the draft Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025. I suppose that, in an ideal world, those regulations would have extended SEPA’s powers and you would have been able to tell us today that the environmental regulations were in place and you now wanted to bring in a planning system. Instead, I am hearing that you are trying to apply a planning system beyond 3 nautical miles, and to make that live, but that environmental regulations are coming some way down the track, so people must hold off putting in applications until there is certainty. That feels quite disjointed.
I am not asking you, as an official, to comment on those choices, but it feels as though there was an opportunity to make the update and bring in a consistent system with the environmental authorisations amendment regulations.
We have been looking, in the round, at the consenting process for developments 3 to 12 nautical miles out for about 12 months, and the major gap that we identified was the planning gap. Another regulatory mechanism could be used for discharges under the marine licence, for which SEPA is a statutory consultee, but the gap in planning regulations fundamentally prevents people from seeking a planning application—we are aware of that. Work is being done on an integrated framework, and we will present that to ministers as an opportunity. There are also other options under the marine licence and potentially delegating specific functions to SEPA. It is a question of which fits best, and we will be having that conversation.
From our side, the other aspect of it is, frankly, the resource that is needed to produce SSIs, potentially, and to run public consultations. We saw the gap in the planning system as being quite simple to resolve. There are a few more options for us to consider in thinking about how we regulate discharges and SEPA’s role in that, and we are working through those. The intention is that those matters will also be resolved by the end of the current parliamentary session.
As I say, in relation to the planning issue, there is also the potential to develop shellfish farms beyond 3 nautical miles. I do not think that there is much interest in doing that here, but we have seen such development on the south coast of England, and what is going on down there is quite interesting. That opportunity is simply not available in Scotland at the moment, but this planning SSI would resolve that.
Good morning, Joe. In a previous evidence session, we learned that Salmon Scotland described the industry’s plan to locate offshore as incremental. I know, from an answer to a written question that I submitted earlier this year and from a report in my local newspaper, The Shetland Times, that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands visited the world’s first offshore salmon farm in Norway in 2023 and that the Scottish Government has had on-going discussions about proposals for offshore sites, including three off Shetland. Are you able to expand on those proposals and how advanced they are?
The developer in question approached the Scottish Government following Ms Gougeon’s visit to Ocean Farm 1 and it asked how consenting works in practice in Scotland, not having been involved in it previously, and how it works specifically in the 3-to-12-nautical-miles space. We made the developer aware of the current lie of the land, how the process works and what we intend to do in creating a consistent framework for developments between zero and 12 nautical miles out. I understand that the developer has already met with local communities and aquaculture regulators such as Shetland planners, NatureScot and the fish health inspectorate, to understand how the process works in Scotland. I cannot say any more on the scope of the proposals, as that detail is not with us.
As we know, the marine environment is very busy. How will the Scottish Government ensure that commercial fishers and other marine stakeholders are consulted at an early stage of proposals, to avoid any potential spatial conflicts of the kind that we heard about in our evidence-taking session with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation?
Obviously, this is a huge topic for not just aquaculture but all forms of marine development, particularly because of the impact on marine users and fishers. That impact is a consideration for the planning authorities themselves, and they will generally consult with local fishing organisations.
We encourage engagement between developers and fishers at the earliest opportunity. In our consenting task group pre-application pilots, which have been running in Shetland and the Highlands, we are trying to improve mechanisms to allow that engagement to happen as early as possible and with as much evidence as possible being provided to interested parties, including fishers.
Certainly, developers are encouraged to speak to as many interested parties and stakeholders as possible as early in the process as they can, because that avoids potential issues further down the line when it comes to formal application. Moreover, planners have to consider the effects on other marine users, and fishers are able to indicate formally through the planning process whether they support or object to planning permission being given.
In our consultation on this, we received responses from six sea fisheries organisations. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which you heard from, did not agree with the proposals, but four others, including a number of regional inshore fisheries groups, did and acknowledged that the planning system is probably the best place for them to put forward their views on any proposed development.
Do you think that there will be sufficient synergy between the national marine plan and any of these decisions that are being taken locally?
The national marine plan 2 will contain specific aquaculture policies, but we have a range of spatial policies in place for aquaculture, and local authorities will have in place their own local development plans, which might be more specific to them. Shetland, for example, might say that certain areas are not best suited to aquaculture because of the amount of marine traffic there or whatever. The issue will be addressed in the national marine plan 2, but there are a range of other spatial guidance tools that should be directing aquaculture to the best places.
Thanks.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has been reported in The Shetland Times as saying that the question is not just whether local authorities have the resources to undertake the task of delivering planning in the 3-to-12-nautical-miles zone but whether the expertise is available, too. Are you able to comment on that?
In their work on the zero-to-3-nautical-miles zone, local authorities are already relying on a lot of expertise that does not come directly from them.
There are a number of statutory consultees in the planning process. For example, NatureScot will give advice on the impact on natural heritage and wildlife, and SEPA and the marine directorate are consultees, too. Moreover, as navigation is a material consideration in planning, planners will always go out to the Northern Lighthouse Board to understand how farms in a given location should be lit and marked so that they are safe in terms of their impact on other marine users.
We think that the process used for the zero-to-3-nautical-miles zone is transferable to the 3-to-12-nautical miles zone. There could be some very exposed locations within 3 nautical miles that might get larger, offshore-style farms, and this is simply about extending the ability for developers to consider where the best opportunities might be. Indeed, there might be less conflict if you go slightly further out than 3 nautical miles and are less constrained by inshore waters.
I want to ask about regional marine planning. How will the cumulative impacts of developments across marine planning boundaries be dealt with? If we are talking about the area between Cape Wrath and the Mull of Kintyre, for instance, there will be three councils involved.
09:45
Regional marine plans fall under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and the intention is that plans will be developed for each of the 11 marine regions, to give them locational guidance for different activities. As far as local authorities are concerned, the 23 coastal authorities consider such matters within their own jurisdiction, but they must give consideration to regional marine plans if they fall within one. At the moment, there are no plans in place, but Orkney and Shetland are progressing down that route, and they will have to have due regard to any policies in the regional marine plan within which they fall when it comes to considering aquaculture applications.
That approach seems easier for Orkney and Shetland, as their sea spaces are unique to them, whereas I think that conflicts will arise in, say, the Minch, where there are several local authorities involved. How will they work together? Do they have the resources to be able to plan?
Ultimately, resource is a challenging issue for local authorities across the piece when it comes to planning, but there are fees for aquaculture applications, and they are scaled according to the size of the development. The process for assessing a farm 2.5 or 3.5 nautical miles from the shore will be very similar: proposals will have to go through environmental impact assessments—and habitats regulations appraisals, if required; and they must have due regard to the national marine plan, local development plans and any regional marine plans into which they fall. If we find, down the line, that there is a significant increase in resource associated with more exposed developments, we can consider having another stage of fees to support that.
There is also wider work going on through the investing in planning programme. I should apologise, as it is not my direct area, but I understand that a lot of work has been going on to encourage more planners into the profession and to upskill existing planners, and a planning hub has been established in the Scottish Government, which at the moment is focusing on hydrogen developments. Depending on how it works, it might, further down the line, provide a good test case for how extra resource can be provided to certain sectors. We believe that planners should have the ability to consider these types of development.
Moreover, we do not foresee a huge number of these developments coming forward in the short to medium term. They will require significant investment, as the technology to put them in place might be there but only so many businesses have the supply chain to develop them. I am not sensing that we will get five or 10 additional developments in the medium term, and it is most likely that they will happen in places where aquaculture already exists, such as Shetland, Orkney, the Western Isles and Argyll and Bute. As for the Minch, it is already pretty much covered by the marine planning zones between the Western Isles and Highland: they abut each other as it is, and you could submit an application there now, if you chose to do so.
Thank you.
We have heard that some of the planning applications are quite complex and resource intensive, but we also heard from one local authority that believed that, as you have stated, they will not all come along at once but will start to come in gradually and slowly.
However, it is our understanding that the applications are not processed on a full cost recovery basis, which might put financial strains on local authorities. If more applications were to come forward, would the Scottish Government increase fees to allow for full cost recovery or, at least, put in place some mechanism to ensure full cost recovery?
We can come back to you with more detail on that from planning colleagues, but my understanding is that there has recently been a increase in fees in line with inflation, and the wider investing in planning programme is looking to ensure that fees keep pace with costs. If there were to be a significant change in how such developments are assessed, we could consider another tranche of fee structure, but, as I have said, the fees are currently scaled according to the size of the development.
The intention of fees, as they stand, is to work towards cost recovery for local authorities. Things are not quite meeting up for them in some cases, but I think that they would say the same about some existing fish farms. Again, it is a matter not of how far offshore you are but of where you are—for example, whether you are right beside a priority marine feature, what sort of wildlife interactions there are, the complexity of the environment that you are working in and so on. Some locations that are looked at can be very complex. It might be the case that, the further out you go, some of those considerations become less challenging and simpler to assess.
Thank you. I call Beatrice Wishart.
This is probably more of a comment than a question, but if you feel that you can answer, Joe, that would be helpful.
In the summary of the responses to the consultation, the Scottish Government, in its response on the impact on the fisheries sector, states that the extension will allow fisheries interests to engage in the planning process, ensuring that their concerns are considered. That does not sound very reassuring to me, somehow. However, it might have been better for the minister to answer that question.
It is a wider issue across all planning, isn’t it? Some interests will not be supportive of a certain development, while others will. At the end of the day, a decision will be made, and some people will be happy with it and some will not, but it is important that those views can be made known and considered fully by the relevant planning authority. As we discussed earlier, we are encouraging aquaculture developers to engage with local fishers and other marine users as early as possible when they scope out locations, to ensure that, even before they get to the planning application stage, they have already had those discussions. Indeed, we have had some examples of the location or orientation of sites being varied on the basis of advice from fishers. It is all about good engagement between the parties.
Okay.
I call Elena Whitham.
I have already asked my question, convener.
I beg your pardon—it was Emma Harper I was supposed to be going to. I am getting my Emmas and Elenas mixed up this morning.
We are all Es on this committee, aren’t we? [Laughter.]
Good morning, Joe. I have a quick question for you. You mentioned engaging with aquaculture developers. Does the Government help to support the development of marine planning as a profession, to ensure that adequate resources and expertise are out there? It is a complex matter. I know that different organisations have proposals for salmon farms, and now we are proposing an extension to 12 nautical miles. What does the Scottish Government do to support further marine planning?
Are you talking about increasing upskilling for marine planning and encouraging more people into that space?
Yes.
I know that the question was put to me, but Mr McKee might have more to say on the wider planning process and the investing in planning programme. I do not know whether he wants to come in on that.
I am very happy to answer that question more generally.
Marine planning is a very specific aspect of the planning system, but, in general, we are taking significant steps to put more resources in through the work that we have done on fees. Of course, we cannot ring fence that money at the local authority level. The Scottish Government is also working to increase the number of planners significantly by trebling the number of bursaries it has put in place to support those coming into the planning profession.
Moreover, the Government has, for the first time, recruited a total of 18 apprentice planners, who will be trained through the process, and that will help to increase the number of people who are coming into the profession not just at the early stage of their careers but mid-career. Extensive work is being done to support a number of young planners who are coming through and to encourage others to come into the profession.
Okay.
I call Evelyn Tweed.
You will be pleased to hear that this will be the last question in this session.
How will the Scottish Government consider the strategic needs of port infrastructure, to support potentially larger offshore salmon farms? We have heard quite a lot of concerns about decommissioning. Can you comment on that?
On the question of decommissioning, you will find that, where planning permissions are granted, there are conditions on decommissioning and how it should be undertaken. There are also conditions relating to the general maintenance of farms. For example, if anything comes adrift, you must resolve that issue.
As for ports and harbours infrastructure, the impacts on onshore-based facilities are a material consideration in planning and need to be considered. I am not close to this issue, so I might need to come back to you with further information on it, but I believe that there is, through Transport Scotland, a wider ports strategy in place.
Ultimately, though, if there is more potential for marine development and marine investment, that will carry over into port development, too. In many instances, ports are privately owned, but we have seen big developments in Stornoway, based on what people are expecting from future renewables and aquaculture developments, and that is leading to improvements to deep-water ports, more tourism and the rest of it.
Primarily, though, this is all based on people saying, “We foresee this development happening, so we are making investments.” Therefore, a driver for this is giving businesses confidence by telling them, “You can invest in more innovative developments in the marine space in Scotland, not just in aquaculture but in renewables and other forms of development, too.” Hopefully, that should encourage private investment from the ports themselves and potentially support funding from elsewhere.
If you did get more information on that, it would be good if you could come back to us with it.
I will see what I can find out.
That would be great. Thank you.
That brings our questions to an end. Thank you very much, Mr Triscott, for joining us this morning.
We now move to formal consideration of the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-17363.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Ivan McKee]
Does any member wish to debate the motion?
As no member wishes to debate the motion, is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course, and I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to finalise the report for publication. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes consideration of the instrument, and I thank the minister for attending today’s meeting.
I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes, to allow a changeover of witnesses.
09:58 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance