Chamber and committees

:I do not believe that it is happening too soon. Ultimately, we need to provide clarification on how discharge is regulated in the 3 to 12 nautical mile zone, which is why we have introduced the package of SSIs for the committee’s consideration.

I understand that concerns were raised in the consultation about SEPA’s resources, but we discussed that with SEPA, which does not have that concern. Even the number of applications that SEPA expects to see—I do not think that it expects to see huge numbers—and the fact that it already does such work in the 0 to 3 nautical mile zone, or in the inshore region, supports our approach.

If anything, the approach works out better, because if the marine licensing SSI is not supported today but the negative SSI—the environmental authorisations SSI that the committee will consider next—passes, the marine directorate will have to licence the same activity while still having to look to SEPA to provide the same evidence and information.

That will be a heavier resource burden for SEPA, because it will not be able to claim the cost back for the charges in the way that it would if it were the regulator, and it will not be able to implement cost recovery on any applications for that activity. It will negatively impact SEPA and duplicate the regulatory requirements, which is why we are streamlining them today.

: Thank you, convener. The SSI that is in front of the committee today amends existing exemptions to marine licence requirements for the purpose of reducing duplication in the aquaculture consenting framework and providing clarity and transparency while ensuring robust environmental protection. The SSI is introduced alongside the Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2026, which identify SEPA as the regulator for fish farm environmental discharges between 3 and 12 nautical miles. The Scottish Government is committed to clarifying the consenting process for aquaculture between 3 and 12 nautical miles, to ensure an effective approach to the regulation and consenting of aquaculture development and activity across Scotland’s inshore region.

This latest package of SSIs seeks to transfer regulatory responsibility for fish farm environmental discharges between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the Scottish Government’s marine licensing operations team to SEPA, which will make SEPA the lead regulator for that activity across the Scottish inshore region. It also introduces amendments to existing marine licence exemptions by extending the exemption on the deposit of farm substances from 3 nautical miles to 12 nautical miles, clarifying the scope of the exemption on the deposit of farm equipment and strengthening prerequisites for its use.

We have carefully considered which regulator is best placed to manage environmental discharges from fish farms between 3 and 12 nautical miles. Identifying SEPA as the lead regulator for fish farm discharges builds on the previous work that we have undertaken to consolidate SEPA as the independent environmental regulator of fish farms.

The Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2026, which the committee is also considering today, identify SEPA as the lead regulator, and the provisions of the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish Inshore Region) Amendment Order 2026 mean that a licence from the Scottish Government’s marine licensing operations team will not be required for the same activity, which mirrors the existing discharge requirements between 0 and 3 nautical miles.

The changes will ensure that we have robust environmental protections in place, identify a consistent lead regulator in Scotland’s inshore zone and avoid duplicating resources between the marine directorate’s licensing operations team and SEPA. It will also ensure that developers are not required to seek separate consents for the same activity, which will reduce the regulatory burden and cost to businesses.

Amendments to an existing exemption on the deposit of fish and shellfish farm equipment are also being introduced to clarify that the exemption applies to all equipment that is used directly in fish and shellfish farming, provided that the relevant conditions and requirements are met. A new requirement for the use of the exemption has been included to ensure that any equipment that is eligible for the exemption must have planning permission in place before the exemption can be applied.

The changes will result in a fully consistent approach to fish and shellfish farm consenting in Scotland’s inshore waters, with a single regulator responsible for each of the consents that are required to develop and operate a farm in a region.

I am happy to take any questions from the committee.

:I want to be clear, because a number of issues were raised by the panel in the previous session, and I do not want us to conflate them with what we are discussing in relation to the SSIs.

I emphasise the point that not passing the SSI today will have additional resource and capacity implications for the marine directorate because of the duplication of legislation, as well as for SEPA, which will still be a consultee for any applications that are processed through the system. It will not be able to recover the costs for that work, compared with what it can do as lead regulator.

I am more concerned about the resources and capacity issues that SEPA will face if the SSI is not agreed than if it is. We have engaged in discussions with SEPA, which is comfortable with the proposals.

:We know from some operators that they are not looking at that space, but, as we set out in the “Vision for sustainable aquaculture” report, we know that it is an area of interest for other operators. It is important that we have the regulatory framework in place to deal with any potential applications that are made, which is why we have laid the SSIs.

:Yes, you are absolutely right. All that we are looking to do today is mirror what happens in the 0 to 3 nautical mile range by extending the framework to cover up to 12 nautical miles.

I will just jump in on that point. As I outlined in my opening comments, the intention of the scientific programme would be adaptive, so we would look to take forward any learning that we pick up through that programme. It is not a case of waiting for three years before we take action, but it certainly would not be our intention to bypass Parliament. Again, as I set out my opening comments, we intend to provide updates.

It is also important to remember that we are taking forward other pieces of work that could well be implemented during the period of the order, if it proceeds through the committee and Parliament. That includes the future catching policy work that we have been working on for the past few years, which is about improving selectivity for various parts of the fleet. It is certainly not our intention that anything would be done in such a way as to bypass Parliament during that period. I do not know whether that is what you are getting at.

Yes, absolutely. In the past couple of years, some pieces of work have been developed since the last closure. As I have touched on, the future catching policy is probably the key piece of work that we will be consulting on in the next couple of weeks, because it is about ensuring that we minimise bycatch. That work has been going on for a number of years with different fleet segments and it is about trying to improve selectivity.

Some of those measures could be introduced and implemented during the period of time covered by this order, and I hope that it will also improve the situation and minimise bycatch. The policy will be going out to consultation in the next few weeks.

The committee will also be aware of some overarching pieces of work, such as the inshore fisheries management programme. We have been looking at a framework for that and we put out a call for evidence on how we manage our inshore fisheries across the country, looking more towards taking a regional approach.

A lot of work is always being done in our marine environment, and I have mentioned some of the key pieces, but the future catching policy work will probably be most integral to the order.

That is why the targeted scientific programme is so important, because it is about making sure that the closure is in the right place. In the letter that I sent to the committee about our basis for the closure, I said that it was that hypothesis about spawning areas, but some recent activity among actively spawning cod outwith the closure has cast doubt on that hypothesis.

There is the bycatch issue as well, which the University of Strathclyde model highlights. Again, the targeted scientific programme is trying to fill all the evidence gaps in the round. It is about looking at what is happening now with the bycatch, because some of the data on that only goes up to 2019. We need to update that by seeing what is happening on the ground, so that we can bottom out the data gaps that exist.

I will bring in Coby Needle on that in a moment. Our proposal was based on advice from our scientific advisers as to why three years would be appropriate. I emphasise, however, that that does not mean that nothing will happen within three years. We want the management approach to be adaptive if there is learning or if we are collecting evidence in that time. It is not as though we will hit pause on everything for three years.

Coby Needle might want to add more information on how we monitor that. We would be looking to utilise remote electronic monitoring—REM. We have used it in relation to the Solway fairly recently, and I think that having that equipment on vessels has been quite successful. Coby will have more information.