Official Report 587KB pdf
Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish Inshore Region) Amendment Order 2026 [Draft]
::The next item on our agenda is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. I welcome to the meeting Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and her officials from the Scottish Government: Jill Barber, the head of aquaculture development; and Joseph Triscott, the aquaculture policy manager.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.
: Thank you, convener: 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.
::Thank you. Do members have any questions?
::We have just had an extensive session on salmon farming. One of my concerns about the marine licensing SSI is that it is potentially premature. We are aware of an on-going appeals process in which SEPA is involved, and the SSI will expand its workload. I am concerned about how much resource SEPA has available to implement the changes. Although some who responded to the consultation said that they agree with the changes, the key concern that comes up in the responses is about whether SEPA has the capability and capacity. Given the appeals process that is tying up SEPA, I wonder whether the SSI has been laid a bit too soon.
::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.
::Do you have any sense of how many applications there might be further out to sea?
::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.
::To clarify, SEPA already extends the framework to 3 nautical miles, and the SSIs will extend it to 12 nautical miles. You are seeking to ensure simplification and avoid duplication of legislation, so that we have a framework that is more manageable and easier for people to follow—is that right?
::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.
::We move to formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. As the cabinet secretary has nothing to add, I invite her to move motion S6M-20638.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish Inshore Region) Amendment Order 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Mairi Gougeon]
::Do any members wish to debate the motion?
::The evidence in the consultation raises concerns. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation said:
“The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s (SFF) position remains that we do not support the extension of aquaculture from 3 nm to 12nm … we recognise the benefits of making the process more consistent across the entire 0-12nm, but we are uncertain whether SEPA has sufficient resources or expertise to cope with the additional region. The same concern is held for MD-LOT remaining as the regulatory body.”
Although the proposal in the consultation might appear to be administratively coherent on paper, I am concerned that it is premature in practical terms. The central issue remains the well-evidenced failure of the current regulatory system to enforce environmental standards effectively, despite already having the legal powers to do so.
Simply consolidating responsibilities under SEPA without first addressing the underlying enforcement gap risks creating a more streamlined system that still fails to prevent environmental harm and, in fact, could make harmful activity easier to progress rather than strengthening oversight.
I am concerned that expanding the scope of regulation without providing a corresponding increase in resources, capacity and, where necessary, powers is unlikely to achieve the stated objectives. Without tackling enforcement and funding head on, structural reorganisation alone will not deliver the meaningful improvements that we desperately need.
This morning, we heard from Dr Alan Wells that wild salmon are a species on the edge and in crisis, and that not enough is being done. Therefore, I have great concerns about expanding SEPA’s remit. As I said, such regulations will be needed at some point—once the 0 to 3 nautical miles range is regulated, we will be in much better shape.
::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.
::Are all members content to recommend approval of the instrument?
Members: No.
::Members are not content. There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
::The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Motion agreed to,
That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish Inshore Region) Amendment Order 2026 be approved.
::Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off on our report on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
::That completes consideration of the instrument. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending but ask them to remain at the table—do not panic—because we do not expect the next agenda item to take very long.
Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2026(SSI 2026/55)
::Our next item of business is consideration of a negative instrument. As members do not wish to make any comment on the instrument, are we content with it?
Members indicated agreement.
::That concludes our business in public. I now move the meeting into private session.
12:15
Meeting continued in private until 12:52.
Air ais
Attendance