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.

First and foremost, the two committees received a lot of written evidence in response to the call for evidence. Thinking back to my opening comments, that reflects the broad range of interest in the work that we are doing.

In relation to some of the concerns about the indicators and targets, which came through in other pieces of written evidence and in what the committee heard directly, the indicators that we have brought forward for the outcomes will help to provide the initial baseline from which we can look to progress. Although I understand and appreciate the concern about the lack of new targets or indicators, that is not to say that we will not develop that work. We have been open and transparent in the plan about the areas where we need to collect more data to be able to look at indicators in the future or to develop new targets.

We have also asked bodies such as the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to help us with some of that work and to consider what that could look like—which could include indicators or targets in relation to animal health and welfare—because we recognise that we do not have all the information that we need. When we look to develop new information or new targets, the data collection can be quite a big undertaking in itself. The plan is a really important first step, which will help us to develop the baseline from which we can look to continue to improve. We needed to be able to collect all that information, but we recognise that there is more work to do, and the plan is just the first step.

Yes. I am happy to keep the committee updated on when we are looking to trigger section 10. We do not want to put local authorities under particular pressure now, when we are still trying to bottom out what resources might be needed for section 10, given the work that it has taken us to get to this stage.

That is what we are working on right now. We are considering what those resources will look like.

Even more broadly, though, the delivery of the plan ultimately falls to many different areas. As I said, I was at the Health and Social Care Committee last week, at which we discussed the work that is being delivered through the population health framework. My portfolio, in and of itself, cannot necessarily fund all that work. Some of it falls within the budgets of other portfolio areas.

We are discussing what that initial resource looks like and what is needed to get the plans off the ground and that initial bit of work developed.

I appreciate that, from the outside, the plan can appear to be very cluttered. Of course, a lot of things are going on in all the portfolio areas across Government, but some of the areas that you have mentioned have their own requirements. For me, it is about how all those areas deliver our overall good food nation outcomes.

I referenced the population health framework, and there has been close co-operation between the good food nation team and those who are working on population health. A diet and healthy weight implementation plan will be developed on the back of that, which will help to deliver the good food nation outcomes that we have set out. The indicators will help us to get the baseline information to monitor how all of that is being done.

We also cannot forget that one of the most important things in the 2022 act is the specified functions, the descriptions and the fact that, as we are developing new policies, strategies and plans, we must have regard to the good food nation plan.

We are trying to embed a different way of working across Government and with local government and health boards. I do not see it as just another thing that people do and tick off—we are giving effect to this plan. It is, I hope, the first in a long line of plans.

You made reference to the food-growing strategies, which are another legislative requirement. A strategy could form part of a local authority’s good food nation plan, but there are very different legislative requirements for it compared to what we will be asking of local authorities for the good food nation plans.

You are absolutely right. We already have policies in place in that regard through national planning framework 4. In considering hot food takeaways in particular, there is a specific policy that quite clearly says that development should not be supported where there could be a risk of it impacting on overall health and wellbeing, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

That overarching policy principle is there, but ultimately, those decisions are for local authorities and their planning and licensing committees. We would expect them to consider the wider overarching policies such as the one in NPF4 that I mentioned.