Seòmar agus comataidhean

::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.

::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.

::It is great to have the Government’s recognition of that important work. I think that there is a pipeline of 1,700 houses that could potentially be built in rural areas.

We move to formal consideration of the motion. I have just received news that Fulton MacGregor has given his apologies for the meeting.

I invite the cabinet secretary to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee recommends that the Council Tax (Variation for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Shona Robison]

::Something that came up in our evidence session last week, which you might be across, is concern about MMR tenants’ ability to contest rent increases. Living Rent flagged up situations in which MMR tenants now face 50 per cent rent increases. Are you aware of that? What mechanisms would be available to tenants to contest such increases?

::I would like to clarify this. When we ask questions about build-to-rent or MMR properties, we are talking about the exemption within a rent-controlled area. A local authority will create a rent-controlled area and, within that, we will exempt MMR and build-to-rent properties. However, there is nothing to prevent MMR or build to rent from happening somewhere else in the city or council area.

::Following consideration of the instrument, I invite members to decide how they would like to proceed with the report. Members can consider a draft report in private at our meeting next week or they can delegate to me the responsibility to approve the report for publication. Are members content to delegate responsibility to me?

Members indicated agreement.

::That concludes our formal consideration of the instrument. I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

10:11

Meeting suspended.

10:16

On resuming—

::I have a question about monitoring the 10 per cent drop in the number of second homes in 2024, which was before the regulations were made. Part of the point is to create more housing supply for people. Do we know whether those second homes are becoming homes for people? I hear that you will be monitoring some specific instances but, referring to that 10 per cent drop in 2024, do we know whether those former second homes actually became homes? Do we know what happened to them?

09:45

::We move on to the role of local authorities. I will bring in Meghan Gallacher, who joins us online.

::The next item on our agenda is to take evidence on two affirmative instruments. We are joined by the Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, who is accompanied by his officials: David Storrie, head of local taxation policy; Susan Robb, solicitor; and Rachel Currie, local taxation policy manager. I welcome you all to the meeting.

These instruments are laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve them before they come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited, at the next agenda item, to consider motions to approve the instruments.   I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item, but not in the debates on the instruments that follow.

There is no need for you to operate your microphones—we will do that for you. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.