Meeting of the Parliament 18 February 2026 [Draft]
I, too, congratulate Douglas Ross on securing the debate and pay tribute to the campaigners who have come such a long way to their Parliament to make their case. I am sorry that I missed them earlier—I was late in coming to the drop-in event, and they had already left for the chamber.
I acknowledge the real concerns that have been expressed about the potential application. No application has been lodged, so we debate the issue in a vacuum with little or no information about what is proposed and what the impact will be. On the one hand, flagging up a potential development at an early stage is welcome, in that it gives people more chance to consider its impact. On the other hand, doing so without providing information obviously causes concern, as people cannot see what the impact would be and the effect that it would have on them.
We do not even know to which body the application would be made and what process would be used to assess it. What is clear is that those who are impacted by a potential flow park must be consulted, and the impacts on them and on local businesses must be taken account of. The proposed project has the potential to have an impact on local fishing and tourism businesses that are unable to move their businesses out of the way easily.
I would hope the Offshore Solutions Group would be speaking to those businesses now and hearing their concerns. If it does not, it is going to find itself facing a backlash that no amount of information will diminish. It is simply wrong to allow speculation that puts people in fear of their livelihoods.
I do not think that simply moving the site would work either, because another community would need to be consulted and may have similar concerns. It is important that a discussion is had before any application is put in.
There are also concerns about public bodies providing funding for the project—the Crown Estate to the tune of £1.5 million, and Scottish Enterprise to the tune of £1.8 million, as has been highlighted by Douglas Ross. Those organisations can spend their funding as it suits them, but it gives people real concern to see funds being invested by the same public bodies that are part of the Scottish Government and which will have a role in making a decision on any application. They will have a direct role in deciding on marine licence applications, or they will be able to use their call-in powers with any application that falls to the local authority. Obviously, that causes concern, because what if the body making the decision on the application has already invested in the proposal? The process not only needs to be fair—it has to be seen to be fair. Clearly, there needs to be much more public information and consultation.
I have spoken in the chamber before about the need for better marine planning that takes account of the needs of all marine users. Too often, we see the fishing community squeezed to make way for innovation, renewables, telecoms and energy connections. A thriving fishing industry provides local wealth and anchors our communities, and we need to value and protect it.
Scottish Labour has argued in the past for a community right of appeal in planning applications, and this case highlights our reasons for doing so. Therefore, I urge the minister to ensure that the community is informed of proposals at every stage and, more important, that it is heard at every stage.