Chamber
Plenary, 20 Mar 2008
20 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Marine Environment
Today's debate on Scotland's marine environment is welcome and has been surprisingly consensual thus far, notwithstanding the best efforts of Mike Rumbles to make it otherwise. Like Sarah Boyack, I had assumed that today's debate would launch the consultation on the marine bill. This proactive engagement tells us that the bill is long overdue. Although the bill will be a complex piece of legislation, it is certainly time that we made a start on it.
The need for a Scottish marine bill is well documented. We welcome the Scottish Government's intention to tidy up the legislation soon, on the basis that the present legislation is too fragmented. Given the forthcoming UK legislation, Scotland must also try to bring together the various disparate pieces of legislation into a single coherent framework for the management and protection of our seas and coastal waters. An important point is that the legislation must dovetail with the proposed UK marine bill, which must in turn take account of existing European and UK legislation.
Apparently, Scotland's seas are currently regulated by more than 80 pieces of legislation, as the minister said. The list of issues covered is huge, and ranges from shipping and navigation to defence, oil and gas extraction, nature conservation, renewable energy, fishing, pollution control, ports and planning. Relevant EU legislation includes the common fisheries policy, the birds directive and the water framework directive. International law includes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as several other international agreements. Pulling together all those pieces of legislation will be a Herculean task, so it is easy to see why addressing the issue was previously put into the tray marked "Too difficult".
A start must be made by examining which actions are most needed. First, we need to protect the interests of those who make their living from the seas, especially our commercial fishermen and seamen. The legislation must be balanced and proportionate. We must also protect and enhance our marine environment to sustain marine biodiversity, tourism and—importantly—sea angling. With 40,000 species to be found in our seas and coastal waters, it is vital that we strike the right balance.
AGMACS, which was set up by the previous Executive, reported in March 2007 that we need new powers to extend Scotland's responsibilities in the seas. It noted that we need a statutory marine spatial planning system and an integrated system of coastal zone management, and it advocated the creation of a new Scottish marine management organisation with responsibilities out to the 200-nautical-mile limit.
Our own former Environment and Rural Development Committee stated that the governance of the marine environment should be simplified, and that a single integrated regulatory system for all marine activities in Scotland is essential. It is self-evident that that has to be properly integrated with the regulation at UK Government level to avoid overlaps and division between jurisdictions. Gaps in legislation must be filled, for example the recently exposed inadequacies in Scotland's ability to protect its marine environment from ship-to-ship oil transfer in the Firth of Forth. In addition, all parties appear to agree that we need to consider the creation of an integrated network of marine protected areas. Scottish Environment LINK and the RSPB have pressed strongly for that for some time.
Today's debate paves the way for the consultation on our own Scottish marine bill, and that must begin with a close look at developing the concept of marine spatial planning. For example, the Pentland Firth should be noted as the future area of choice for tidal power, which is the most reliable source of renewable energy if a cost effective way can be found to harness it. The Solway Firth should be designated as our first marine national park for the simple reason that there appears to be a desire for it in the area, to protect that unique part of Scottish inshore waters. I know that the Presiding Officer—indeed, perhaps even the Deputy Presiding Officer—campaigned vigorously for that in the previous session of Parliament. I might be taking the Deputy Presiding Officer's name in vain, so forgive me.
A strategic overview of what goes where should be established as soon as possible, as that will simplify the future planning process. The complexity of jurisdiction within and without the 12-nautical-mile limit, and out to 200 miles, needs to be simplified and rationalised. At the very least, Scotland must not give up control of areas that it already controls. AGMACS has suggested that a three-tier structure would facilitate effective spatial planning, which seems to be eminently sensible.
Developing the concept of ecosystem resilience and enhancement within marine national parks should be a key priority—it already works well in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Marine ecosystem objectives, or MEOs, should be considered as part of the legislation, assuming that community buy-in can be achieved. Commercial and recreational fishing interests must be reasonably respected. The Government will need to be proactive and positive about that if a whole-ecosystem approach is to be established.
In order to facilitate that, the concept of a Scottish marine management organisation—an SMMO—could, and should, be considered. Such an organisation could have wide-ranging co-ordinating powers, and could be responsible for planning and the enforcement of devolved activities in Scottish waters. It could be answerable to the Scottish ministers and be responsible for licensing, co-ordinating with a UK MMO and providing a central point of marine expertise.
Much good work has been done by various organisations over the past 16 years, which has brought us to this point today. The sustainable seas task force will meet for the first time in April and report thereafter, and it will, I hope, support existing proposals and further develop the concepts that are being explored in today's debate. I note the minister's remarks in that regard. Thereafter, we can start getting this long-overdue legislation onto the statute books, and consider which legislation within the current plethora we can repeal. Scottish Conservatives look forward to that work, and we will play an active and constructive part in the process.
The need for a Scottish marine bill is well documented. We welcome the Scottish Government's intention to tidy up the legislation soon, on the basis that the present legislation is too fragmented. Given the forthcoming UK legislation, Scotland must also try to bring together the various disparate pieces of legislation into a single coherent framework for the management and protection of our seas and coastal waters. An important point is that the legislation must dovetail with the proposed UK marine bill, which must in turn take account of existing European and UK legislation.
Apparently, Scotland's seas are currently regulated by more than 80 pieces of legislation, as the minister said. The list of issues covered is huge, and ranges from shipping and navigation to defence, oil and gas extraction, nature conservation, renewable energy, fishing, pollution control, ports and planning. Relevant EU legislation includes the common fisheries policy, the birds directive and the water framework directive. International law includes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as several other international agreements. Pulling together all those pieces of legislation will be a Herculean task, so it is easy to see why addressing the issue was previously put into the tray marked "Too difficult".
A start must be made by examining which actions are most needed. First, we need to protect the interests of those who make their living from the seas, especially our commercial fishermen and seamen. The legislation must be balanced and proportionate. We must also protect and enhance our marine environment to sustain marine biodiversity, tourism and—importantly—sea angling. With 40,000 species to be found in our seas and coastal waters, it is vital that we strike the right balance.
AGMACS, which was set up by the previous Executive, reported in March 2007 that we need new powers to extend Scotland's responsibilities in the seas. It noted that we need a statutory marine spatial planning system and an integrated system of coastal zone management, and it advocated the creation of a new Scottish marine management organisation with responsibilities out to the 200-nautical-mile limit.
Our own former Environment and Rural Development Committee stated that the governance of the marine environment should be simplified, and that a single integrated regulatory system for all marine activities in Scotland is essential. It is self-evident that that has to be properly integrated with the regulation at UK Government level to avoid overlaps and division between jurisdictions. Gaps in legislation must be filled, for example the recently exposed inadequacies in Scotland's ability to protect its marine environment from ship-to-ship oil transfer in the Firth of Forth. In addition, all parties appear to agree that we need to consider the creation of an integrated network of marine protected areas. Scottish Environment LINK and the RSPB have pressed strongly for that for some time.
Today's debate paves the way for the consultation on our own Scottish marine bill, and that must begin with a close look at developing the concept of marine spatial planning. For example, the Pentland Firth should be noted as the future area of choice for tidal power, which is the most reliable source of renewable energy if a cost effective way can be found to harness it. The Solway Firth should be designated as our first marine national park for the simple reason that there appears to be a desire for it in the area, to protect that unique part of Scottish inshore waters. I know that the Presiding Officer—indeed, perhaps even the Deputy Presiding Officer—campaigned vigorously for that in the previous session of Parliament. I might be taking the Deputy Presiding Officer's name in vain, so forgive me.
A strategic overview of what goes where should be established as soon as possible, as that will simplify the future planning process. The complexity of jurisdiction within and without the 12-nautical-mile limit, and out to 200 miles, needs to be simplified and rationalised. At the very least, Scotland must not give up control of areas that it already controls. AGMACS has suggested that a three-tier structure would facilitate effective spatial planning, which seems to be eminently sensible.
Developing the concept of ecosystem resilience and enhancement within marine national parks should be a key priority—it already works well in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Marine ecosystem objectives, or MEOs, should be considered as part of the legislation, assuming that community buy-in can be achieved. Commercial and recreational fishing interests must be reasonably respected. The Government will need to be proactive and positive about that if a whole-ecosystem approach is to be established.
In order to facilitate that, the concept of a Scottish marine management organisation—an SMMO—could, and should, be considered. Such an organisation could have wide-ranging co-ordinating powers, and could be responsible for planning and the enforcement of devolved activities in Scottish waters. It could be answerable to the Scottish ministers and be responsible for licensing, co-ordinating with a UK MMO and providing a central point of marine expertise.
Much good work has been done by various organisations over the past 16 years, which has brought us to this point today. The sustainable seas task force will meet for the first time in April and report thereafter, and it will, I hope, support existing proposals and further develop the concepts that are being explored in today's debate. I note the minister's remarks in that regard. Thereafter, we can start getting this long-overdue legislation onto the statute books, and consider which legislation within the current plethora we can repeal. Scottish Conservatives look forward to that work, and we will play an active and constructive part in the process.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1602, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on Scotland's marine environment.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):
SNP
The sea has defined and shaped Scotland and sustained our communities and nation since time immemorial. Our relationship with the sea has helped to forge our...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
The bottom line, which came across strongly in the cabinet secretary's speech, is that we have had a lot of discussions to date. There has been a huge amount...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Does the member agree that, in such a complicated scenario, which raises both devolved and reserved issues, it would be much better, simpler and more effecti...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
The marine management organisation is where we should sort that out. That is why I would like to get on to debating the bill, because the MMO will need to ha...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
It is crucial that coastal and marine-based activity is managed in a sustainable way that integrates socioeconomic and environmental factors for the long-ter...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
There is quite a range of UK bodies that have clear accountability to the Scottish Parliament. There are different models that we can use. Is Mike Rumbles su...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
No, I am not, despite SNP members tempting me to say that I am. I am suggesting that we should have devolved responsibility for planning in the marine spatia...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I was absolutely clear that we fully support all the AGMACS recommendations. We did not have to put that into the amendment because there are a lot of recomm...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Sarah Boyack does not want to go down the same route as the Liberal Democrats. In this case, she is not as environmentally friendly as we are, and it is impo...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
I am delighted that the marine environment is being discussed in the chamber. I will support Sarah Boyack's and Mike Rumbles's amendments, which are not mutu...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
Today's debate on Scotland's marine environment is welcome and has been surprisingly consensual thus far, notwithstanding the best efforts of Mike Rumbles to...
Dave Thompson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
The marine bill debate raises a number of issues, including the need for enhanced environmental protection that respects the rich diversity of our marine lif...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I appreciate the importance of caged fish farms. However, does the member agree that escapes, such as recently occurred in Loch Etive, can be detrimental to ...
Dave Thompson:
SNP
I agree that escapes from fish farms can be a serious problem. We must ensure that they are kept to a minimum.Marine parks could, however, bring many benefit...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
Like other members, I welcome this debate and hope that it allows ministers to accelerate the progress of what, in its attempt to rationalise all the institu...
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP):
SNP
I have a constituency that has extensive coastline and sizeable island and coastal communities, so I welcome this important debate on Scotland's marine envir...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I support all that was said by my colleague Sarah Boyack and I support the amendment in her name.The first thing that hit me when I started to explore the is...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
At this stage of a debate, most of the arguments have usually been made. In this debate there has been consensus among members on the broad principles. There...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
My point was about expectations. The cabinet secretary said nine months ago that he would announce plans for a bill soon, and I wanted to urge him forward.
Rob Gibson:
SNP
I thank the member for his friendly intervention. My point is that the number of people that the Government can deploy on such issues is limited, so we shoul...
Robin Harper:
Green
Does Rob Gibson acknowledge the real difference between the amount of disruption that is caused by, for instance, an offshore wind farm close to or in the Mo...
Rob Gibson:
SNP
We have to sort out such issues. In order to achieve balance, we will have to put in place an organisation such as we are discussing. In the meantime, we wil...
Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
I disagree slightly with Kenneth Gibson's allegation that the previous Executive did absolutely nothing about our marine environment for about 96 months. I a...
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Members will need to forgive me if my voice crackles a little today. It comes from urging Partick Thistle on to its well-deserved draw at Ibrox last night. T...
Robin Harper:
Green
This has been an interesting and important debate. As I reflect on what has been said in relation to the UK position, I note that our SNP colleagues—quite ri...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD):
LD
The debate has highlighted our marine and coastal environment, which contains many special and some unique landscapes of national and international renown. A...
The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):
SNP
Beam me up.
Jim Hume:
LD
I wish they would beam me up, Mr Russell.Liberal Democrats welcome any proposal for a marine national park, which was mentioned by Sarah Boyack and John Scot...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
Why will the Liberal Democrats vote against an amendment that seeks to speed up the process? That is exactly what the member is calling for.