Chamber
Plenary, 20 Mar 2008
20 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Marine Environment
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 institutional arrangements, will inevitably be a fiendishly complex bill. I also hope that, given that the UK Government is slightly ahead of us in developing its own marine bill, we will be able to dovetail our legislation with its framework. Indeed, briefings that we received today from various non-governmental organisations, such as the RSPB, stressed the importance of working with the UK and Irish Governments and other bodies.
I have spoken before about the importance of, and the challenges involved in, providing better care for and protection of the marine environment, and I do not intend to repeat myself this afternoon. However, the proposed marine bill will unquestionably provide us with an opportunity to make progress on a range of fronts.
As other members have pointed out, AGMACS created a framework for the bill, and its approach received broad agreement from a committee in the previous parliamentary session. Of course, any bill that comes before Parliament provides an opportunity to adjust Scotland's institutional landscape, and the bill will be no different. I have no doubt that in the bill, ministers will seek to create a Scottish marine management organisation, which will lead to better co-ordination, better coherence in policy, better prioritisation and a better approach to investing in the future.
Bills also allow new concepts to pass into law, and I hope that the proposed bill will provide for marine spatial planning, marine protected areas and nationally important marine areas. However, the bill will also allow us to be more ambitious than simply seeking to adjust institutional arrangements or to introduce new planning concepts, important and vital though such matters are.
As we move further into this century, human damage to the sea becomes ever more apparent. We are losing biodiversity and inflicting physical damage on the sea bed in many stretches of our coast. Moreover, as our population grows, the pressures on the sea and the potential for damage increase.
As we are constantly reminded, despite our own puny efforts we will never conquer the sea's powerful forces. However, we have learned to navigate the seas and to use them to travel relatively safely around the globe. We have also learned how to exploit them for oil, wind power, tidal power, leisure opportunities and—most important—food. Such exploitation has to be managed and controlled if we are to secure the long-term future of our seas and our planet.
Not so long ago, man's ability to destroy the marine environment was kept in balance; in other words, our activities did not outstrip the sea's ability to cope. However, as technology has improved over the past 50 or so years, so exploitation has increased. At some point in the past century, the balance flipped and mankind has now started to cause real damage to the marine environment. The damage is most noticeable in fish stocks, but it is also happening in a less visible way to the sea bed.
When the balance flipped, the interests of those who were benefiting economically from managing the seas began to dominate the debate, which is perfectly understandable. As Dave Thompson says, people's jobs and communities depend on the marine environment. It is therefore natural that human interests have long dominated the debate. However, if we are honest, we will admit that some of our activities in the marine environment are unsustainable. We will have to address that.
The coming bill is an opportunity to rebalance the forces that impact on our seas and to protect the marine environment much more successfully than in the past. That will require more than simply laws on institutional and planning arrangements. It will require ministers, the Government and all its institutions to have specific duties to care for the seas—binding duties on ministers to secure the protection of the marine environment; duties to act sustainably, which Robin Harper spoke about; duties to take a precautionary approach; duties to pursue ecosystem health objectives; and duties to secure scientific evidence that will help to guide decisions, and to have regard to it. Unless a bill contains those obligations, in the long title and its provisions, it will fall short.
We have to embrace new thinking. That will mean more no-take zones and more marine ecosystem objectives. It will mean marine protected areas and possibly marine national parks, which Dave Thompson mentioned. It may mean designating nationally important marine areas. It will mean that more fishermen have to adopt the best conservation practices of our inshore fleet. It may mean that we have to put our dolphins ahead of our short-term oil needs. It will mean ending some of the dredging of our sea lochs.
It will also mean new economic opportunities. If we get it right, there will be more opportunities for sea angling, leisure and tourism around our coastline, and more people will be involved in shellfish production and in sustainable inshore fisheries. However, in addition to the practical arrangements, the bill will have to contain points of principle and a visionary approach. I hope that the Government will ensure that that is the case. If it is not, we will seek to amend the bill accordingly.
I have spoken before about the importance of, and the challenges involved in, providing better care for and protection of the marine environment, and I do not intend to repeat myself this afternoon. However, the proposed marine bill will unquestionably provide us with an opportunity to make progress on a range of fronts.
As other members have pointed out, AGMACS created a framework for the bill, and its approach received broad agreement from a committee in the previous parliamentary session. Of course, any bill that comes before Parliament provides an opportunity to adjust Scotland's institutional landscape, and the bill will be no different. I have no doubt that in the bill, ministers will seek to create a Scottish marine management organisation, which will lead to better co-ordination, better coherence in policy, better prioritisation and a better approach to investing in the future.
Bills also allow new concepts to pass into law, and I hope that the proposed bill will provide for marine spatial planning, marine protected areas and nationally important marine areas. However, the bill will also allow us to be more ambitious than simply seeking to adjust institutional arrangements or to introduce new planning concepts, important and vital though such matters are.
As we move further into this century, human damage to the sea becomes ever more apparent. We are losing biodiversity and inflicting physical damage on the sea bed in many stretches of our coast. Moreover, as our population grows, the pressures on the sea and the potential for damage increase.
As we are constantly reminded, despite our own puny efforts we will never conquer the sea's powerful forces. However, we have learned to navigate the seas and to use them to travel relatively safely around the globe. We have also learned how to exploit them for oil, wind power, tidal power, leisure opportunities and—most important—food. Such exploitation has to be managed and controlled if we are to secure the long-term future of our seas and our planet.
Not so long ago, man's ability to destroy the marine environment was kept in balance; in other words, our activities did not outstrip the sea's ability to cope. However, as technology has improved over the past 50 or so years, so exploitation has increased. At some point in the past century, the balance flipped and mankind has now started to cause real damage to the marine environment. The damage is most noticeable in fish stocks, but it is also happening in a less visible way to the sea bed.
When the balance flipped, the interests of those who were benefiting economically from managing the seas began to dominate the debate, which is perfectly understandable. As Dave Thompson says, people's jobs and communities depend on the marine environment. It is therefore natural that human interests have long dominated the debate. However, if we are honest, we will admit that some of our activities in the marine environment are unsustainable. We will have to address that.
The coming bill is an opportunity to rebalance the forces that impact on our seas and to protect the marine environment much more successfully than in the past. That will require more than simply laws on institutional and planning arrangements. It will require ministers, the Government and all its institutions to have specific duties to care for the seas—binding duties on ministers to secure the protection of the marine environment; duties to act sustainably, which Robin Harper spoke about; duties to take a precautionary approach; duties to pursue ecosystem health objectives; and duties to secure scientific evidence that will help to guide decisions, and to have regard to it. Unless a bill contains those obligations, in the long title and its provisions, it will fall short.
We have to embrace new thinking. That will mean more no-take zones and more marine ecosystem objectives. It will mean marine protected areas and possibly marine national parks, which Dave Thompson mentioned. It may mean designating nationally important marine areas. It will mean that more fishermen have to adopt the best conservation practices of our inshore fleet. It may mean that we have to put our dolphins ahead of our short-term oil needs. It will mean ending some of the dredging of our sea lochs.
It will also mean new economic opportunities. If we get it right, there will be more opportunities for sea angling, leisure and tourism around our coastline, and more people will be involved in shellfish production and in sustainable inshore fisheries. However, in addition to the practical arrangements, the bill will have to contain points of principle and a visionary approach. I hope that the Government will ensure that that is the case. If it is not, we will seek to amend the bill accordingly.
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.