Chamber
Plenary, 26 Feb 2009
26 Feb 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Marine Bill Consultation
My contribution will be short, but very sweet. My amendment is motivated by the growing perception that the present world crisis offers an opportunity for us to move away from discussions that are fixed on economic growth and to focus on environmentally sustainable economic development. The difference between those two terms is critical.
I agree with the sentiments that Sarah Boyack expressed: the debate starts now, and we are really beginning to discuss the issue. There are many concerns, and what concerns me in particular about the tone of the Scottish National Party's motion is that it seems just a tad complacent.
The argument for including the environment at the core of things was forcefully and repeatedly made to the Government in many of the consultation responses. For example, the Marine Conservation Society wrote to say that it is
"very concerned that the new planning system is proposed to ‘ensure sustainable economic growth in the seas around Scotland'"
before the environment is mentioned.
As the Greens have often pointed out, successive Governments do not appear to understand what we mean by sustainability. Ministers seem to think that any economic activity becomes sustainable if it is sustained, as long as the cost to the environment is not terminal. They call it their "central purpose"; I call it a central misunderstanding. It is a particularly dangerous misunderstanding when it is applied to Scotland's seas, which are a vulnerable and fragile environment. Our amendment is intended to clarify the aims of the bill and to keep us on track by placing that all-important word "environmentally" in front of the words "sustainable development".
Concern about the issue was also highlighted by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in relation to national marine objectives. Although it supports a national marine plan that articulates marine objectives, it criticises the failure to commit absolutely to biodiversity in the development of objectives.
Scottish Environment LINK is
"extremely concerned that marine ecosystem objectives appear to be ‘balanced' by social and economic objectives."
The objectives should be central, not balanced.
The term "presumption of use" is of concern to many and is in conflict with the principles of sustainable development. The Scottish Wildlife Trust wrote:
"a presumption of use is unfair and unsustainable … The aim of Marine Planning should be to achieve a functional and biodiverse marine environment supported by Sustainable Development principles and the Ecosystem-based Approach",
which is a rather long way of saying "environmentally sustainable development". It continues:
"Presumption of use appears to undermine Sustainable Development principles."
Further, if marine biodiversity is to be respected, will the Government confirm that it will adopt a science-based approach to the selection of marine protected areas—I got a hint of that in the minister's speech—as set out in the consultation paper, and that it will not introduce a ministerial veto, as the UK Government has in the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill? I would also like confirmation that there will be a duty, and not simply a power, to create an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. Again, mention has been made of that. Concerns have been raised by the RSPB and others around the use of the word "proportionately" with regard to how new site protection powers will be used. What exactly does "proportionately" mean in relation to those new powers?
Scotland's seas are a simply stunning natural asset with an intrinsic value all their own, as the minister said. That demands that we give them more respect and better protection from here on. Scots do not look out at those waters and their wildlife and see only a price tag, and it would be a mistake for ministers to continue to do so. Any economic benefit that we are to gain from the sea, as we must, depends on the health of the ecosystem, which means that we must work within the system and respect the environmental limits of our seas.
Protection of the marine environment must be at the forefront of the legislation; it must not simply be an afterthought or a supportive measure, thus ensuring continued unsustainable economic growth. We must acknowledge the many concerns that remain, which were highlighted in the consultation responses, and ensure that we produce a bill that will respect the limits of the marine environment and its natural resources and biodiversity.
I move amendment S3M-3528.2, to leave out from "to drive" to "proposals" and insert:
"to accommodate environmentally sustainable economic development and improve the stewardship of the marine environment; acknowledges the positive response to the consultation, Sustainable Seas for All, the widespread support for the proposals and the concerns that remain".
I agree with the sentiments that Sarah Boyack expressed: the debate starts now, and we are really beginning to discuss the issue. There are many concerns, and what concerns me in particular about the tone of the Scottish National Party's motion is that it seems just a tad complacent.
The argument for including the environment at the core of things was forcefully and repeatedly made to the Government in many of the consultation responses. For example, the Marine Conservation Society wrote to say that it is
"very concerned that the new planning system is proposed to ‘ensure sustainable economic growth in the seas around Scotland'"
before the environment is mentioned.
As the Greens have often pointed out, successive Governments do not appear to understand what we mean by sustainability. Ministers seem to think that any economic activity becomes sustainable if it is sustained, as long as the cost to the environment is not terminal. They call it their "central purpose"; I call it a central misunderstanding. It is a particularly dangerous misunderstanding when it is applied to Scotland's seas, which are a vulnerable and fragile environment. Our amendment is intended to clarify the aims of the bill and to keep us on track by placing that all-important word "environmentally" in front of the words "sustainable development".
Concern about the issue was also highlighted by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in relation to national marine objectives. Although it supports a national marine plan that articulates marine objectives, it criticises the failure to commit absolutely to biodiversity in the development of objectives.
Scottish Environment LINK is
"extremely concerned that marine ecosystem objectives appear to be ‘balanced' by social and economic objectives."
The objectives should be central, not balanced.
The term "presumption of use" is of concern to many and is in conflict with the principles of sustainable development. The Scottish Wildlife Trust wrote:
"a presumption of use is unfair and unsustainable … The aim of Marine Planning should be to achieve a functional and biodiverse marine environment supported by Sustainable Development principles and the Ecosystem-based Approach",
which is a rather long way of saying "environmentally sustainable development". It continues:
"Presumption of use appears to undermine Sustainable Development principles."
Further, if marine biodiversity is to be respected, will the Government confirm that it will adopt a science-based approach to the selection of marine protected areas—I got a hint of that in the minister's speech—as set out in the consultation paper, and that it will not introduce a ministerial veto, as the UK Government has in the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill? I would also like confirmation that there will be a duty, and not simply a power, to create an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. Again, mention has been made of that. Concerns have been raised by the RSPB and others around the use of the word "proportionately" with regard to how new site protection powers will be used. What exactly does "proportionately" mean in relation to those new powers?
Scotland's seas are a simply stunning natural asset with an intrinsic value all their own, as the minister said. That demands that we give them more respect and better protection from here on. Scots do not look out at those waters and their wildlife and see only a price tag, and it would be a mistake for ministers to continue to do so. Any economic benefit that we are to gain from the sea, as we must, depends on the health of the ecosystem, which means that we must work within the system and respect the environmental limits of our seas.
Protection of the marine environment must be at the forefront of the legislation; it must not simply be an afterthought or a supportive measure, thus ensuring continued unsustainable economic growth. We must acknowledge the many concerns that remain, which were highlighted in the consultation responses, and ensure that we produce a bill that will respect the limits of the marine environment and its natural resources and biodiversity.
I move amendment S3M-3528.2, to leave out from "to drive" to "proposals" and insert:
"to accommodate environmentally sustainable economic development and improve the stewardship of the marine environment; acknowledges the positive response to the consultation, Sustainable Seas for All, the widespread support for the proposals and the concerns that remain".
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3528, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the marine bill consultation.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):
SNP
Scotland has a world-class marine environment and an enviable maritime heritage. We have 10 per cent of Europe's coastline, 20 per cent of Europe's seas and ...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
Nowadays, we regularly have debates in the chamber in advance of a stage 1 debate. In some ways, that is good, because it lets us focus on issues for proper ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I was intrigued by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's submission. I assure the member that I spoke to the organisation yesterday to clarify its position. ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I have read the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's submission and the key points in it, and it does not seem to me that the cabinet secretary has dealt in det...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I simply ask the member to note the quote from RSPB Scotland that I read out in my opening speech. It is a major player in Scottish Environment LINK.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I was just coming to RSPB Scotland. The quote that I am going to use was also given in response to the consultation. Again, RSPB Scotland's points about the ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No. I have taken a couple of responses from the cabinet secretary already.Marine Scotland's status is important. We are being denied the opportunity to debat...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
I welcome the debate on the Scottish marine bill, which comes at an appropriate time, following the introduction of the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill at ...
Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
I clarify that we have no antipathy towards marine Scotland. Our query is whether it should be an arm of Government or should be independent of Government. T...
John Scott:
Con
Forgive me for misunderstanding Labour's amendment, but it seems to me that it expresses antipathy towards marine Scotland and making an early start on it. T...
Liam McArthur (Orkney) (LD):
LD
Like Sarah Boyack, I welcome Roseanna Cunningham to her new role, but I am disappointed that the Government's gain is the Rural Affairs and Environment Commi...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I welcome that final sentence of the member's comments, but let me pick up on what he said about the timescale for the bill. Does he not recall that his part...
Liam McArthur:
LD
The previous Administration had been in place for eight years when Mr Lochhead made his statement in June 2007—I am confused about the commitment that he gav...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
My contribution will be short, but very sweet. My amendment is motivated by the growing perception that the present world crisis offers an opportunity for us...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The debate is fully subscribed so I will stop members as soon as their time limit is reached.
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP):
SNP
Our coasts and seas provide food from fisheries, energy and mineral resources, routes and harbours for shipping, tourism and recreation opportunities and sit...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I have spoken many times about the importance of the seas to our basic existence as human beings. Indeed, the seas provide the basis for life on our planet a...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I am sorry, but the member's time is up.
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
I am pleased to be involved in this debate on the proposed marine bill. If the bill is eventually passed, it will impact on the lives and wellbeing of many o...
Alasdair Allan (Western Isles) (SNP):
SNP
It will come as little surprise to hear the member for the Western Isles speak in favour of a marine bill. The sea has represented life and, often, death for...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I join other members in wishing Roseanna Cunningham well in her new post. I agree with other speakers about the need for a robust and overarching marine poli...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I suspect not.
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
Okay. I am sorry, Mr Lochhead.In the proposed bill, political ideology again comes ahead of the needs of the communities that we serve. The minister must cha...
Robin Harper:
Green
The debate has been interesting and I welcome much of what has been said. There is a growing consensus around the fact that, through a combination of no-take...
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
Robin Harper misses my point. The problem is that scientists are different from fishery protection. The scientists should have full and free access to fishin...
Robin Harper:
Green
I thank Rhoda Grant for that clarification. We certainly must have scientists working with the fishermen. I was glad to hear references to the science from t...