Hansard

I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

This is a big bill on an important subject: the custodianship of Scotland's coastal waters out to the 12-mile limit. Scrutinising it at stage 1 meant some hard work for the committee, but I think that I speak for all members when I say that it was also an enjoyable experience. It was particularly rewarding to make fact-finding visits earlier in the year, when the days were longer and the weather just a little warmer, to three beautiful stretches of the Scottish coastline: at Buchan, on the Firth of Lorne and on the Solway Firth. There, we heard first hand from people who live by the sea or make their living from it about the effect that they think the bill will have on them, and what changes they would propose to make it better.

On behalf of the committee, I express my thanks to the people who gave generously of their time on those visits, one of which also involved a full committee meeting in Kirkcudbright. I also pass on our thanks to the many people, including two petitioners, who provided evidence to us in writing or in person at our five stage 1 meetings. I thank the entire membership of the committee. I also thank its clerking team, past and present, and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre—Wendy Kenyon in particular—for their unstinting work. Finally, I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for the hard work that they have put into getting the bill this far along the road—if that is the right metaphor for a marine bill. It is only fair to note at the outset that the bill builds on work that was undertaken by the previous Administration and on an important report that the former Environment and Rural Development Committee produced in 2007.

Scotland's inshore waters are among our most precious resources, as a source not only of food but, increasingly, of renewable energy. They are a resource for boat cruises, recreational angling, activity holidays and so on and they are also simply where we go to relax and enjoy the beauty and sea air. Our seas are also—or certainly should be—a haven for a diversity of animals, plants and birds. It is therefore vital that they enjoy adequate protection.

That said, anyone making a living from our seas might be forgiven for thinking, "Oh, no, more laws about marine management are on their way!" Fishermen, in particular, complain with some justification that, at times, they are practically drowning in a sea of rules and regulations. I want to make it clear that the committee would not have supported the bill at stage 1 if we had thought that it was likely to add to the administrative burden. On balance, we do not, which is why we recommend in our report that the general principles of the bill be approved.

Indeed, we are hopeful that the bill has the potential to make things less rather than more complicated and that it will improve channels of communication between the many diverse users of the sea. In particular, we are cautiously optimistic that the introduction of statutory marine planning will enable more rational and well-informed decisions about the use of the sea to be made and allow misunderstandings about controversial matters such as inshore dredging or the siting of fish farms to be sorted out sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, the creation of a national marine plan should provide an opportunity for the Scottish Government to demonstrate leadership in identifying national priorities, including in emerging industries such as offshore wind and tidal energy production.

Another key aim of the bill that we broadly welcome is the new rules on the marine protected areas, which will increase the opportunity to designate appropriate sites.

A further key area of the bill that the committee supports is the provision to modernise our laws on seal conservation. We agree that that is overdue and that the provisions that are set out in the bill are a step in the right direction.

Presiding Officer, you would not expect any lead committee convener to conclude a speech at stage 1 without expressing at least some reservations, and I do not propose to disappoint you. In the remainder of my speech, I will refer to some of the matters in our stage 1 report on which we said that we would welcome movement or clarification from the cabinet secretary. I expect other committee members may wish to focus on matters of particular concern to them.

First, as our evidence gathering made clear, there are serious concerns about the state of Scotland's seas and the loss of biodiversity within some marine ecosystems. There is on-going debate about the causes: are they the result of overfishing in some areas, natural or man-made environmental changes or some sort of complex interplay of factors? Whatever the causes, the evidence gives rise to concern. The committee is under no illusion that domestic legislation will, of itself, turn things round; we simply query whether the bill in its current form has grasped every opportunity to try to put things right. We make a number of recommendations, two of which I will highlight.

First, we suggest that the bill should set out an overarching duty on all public bodies in Scotland, including the Scottish ministers, to have regard to the need to safeguard the health of the sea when exercising any relevant function. Secondly, we propose that the bill should make it mandatory rather than discretionary for the Scottish ministers to create a coherent network of marine protected areas. The committee considers that the two proposals, if taken together, would help to strengthen the conservation element of the bill.

Another concern relates to the proposals for the regulation of fish farming. In the main, the bill proposes the retention of the status quo, with licensing decisions being made at local authority level rather than becoming subject to a centralised licensing system. It is important that, as convener, I make it clear that the committee was divided on whether the approach that is set out in the bill is the right one. This was the only matter on which we formally split.

I respect individual members' right to agree to disagree. Nonetheless, a clear majority of the committee is not satisfied that the approach that is set out in the bill is the right one. We think that it goes against the entire philosophy that the bill seeks to champion of making the marine licensing system more streamlined and consistent. Our report tentatively suggests that there might be room for some compromise whereby Marine Scotland sets the licensing rules for aquaculture but they are administered at the local level.

Finally, I draw the Parliament's attention to the provisions on seals. The committee is satisfied that the overall direction of travel under the provisions is towards improved conservation and animal welfare, which we welcome. However, we make a number of suggestions about how the provisions could be strengthened. For example, we suggest that the licensing conditions relating to the skill or training of the marksman or the type of weapon that is used should be mandatory. On the basis that prevention is always better than cure, we think that implementation of the bill affords an opportunity to ensure that the aquaculture industry takes all reasonable steps to apply preventive measures against seal incursions, such as the installation of anti-predator netting, to ensure that shooting a seal is truly a last resort.

Those reservations aside, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is happy to support the general principles of the bill and to wish it a safe journey as it negotiates the remaining shoals and narrows of the parliamentary process.