Hansard

Scottish Labour supports the principles of the Marine (Scotland) Bill and welcomes many of its provisions. However, in our view, the bill could be improved and strengthened in parts by amendment at stage 2. As Maureen Watt said, that is also the view of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

I was slightly disappointed that we did not receive the Scottish Government's response to the committee's report until last night, but I appreciate that this morning the cabinet secretary has gone through much of it in detail. He and Maureen Watt mentioned the competing interests of stakeholders in the marine area. There is a huge marine area in Scotland, which has an estimated coastline of 16,500km and a territorial sea of around 88,600km2.

A report published at the beginning of this month for Scottish Environment LINK by David Hughes and Thom Nickell of the Scottish Association for Marine Science advises that

"Scotland's marine environment is in a far from pristine state and is in real need of recovery."

It goes on to say that the

"Marine Bill as it stands will only manage the status quo. It will not bring about any improvement in the wider seas outside marine protected areas".

The report cites evidence of declining stocks of a number of species in the North Sea.

During stage 1 consideration of the bill, we heard similar evidence from the Community of Arran Seabed Trust and the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network. Ian Burrett told the committee:

"on the west coast of Scotland, 20 species either have disappeared or are now found only as juveniles."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 10 June 2009; c 1753.]

Howard Wood of the Community of Arran Seabed Trust said of the Clyde:

"Having dived in it for 36 years, my experience is that it is in a dire state. The fish that I saw as a teenager diving in the Clyde no longer exist. They are ecologically extinct."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 9 September 2009; c 1869.]

The committee recommended unanimously that a duty be placed on ministers and all public bodies to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area in the exercise of their functions. I am sorry that the Scottish Government's response to the recommendation is a bit lukewarm, but I am sure that the matter will be discussed further at stage 2. Improving the health of the marine environment is in the interests of all stakeholders and should be a key objective of the bill.

We support the committee's recommendation that climate change mitigation and adaptation be included in the list of objectives of the national marine plan under section 3(3). We agree that, because the plan is of considerable significance, the draft plan needs to be properly scrutinised by Parliament; a minimum period for consideration of 40 days should be stipulated.

Other members have mentioned the boundaries of the marine planning regions, which will vary from one marine area to another but should encompass single ecosystems. It makes sense for the firths to be single marine planning areas. As other members have said, that is a little more tricky when the firth spans the border, as the Solway does. The Solway Firth Partnership pointed out to the committee that the Marine (Scotland) Bill enables ministers to delegate planning responsibility to a third party but that that provision does not exist in the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill. The SFP had proposed an amendment to the UK bill but, after a meeting a couple of weeks ago with Huw Irranca-Davies, organised by my colleague Russell Brown MP, it is satisfied that appropriate memorandums of understanding can be put in place to allow a single planning process for the Solway, resulting in the production of a single plan document that will be agreed by both ministers. Legally, there will be two plans, but they will be identical. I am pleased that there has been a resolution of some of the concerns that have been aired.

Inshore fisheries groups are being set up in Scotland; two have already been established, and others are planned. However, the groups include only commercial fishing interests. The committee questioned the need for such groups to be established, given that they may be overtaken by the proposals in the bill. If they remain, there is a strong case for other fishing interests, such as sea anglers, to be members, as their industry is also dependent on the condition of the marine environment. Like commercial fishing, sea angling contributes significantly to the economy, especially in rural areas. That was demonstrated in the Scottish Government's recent report "Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland", which stated that recreational sea angling contributed almost £141 million annually to the economy and sustained 3,148 jobs.

The bill does not require ministers to create any marine protected areas, but the committee received advice indicating that the European Union marine directive does. Scottish Labour supported the committee's recommendation that the bill impose a duty on ministers to create a network of MPAs, which should be regularly monitored and reviewed.

Other members have mentioned the repeal of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, which is probably the most contentious part of the bill. More than half of the more than 8,000 replies to the bill to which the cabinet secretary referred were on that topic. Despite the contentious nature of the provisions, the oral evidence session on them was positive and suggested that a compromise could be reached. Such a compromise might not be ideal for the different sides of the argument, but it would provide a reasonably satisfactory way forward.

During a previous debate, I said that I understand that there are circumstances in which seals must be shot; the sea mammal research unit agrees. However, lethal methods of seal control should be used only as a last resort. Statutory conditions should be placed on the issue of licences, covering, for example, the skills requirements of the marksman, the weapons that can be used and the distance from which a seal can be shot. Applicants should be required to demonstrate that other, non-lethal methods of control have been tried and have failed. The number of seals that are shot should be reported, perhaps not on an individual basis, but certainly regularly.

Labour is pleased to support the general principles of the bill. However, as was the case with the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill and the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, we believe that cross-party work by the committee and ministers at stage 2 will result in improvements to it. I am sure that by the time we reach the end of stage 3 we will have a bill of which we can all be proud.