Hansard

I am delighted to open the debate on the Marine (Scotland) Bill on behalf of my party. Scottish Liberal Democrats have been long-standing supporters of such legislation, not just here but at Westminster. I am proud of the role that my party has played both north and south of the border, especially with the efforts of my colleague Ross Finnie, who did so much to help establish the platform and principles underpinning the bill. There is much work to do in the coming weeks to ensure that we have a piece of legislation of which we can be proud. Like other members, I believe that we have made a very good start.

We have been well served by all those who have provided evidence to date. It has been detailed, insightful and, in the main, remarkably consensual. I look forward to working with many of those same individuals and organisations as we begin our stage 2 scrutiny. I, too, thank the committee clerks and SPICe for all their hard work to date.

As Orkney's MSP, my interest in the bill is more than academic. Economically, socially, culturally and environmentally—in every way imaginable—Orkney's past, present and future are forged in the seas all around our archipelago. However, this is not a virility test as to which community can lay greatest claim to having a reliance on the marine environment. As the cabinet secretary reflected, Scotland and the UK as a whole depend hugely on our marine resources, so ensuring that they are properly understood and protected, and indeed exploited, is critically important to all of us.

Like the committee convener, although I support the general principles of the bill I wish to make a number of points looking ahead to the task in front of us at stage 2 and beyond. For the proposed legislation to be effective, it needs to be properly resourced. That recommendation from the committee might appear self-evident, but it enjoys strong support across the board from witnesses who are concerned that ministers might be willing the ends without necessarily willing the means.

I encourage the cabinet secretary to rethink his present unwillingness to accept duties rather than powers in the bill. It is hard to imagine Mr Lochhead piloting the bill through Parliament only then to stubbornly refuse to put in place a national marine plan, yet that point simply lends weight to the case for the Government to accept such a plan as a duty on ministers rather than as something that they are empowered to produce.

Similarly, the committee unanimously supported calls for the bill to

"place a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies … to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area."

That would be backed by indicators that make it clear what constitutes a healthy marine environment. I accept that that might not be straightforward, but I am sure that the committee will be happy to work with the minister and his officials to find a workable solution.

The committee supports a flexible approach to the membership and governance of marine planning partnerships. That is surely the only way of reflecting the diversity of our marine environment, and that of the communities and interests that are reliant upon it. It is not inconsistent to argue, however, that Marine Scotland has an important role in guiding and supporting those partnerships, particularly in the early stages. Likewise, we should consider whether it is helpful to establish a framework to consider what local plans might look like. That need be no more than a requirement for each plan to set objectives and indicate the policies and programmes to achieve them, but it could avoid partnerships wasting time in putting together plans that are subsequently rejected.

As for the national plan, I am pleased that the Government accepts the need for climate change mitigation and adaptation to be included in the list of objectives in section 3(3). With there being the potential to deliver more than 30GW of power from offshore wind, wave and tidal sources over the next decade, the contribution that marine renewables can make to cutting harmful emissions as well as meeting our energy needs is a matter of record, and they can also play a major role in conserving our seas and helping to address issues such as acidification.

Marine region designations should be based on an ecosystem approach. Nevertheless, as the committee suggests, the case

"for the major firths and for the seas surrounding Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to be considered discrete marine regions"

is

"reasonably clear-cut".

I encourage the cabinet secretary to be a little less coy in supporting that proposition.

I spoke earlier about the consensus that exists with regard to many aspects of the bill. Sadly, however, I must, like others, report an act of rebellion within the committee on one particular issue. Steps were taken by the previous Administration to give local councils responsibility for licensing fish farms. The system is bedding in well, and it commands strong support among the councils and communities that are most directly affected. I do not accept that it creates undue burdens or confusion for the aquaculture sector, and I cannot agree that administrative neatness should override the right of local councils to take important decisions in that regard if they wish. Indeed, any decisions will require to adhere to the overall national plan. The cabinet secretary should rest assured that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues stand shoulder to shoulder with him in resisting the call from his own colleagues and others for those powers to be centralised.

Turning to the issue of nature conservation MPAs, although I accept that designation needs to be based on robust science, I believe that it is critical that, when marine conservation orders are drawn up, specific regard is given to social and economic factors as well as to climate change mitigation. The fear is that MPA designation will result in areas being off-limits to economic activity and development, and ministers can best deal with that myth by being more explicit on the matter in the bill.

On the sensitive issue of seal protection, I congratulate Advocates for Animals on the way in which it has made its case to the committee so far. I agree with members that improvements have been made, but I am concerned by claims that without close seasons during breeding times seal populations might be under more threat than they currently are. We might return to the issue at stage 2.

The bill is a good one and our collective efforts have contributed to it. It demonstrates the benefits of a consistent approach on the part of successive Governments in Scotland and collaboration between Governments north and south of the border. Liberal Democrats will be happy to support the principles of the bill at decision time.