Chamber
Plenary, 29 Oct 2009
29 Oct 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Marine Scotland Bill: Stage 1
As with that long return to Ithaca, with its many trials and tribulations, so, no doubt, will be our journey to a healthier marine environment. We lack good baseline data, we lack research, and we have depleted the biodiversity of our seas. There is much to be done. Confucius said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step; today we witness the first flap of a tail.
The recent Scottish Government report, "Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland", concluded that the sport benefits the Scottish economy to the tune of £114 million. The figure sounds substantial, but it could be considerably greater. Twenty years ago there were some 118 sea angling charter boats on the Clyde; now there are three.
Why has sea angling on the Clyde declined so drastically? Have sea angers simply found another enthusiasm? Have they prawned their fishing tackle to buy season tickets and abandon the sunny Clyde for the terraces? I suspect that St Mirren and Greenock Morton football clubs wish that it were so, but the truth is far less pleasant. The Clyde has a sad history of overexploitation, the most recent chapter of which begins with the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, which allowed fishing by all methods within a 3-mile limit. Since the 1980s, when I used to fish the Clyde—with a notable lack of ability or success—there has been a significant decline in biodiversity. Some 20 species of fish are at the point of commercial if not ecological extinction.
According to the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network, the Clyde has become a nephrops monofishery, with no sign of whitefish recovery. As nephrops stocks decline too, there is talk of moving further down the food chain to brown shrimp and smaller shellfish. That is not sustainable. When commercial fishing is obliged to move down the food chain, something is wrong. The Clyde has become a degraded environment; a once-rich estuary is now a relative pauper. Where do we go when we reach the bottom of the food chain? How can our environment recover if there is nothing to recover with? The current state of the Clyde white fisheries brings to mind that well-known verse by Walter Wingate:
Sirs, row in; ye may as weelFish till aa' the licht is lostFish till day begins ti speelYe'll get naething but ae hoast.
Why have I spent so long talking about the Clyde? Because the Clyde makes abundantly clear why the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommended
"that the Bill place a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies, when exercising functions, to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area."
Other members mentioned the recommendation, which I urge the cabinet secretary to accept. Are other regions in Scotland's seas as depleted as the Clyde is? We lack the data that would enable us to be certain about that, but the evidence casts doubt on the health of Scotland's seas.
There should be no doubt as to our commitment to the sea's recovery, which would be good for our environment and our economy. If our fishing communities are to survive we must have healthy seas. For that reason I encourage the cabinet secretary to accept the committee's recommendation that the bill impose a duty on the Scottish ministers
"to create an ecologically coherent and representative network of marine protected areas".
The creation of such a network should be based on science and it is essential if we are to restore the health of Scotland's seas. Failure to ensure a coherent network might leave vital elements of biodiversity vulnerable to extinction. There is currently no obligation in the bill to designate protected areas when the scientific evidence supports such designation; the existence of evidence will merely make designation permissible. That might be understandable when several sites are similar, but the reasoning is less clear if the site is unique. The requirement to create an ecologically coherent network would remove fears that such sites might escape designation, regardless of the scientific evidence.
If we are to ensure that the health of Scotland's seas is maintained and improved, continual monitoring of such sites is essential. It would be all too easy for ministers to designate a site and then rest on their laurels—or seaweed, or cockles, or whatever ministers rest on after a bill such as the Marine (Scotland) Bill is passed. Given that much of what goes on in the sea is not readily visible, and given the progressive development of marine science, continual monitoring is essential to ensure that marine protected areas continue to function as they should. Furthermore, as species and communities adapt to global warming it is not inconceivable that MPAs will not be static and, over the decades, will need to be relocated as species and ecological communities adapt to the changing environment.
Like other members of the committee, I found it difficult to understand why fishing activities require additional legal protection. When an MPA is designated, there should be a clear statement about why it has been designated and what activities are prohibited or permissible. Prohibition should be on the basis that an activity conflicts with the stated aims of the MPA. If fishing or other economic activity does not negatively impact on those aims, the activities should be permissible within the MPA. It should therefore be clear to fishermen what they may or may not do in the area. If their activity is legal, they should be left in peace; if it is not legal, action should be taken. I repeat: the reasons for designation should be clear, as should the activities that are not permissible. There should be no need for additional protection.
I cannot discuss all the recommendations in the committee's report; there are far too many. I simply make the additional point that there was little dissent in the committee—we have heard about the one notable exception. I hope therefore that the cabinet secretary will be able to adopt most of the recommendations.
The bill has, rightly, been widely welcomed. William Topaz McGonagall, in the opening lines of his "A Tale of the Sea", wrote:
A pathetic tale of the sea I will unfoldEnough to make one's blood run cold
Action by the Government will ensure that those sad words will not ring true for the generations that follow us.
The recent Scottish Government report, "Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland", concluded that the sport benefits the Scottish economy to the tune of £114 million. The figure sounds substantial, but it could be considerably greater. Twenty years ago there were some 118 sea angling charter boats on the Clyde; now there are three.
Why has sea angling on the Clyde declined so drastically? Have sea angers simply found another enthusiasm? Have they prawned their fishing tackle to buy season tickets and abandon the sunny Clyde for the terraces? I suspect that St Mirren and Greenock Morton football clubs wish that it were so, but the truth is far less pleasant. The Clyde has a sad history of overexploitation, the most recent chapter of which begins with the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, which allowed fishing by all methods within a 3-mile limit. Since the 1980s, when I used to fish the Clyde—with a notable lack of ability or success—there has been a significant decline in biodiversity. Some 20 species of fish are at the point of commercial if not ecological extinction.
According to the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network, the Clyde has become a nephrops monofishery, with no sign of whitefish recovery. As nephrops stocks decline too, there is talk of moving further down the food chain to brown shrimp and smaller shellfish. That is not sustainable. When commercial fishing is obliged to move down the food chain, something is wrong. The Clyde has become a degraded environment; a once-rich estuary is now a relative pauper. Where do we go when we reach the bottom of the food chain? How can our environment recover if there is nothing to recover with? The current state of the Clyde white fisheries brings to mind that well-known verse by Walter Wingate:
Sirs, row in; ye may as weelFish till aa' the licht is lostFish till day begins ti speelYe'll get naething but ae hoast.
Why have I spent so long talking about the Clyde? Because the Clyde makes abundantly clear why the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommended
"that the Bill place a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies, when exercising functions, to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area."
Other members mentioned the recommendation, which I urge the cabinet secretary to accept. Are other regions in Scotland's seas as depleted as the Clyde is? We lack the data that would enable us to be certain about that, but the evidence casts doubt on the health of Scotland's seas.
There should be no doubt as to our commitment to the sea's recovery, which would be good for our environment and our economy. If our fishing communities are to survive we must have healthy seas. For that reason I encourage the cabinet secretary to accept the committee's recommendation that the bill impose a duty on the Scottish ministers
"to create an ecologically coherent and representative network of marine protected areas".
The creation of such a network should be based on science and it is essential if we are to restore the health of Scotland's seas. Failure to ensure a coherent network might leave vital elements of biodiversity vulnerable to extinction. There is currently no obligation in the bill to designate protected areas when the scientific evidence supports such designation; the existence of evidence will merely make designation permissible. That might be understandable when several sites are similar, but the reasoning is less clear if the site is unique. The requirement to create an ecologically coherent network would remove fears that such sites might escape designation, regardless of the scientific evidence.
If we are to ensure that the health of Scotland's seas is maintained and improved, continual monitoring of such sites is essential. It would be all too easy for ministers to designate a site and then rest on their laurels—or seaweed, or cockles, or whatever ministers rest on after a bill such as the Marine (Scotland) Bill is passed. Given that much of what goes on in the sea is not readily visible, and given the progressive development of marine science, continual monitoring is essential to ensure that marine protected areas continue to function as they should. Furthermore, as species and communities adapt to global warming it is not inconceivable that MPAs will not be static and, over the decades, will need to be relocated as species and ecological communities adapt to the changing environment.
Like other members of the committee, I found it difficult to understand why fishing activities require additional legal protection. When an MPA is designated, there should be a clear statement about why it has been designated and what activities are prohibited or permissible. Prohibition should be on the basis that an activity conflicts with the stated aims of the MPA. If fishing or other economic activity does not negatively impact on those aims, the activities should be permissible within the MPA. It should therefore be clear to fishermen what they may or may not do in the area. If their activity is legal, they should be left in peace; if it is not legal, action should be taken. I repeat: the reasons for designation should be clear, as should the activities that are not permissible. There should be no need for additional protection.
I cannot discuss all the recommendations in the committee's report; there are far too many. I simply make the additional point that there was little dissent in the committee—we have heard about the one notable exception. I hope therefore that the cabinet secretary will be able to adopt most of the recommendations.
The bill has, rightly, been widely welcomed. William Topaz McGonagall, in the opening lines of his "A Tale of the Sea", wrote:
A pathetic tale of the sea I will unfoldEnough to make one's blood run cold
Action by the Government will ensure that those sad words will not ring true for the generations that follow us.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4969, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on stage 1 of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. I call Richard Lochhead ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):
SNP
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was not sure whether it was the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee who was going to open the debate, but...
Maureen Watt (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 o...
Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
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 a...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
I begin by thanking our clerks and SPICe for their help. I also thank those who gave evidence in oral and written form and those who hosted the Rural Affairs...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
Hear, hear.
John Scott:
Con
Thank you.Local, broadly based and appropriately sized marine planning partnerships must develop integrated plans to achieve the responsible management and i...
Liam McArthur (Orkney) (LD):
LD
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 ...
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
As with that long return to Ithaca, with its many trials and tribulations, so, no doubt, will be our journey to a healthier marine environment. We lack good ...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
Like other members, I very much welcome the bill and support its general principles. As the cabinet secretary and Liam McArthur said, the bill has had a long...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
I am sure that I never glower, Mr Peacock.
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Marine (Scotland) Bill. The bill has been a long time in coming and the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
John Farquhar Munro expressed concern about paying too much attention to scientists and marine science because it might slow things up. However, the problems...
Alasdair Allan (Western Isles) (SNP):
SNP
The member rightly says that we should listen to scientists. Does he concede that we should also listen to communities and that one reason why the European C...
Robin Harper:
Green
The Liberal Democrats have already voiced their concerns in that area. All that I have to say on that issue at present is that it is clearly up for further d...
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am delighted to take part in the debate, not as a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee or as a scientist, but as someone with an interest ...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD):
LD
I welcome the chance to sum up this debate on the important subject of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. As Liam McArthur and John Farquhar Munro have stated, the ...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I refer members to my fishery interests in the members' register of interests.As my friend John Scott indicated in his opening speech, we strongly welcome th...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
The member should wind up.
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
On the subject of aquaculture, one other concern that industry representatives have put to me is that the bill proposes to introduce a universal licensing sy...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
The member must sit down.
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
—and inconsistency. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
The debate has been interesting and, in the main, remarkably consensual. The areas of concern as well as the areas of consent are broadly accepted by the Rur...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
There has been a lot of unanimity in the debate, which I welcome. Only the Liberal Democrats reverted to type from time to time. They said that everything wa...
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
During the first parliamentary session, I think that Ross Finnie, who was a minister, mentioned the possibility of a seal commission. Has the minister given ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
The bill mentions seal management plans, of course. We believe that they are a huge step forward in addressing issues relating to Scotland's seal populations...