Chamber
Plenary, 29 Oct 2009
29 Oct 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Marine Scotland Bill: Stage 1
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 gestation and there have been efforts over many years to pull people together to find answers to a series of questions and challenges that we face in relation to our marine environment.
The bill can be strengthened, which is typical of any bill that comes before the Parliament. Adoption of the committee's good recommendations, on which we were unanimous—with the exception of Liam McArthur on one point—would help to strengthen the bill substantially.
I have spoken before in the Parliament about how we have taken the health of the seas for granted for far too long. Because most of what lies beneath the surface is unseen by the vast majority of the population, as Bill Wilson said, it has been out of sight and out of mind for all too long. Mankind has abused the seas throughout all generations until perhaps this one, when we have recognised that the sea does not have infinite power to restore its health. We have heard from Elaine Murray and Bill Wilson about the condition of parts of our seas that we know about, but we do not know the condition of an awful lot more areas.
If the bill is to mean anything, it must make a clear statement that the health of the seas is the overriding concern that drives the legislation. That is why the committee recommended that there be
"a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies, when exercising functions, to have regard to … the health of the Scottish marine area."
That is not just about arresting decline and maintaining the current condition of the sea; it is about restoration and improvement where we have made the condition of the sea bed, in particular, significantly worse. We will need more scientific evidence as a basis for greater understanding of the situation, and I hope that most of the evidence will be independent. We need to develop indicators so that we can judge our progress.
Like other members, I am disappointed by the minister's response to the committee's recommendation. Our national Parliament is debating our interest in our seas and therefore must have a chance to say what it wants about the matter. I am sure that the recommendation will lead to the lodging of amendments at stage 2. Where there is a will, there is normally a way to accommodate what members want. I urge the cabinet secretary to work with members to secure a way forward, and I am sure that we can find a form of words that will address everyone's interests and concerns.
A motivation for the bill was the complexity of competing issues to do with our seas. There is a myriad of institutions, organisations and management concerns with competing interests in renewables, oil, gas, commercial fishing, sea angling, a variety of forms of recreation and transport. Therefore, I support the mechanism of regional marine planning partnerships, which will help to reconcile those interests and create opportunities for dialogue, debate and agreement about the way forward. Partnerships will vary in size and composition, and it is right that there should be such flexibility, but clarity is needed on their composition.
We also recommend that the minister appoint the chairs of partnerships. I noticed that the Government's response made no reference to that, and I would be interested to hear from the minister on that point.
The MPPs will involve a lot of process, administration and complexity, but I can think of few other solutions that would allow people to get round the table and try to reconcile the management of their seas.
I support the power of the minister to sign off the regional plans, because that will give them status. The minister needs a context in which to do that, which is why the vision of the national plan is important. As other members pointed out, it is slightly paradoxical that the bill contains no duty on the minister to produce a plan. Scottish Environment LINK drew that to our attention, and I am sure that the matter will be tidied up in due course.
Other members have also talked about the vital part that marine protected areas can play in helping to restore the health of our seas and preserving important features. The provisions on MPAs also need strengthened. I recognise that there are international obligations, but we should make it clear that there is a duty to create a coherent network of MPAs.
MPAs can be highly controversial. As a first cut, the conservation measures in them have to be based on science, but social and economic factors must also be taken into account. We must at all times seek to take local people with any proposal for an MPA, to engage them and to give them ownership of the process and as much of the local management control of the MPA as is possible. We need look no further than Barra, where local people are demonstrating to Scottish Natural Heritage their concerns about a different designation and the impact that it would have on their way of life and their ability to make a living.
MPAs must not be about a loss of economic opportunity alone. If that is the way they are perceived, they will be opposed—understandably so. There seems to be plenty scope for more development of offshore renewables, for example. Not only can that co-exist with other uses of the sea, but it may be complementary to them and help to achieve some of the bill's objectives.
The bill's provisions on seals are potentially controversial, but I am glad that, so far, there seems to be a broad consensus on what can happen and how we could manage the situation. Generally speaking, I welcome the bill's approach to the culling of seals, although it can be strengthened and tidied up. The key to that is tough licensing and tough mandatory conditions on any regrettable need to take seals out and shoot them.
I see that you are glowering at me, Presiding Officer. I am coming to the end of my time and I will happily sit down. I am very happy to support the general principles of the bill.
The bill can be strengthened, which is typical of any bill that comes before the Parliament. Adoption of the committee's good recommendations, on which we were unanimous—with the exception of Liam McArthur on one point—would help to strengthen the bill substantially.
I have spoken before in the Parliament about how we have taken the health of the seas for granted for far too long. Because most of what lies beneath the surface is unseen by the vast majority of the population, as Bill Wilson said, it has been out of sight and out of mind for all too long. Mankind has abused the seas throughout all generations until perhaps this one, when we have recognised that the sea does not have infinite power to restore its health. We have heard from Elaine Murray and Bill Wilson about the condition of parts of our seas that we know about, but we do not know the condition of an awful lot more areas.
If the bill is to mean anything, it must make a clear statement that the health of the seas is the overriding concern that drives the legislation. That is why the committee recommended that there be
"a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies, when exercising functions, to have regard to … the health of the Scottish marine area."
That is not just about arresting decline and maintaining the current condition of the sea; it is about restoration and improvement where we have made the condition of the sea bed, in particular, significantly worse. We will need more scientific evidence as a basis for greater understanding of the situation, and I hope that most of the evidence will be independent. We need to develop indicators so that we can judge our progress.
Like other members, I am disappointed by the minister's response to the committee's recommendation. Our national Parliament is debating our interest in our seas and therefore must have a chance to say what it wants about the matter. I am sure that the recommendation will lead to the lodging of amendments at stage 2. Where there is a will, there is normally a way to accommodate what members want. I urge the cabinet secretary to work with members to secure a way forward, and I am sure that we can find a form of words that will address everyone's interests and concerns.
A motivation for the bill was the complexity of competing issues to do with our seas. There is a myriad of institutions, organisations and management concerns with competing interests in renewables, oil, gas, commercial fishing, sea angling, a variety of forms of recreation and transport. Therefore, I support the mechanism of regional marine planning partnerships, which will help to reconcile those interests and create opportunities for dialogue, debate and agreement about the way forward. Partnerships will vary in size and composition, and it is right that there should be such flexibility, but clarity is needed on their composition.
We also recommend that the minister appoint the chairs of partnerships. I noticed that the Government's response made no reference to that, and I would be interested to hear from the minister on that point.
The MPPs will involve a lot of process, administration and complexity, but I can think of few other solutions that would allow people to get round the table and try to reconcile the management of their seas.
I support the power of the minister to sign off the regional plans, because that will give them status. The minister needs a context in which to do that, which is why the vision of the national plan is important. As other members pointed out, it is slightly paradoxical that the bill contains no duty on the minister to produce a plan. Scottish Environment LINK drew that to our attention, and I am sure that the matter will be tidied up in due course.
Other members have also talked about the vital part that marine protected areas can play in helping to restore the health of our seas and preserving important features. The provisions on MPAs also need strengthened. I recognise that there are international obligations, but we should make it clear that there is a duty to create a coherent network of MPAs.
MPAs can be highly controversial. As a first cut, the conservation measures in them have to be based on science, but social and economic factors must also be taken into account. We must at all times seek to take local people with any proposal for an MPA, to engage them and to give them ownership of the process and as much of the local management control of the MPA as is possible. We need look no further than Barra, where local people are demonstrating to Scottish Natural Heritage their concerns about a different designation and the impact that it would have on their way of life and their ability to make a living.
MPAs must not be about a loss of economic opportunity alone. If that is the way they are perceived, they will be opposed—understandably so. There seems to be plenty scope for more development of offshore renewables, for example. Not only can that co-exist with other uses of the sea, but it may be complementary to them and help to achieve some of the bill's objectives.
The bill's provisions on seals are potentially controversial, but I am glad that, so far, there seems to be a broad consensus on what can happen and how we could manage the situation. Generally speaking, I welcome the bill's approach to the culling of seals, although it can be strengthened and tidied up. The key to that is tough licensing and tough mandatory conditions on any regrettable need to take seals out and shoot them.
I see that you are glowering at me, Presiding Officer. I am coming to the end of my time and I will happily sit down. I am very happy to support the general principles of the bill.
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...