Hansard

No one from the Conservative Party or, I am sure, from any other party, would argue with the overall statement in the motion that

“the general policies in the draft plan provide an important framework to deliver the sustainable development of Scotland’s seas”.

They do, and—Claudia Beamish referred to this—the opening paragraph of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s report acknowledges that fact absolutely.

However, in what I think is a first for this parliamentary session, the committee’s unanimous report was quite critical of certain aspects of the draft plan. That needs to be recognised in the motion—it certainly would have been if this had been a committee debate, as was originally envisaged—which is why we seek to amend the motion very slightly to highlight the committee’s position.

However we have tried to word it, the committee has been quite hard-hitting and critical of the draft plan. Indeed, in one of the lighter moments during our deliberations, an interesting clerical typo was that the original draft of our report referred to “the daft plan” rather than the draft plan. I have to admit that the committee had a momentary thought to perhaps leave that uncorrected.

More seriously, I am sure that I am not alone in welcoming the fact that the marine plan and our deliberations have been completely devoid of party-political divisions. The future sustainability of our marine environment is surely way beyond that. As a result, I hope that the Government will take our constructive criticisms in the manner in which they are intended. They are not criticisms for criticism’s sake and they are not made for party-political point scoring, but are made with a view to producing a plan that is clear, concise and easily understood by those to whom it applies.

I remain concerned that, when the committee states that the national marine plan is too detailed and proscriptive in parts, and yet too vague in others, the cabinet secretary’s response is just:

“I believe the plan provides a clear overarching framework”.

I remain a little concerned that the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee’s criticism that the draft plan does not provide a clear and concise set of principles that can be consistently applied by decision makers is:

“I believe the approach is proportionate given the existence of the Marine Policy Statement and the inclusion of a limited range of General policies.”

The committee states that it has serious concerns about whether local authorities have sufficient experience, expertise and resources to successfully develop and implement regional marine plans, so I remain concerned because the Government's response is:

“There is significant expertise in some areas which Partnerships will be able to access”.

I accept, however, that the cabinet secretary acknowledged that further support and work will be needed in that area.

I could go on, but members will have got the picture. The committee has raised a series of genuine questions relating to the draft plan; the Government needs to take them with the utmost seriousness if the plan is to provide the ultimate guidance to decision makers on, and users of, Scotland’s marine environment, as it sets out to do. If it can achieve that aim, it will be a document of enormous importance and value, but it has to remain focussed on that principal purpose. It has been in danger of losing that focus and, somewhere during the long development process—it has been a huge amount of work—it has been in danger of losing its way and losing sight of exactly who the plan is for.

“Having a national marine plan is entirely commendable, useful and desirable but, when we get into the detail of what activity is being undertaken where ... and I see that we are endeavouring to give indications nationally and create regional marine plans locally ... I think that we are in danger of creating a cat’s cradle of regulation and guidance.”

Those are not my words but the words of Michael Russell when taking evidence on the committee. I assure members that I have his permission to quote him. He then went on to ask what is happening

“to ensure that the plan will be a simple framework for decision making and will not produce some unconscious move towards the accrual of all sorts of prescriptive powers that will make development, living and activity much more difficult”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 17 December 2014; c 27.]

A simple overarching framework for decision making is surely the very heart of what the plan should be about, but it is not simple and it has also gone way beyond being overarching.

There is a great deal that is good within the plan—particularly the emphasis on sustainability that is at its core. The establishment of NMPi as the main portal for special data that are relevant to marine planning is a great innovation and, as I started out by saying, the principle of adopting a national marine plan is absolutely right and proper. It is therefore surely all the more important to make sure that our national marine plan becomes a guide book that is regularly taken off the shelf to be consulted and used, rather than a “cat’s cradle of regulation” that steadily gathers dust while remaining resolutely on the shelf. It is in all our interests that it should be the former and the committee’s concerns are aimed at ensuring that the end product of this considerable body of work is a national marine plan that will benefit the whole country.

I move amendment S4M-12343.1, to insert at end:

“, but notes the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s concerns as raised in its recent report to the Parliament, and encourages the Scottish Government to recognise these concerns as the draft plan is taken forward”.