Hansard

The scrutiny of the national marine plan has raised quite a lot of criticisms from our committee. They are intended to say not, “This is not fit for purpose”, but, “This is not fit for purpose yet.”

We know that it has taken five years to develop the plan; we recognise that it is the first one that there has been; and we very much welcome the efforts that have been made by the officials and Marine Scotland to get a workable document. Between us, my colleagues and I will be able to show some of the ways in which the plan could become a more workable document.

The Scottish Government’s draft plan in its present form could carry the danger of creating conflict by having highly prescriptive actions in some areas while setting out vague aspirations in others. Simply put, instead of making the marine environment easier, it risks making it more difficult. That was the overall view of our committee, so we need to take it seriously.

From looking at the marine plan, we can see that it points to that problem. In GEN 4, which is on co-existence, there are a whole lot of concerns about the ways in which different sectors should work together. The whole point about a national marine plan is that it is able to give guidance to more local bodies that have to deal with the issues and to provide a clear agreement about how each of the competing interests will work together.

In the area that I represent, the Highland Council has responsibility for three different marine plan areas: the west Highland marine region from Ardnamurchan north to Cape Wrath; the north coast along to Duncansby Head; and the area from Duncansby Head to Fraserburgh, on which it has to work with Moray Council and Aberdeenshire Council. It has a huge task ahead of it.

We have had evidence that officials and councillors in the Highland Council do not believe that their planning departments have the skills at this time to be able to carry through the work that is expected of them—they will share the largest burden of that work. It is important for us to highlight those facts.

Given that we live in straitened circumstances for money for local authorities, we have to ask how we proceed. Partly, we have to adopt the precautionary principle, but we also have to encourage people who want to go further and faster at a local level. I will concentrate on that just now.

We have had the successful application, as far as I know, of the several order around Shetland for the past 10 years, which I guess will be looked at carefully in the near future. We have instigated the no-take zone in Lamlash Bay. We have groups such as Sea Change around Loch Broom that want to make sure that the marine protected area in that area is not held back in the process of these plans being developed.

The problem that we have is this: if we are waiting for the Highland Council to set up the west Highland marine region, what happens in the meantime to people who know, in commonsense terms, that they could do much more to improve the habitat of the area that they represent, for the benefit of fishing, regeneration of the area and the seabed, and tourism and visitors? What will they do in the meantime?

I understand that Sea Change is about to lodge a petition with the Scottish Parliament to discuss that specific matter. I am sure that other people around Scotland will also have impatience about being able to make progress and do more.

At present, Sea Change is saying that it hopes to

“foster relationships between fishermen and scientists, environment groups and representatives of the public to build a model of best practice which fits local needs—thus pioneering a modern approach which includes ongoing education of the public, but equally by both fishermen and scientists working together to encourage greater understanding to achieve common goals.”

Without a doubt, those ideas are embodied in the national marine plan. However, with the evidence of people saying that different models have to be tried—we know that there are currently pilot schemes in the Clyde and around Shetland—we need to encourage people, and if we are short of money we need to take the precautionary principle in some cases. That is why folk around Loch Broom are saying that certain aspects of fishing, such as scallop dredging, will have to be curtailed as part of the process of reaching a balance again in nature. That is the kind of thing that the national marine plan has to take into account.

I could talk about many of those things—and my colleagues will talk about many other things—but the exact model that is developed may be different in each area. Given our focus on very local matters, it would be appalling if we lost the whole of the habitat of the Minch because the Maritime and Coastguard Agency tug is taken away from that area or even near that area by Easter next year—the cabinet secretary mentioned that. Is it not appalling that we are beholden to such a scheme from the UK Government?

The Scottish responsibility for the MCA needs to happen quickly, but we need to sort out the question of the tug. The grounding at Ardnamurchan is just another example of the fact that, around our seas, there is the potential to destroy vast amounts of habitat, and very local groups cannot stop that. We need a national marine plan to deal with those matters effectively.