Hansard

That is one point of view, but the fact is that a significant series of critical offshore developments are under threat because of that.

Appropriate expertise and support will be critical and, as the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment has acknowledged, a significant amount of effort will be required to build up the necessary expertise at the local level. His commitment during evidence to the committee, which was reinforced in his response to our report, that Marine Scotland will take a lead in ensuring that best practice and expertise are shared across Scotland—followed, as it has been, by an explanation of the support that is being provided for the preparation for the first marine planning partnerships in Shetland and Clyde—is therefore welcome.

It is clear that the process of shaping the national plan and then working up 11 regional plans is—and will be for some time to come—a work in progress. Indeed, the cabinet secretary admitted in evidence to the committee that it will take quite a few years to complete the jigsaw of regional plans. That is appropriate, as it is important that we get this right.

That said, with work supported by Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, among others, already going on as part of the pre-marine plan development phase for Shetland and Clyde, the opportunity should be there relatively soon to identify any sticking points that might arise and to identify what should be included in the plan that perhaps did not feature in initial thinking. It ought to be possible to establish a solid foundation relatively soon, although I understand entirely the point made by the cabinet secretary about not spreading too thinly the support that will be required.

In terms of making progress and calling upon available expertise, I suggest that, in seeking to equip those local authorities that lack a full understanding of all relevant aspects of the marine environment, we should encourage dialogue—even informal dialogue—with local Royal National Lifeboat Institution stations during both the consultation and the development phases.

On a visit to the Arbroath RNLI station earlier this week, I was struck by the very detailed knowledge of the local marine environment that exists within lifeboat crews. Often crew members have been crewing the lifeboat over many years or they make their living at sea. In either case, they have built up a detailed understanding of navigational channels, local fishing areas and the interactions between recreational boating and commercial vessels. The chances are that, unlike others who gave evidence to the committee, they will not have a vested interested in ensuring that local plans—or, indeed, the national plan—take a particular direction.

It strikes me that it would be crazy for those charged with shaping the regional plans not to sit down with the RNLI volunteers and seek their input as we seek to draw up plans that, as well as fitting in with the overarching national strategy, accurately reflect local circumstance. Any relevant data that comes to the fore but is not already included in the national marine plan interactive could then be fed in to it.

In paragraph 71 of the committee’s report, we talked of the need to encourage use of the information contained within the NMPi for the purpose of developing the regional plans, but we also called for all relevant data held by local authorities to be fed in. In hindsight, perhaps we ought to have added a line somewhere in the report that stressed the need for councils to tap into local expertise to ensure that the whole process is as fully informed as it might be, so that the NMPi becomes the single, first-class, authoritative mapping source for Scotland’s marine areas that we all want it to be. One would hope that that will happen anyway.

As we said in the committee’s report—and as Claudia Beamish touched upon—the marine plan requires amendment to make it fully fit for purpose. As we have heard, the committee members stand by that observation—certainly as an observation at that time. In light of the cabinet secretary’s formal response to the report and his comments today, I think that we are making some progress. Richard Lochhead’s commitment to review the text of the plan to ensure that the relationship between the general and sectoral policies is representative and his commitment that the engagement of Marine Scotland with local authorities will be proactive are examples of that progress, as is the fact that we are already seeing movement in developing the plans for Shetland and Clyde. The cabinet secretary also indicated in his opening remarks that he is open to making further changes.

It is worth pausing for a moment to consider the scale of what is being taken on. The plan and its regional subsets have to take into consideration 900 islands, around 6,500 species, aquaculture, the interaction between fishing and subsea cables, navigational channels, areas for depositing the consequences of dredging, and so on. It must balance the promotion of economic activity while ensuring that that activity takes place in a sustainable manner that not only protects but enhances the natural marine environment. It must also provide a clear steer on consistency while allowing for local flexibility. Let us recognise both the importance of the plan and the fact that, as I mentioned, it is understandably a work in progress and will be so for some time to come.

To that end, I am sure that successors of the current RACCE Committee will in due course return to the subject to monitor the progress that is being made.