Hansard

I apologise to the cabinet secretary for not being present for the beginning of his speech, but I am a member of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which was taking evidence that is of some interest to the Parliament and the Government.

Unsurprisingly, my focus in this debate on the national marine plan rests on the Solway and on regional planning for that sea. The Solway has rightly been proposed as one of the 11 Scottish marine regions, but it differs from most of the others in that it not only crosses the border between Scotland and England but is close to the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, which have their own marine legislation and management arrangements. The English side of the Solway is regulated by the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Scottish side is regulated by the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. Although there are many similarities between the two acts, there are also differences. However, despite that, there was a strong feeling that the Solway Firth should not be divided for marine planning purposes.

The Solway Firth Partnership, which I spoke about in Rhoda Grant’s members’ business debate in December on Scotland’s coastal partnerships, led a vigorous campaign to ensure that the area was not divided for planning purposes and that any differences in arrangements should be a help rather than a hindrance to the planning processes. As the cabinet secretary knows, the partnership’s sustained campaigning on the issue resulted in a joint ministerial statement in 2009 by the then UK minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, and the cabinet secretary, which committed both Governments to a joined-up marine planning process across the border. The measures in the agreement included joint stakeholder consultation and communication between Governments throughout the planning process, the publication of a single planning document, a seamless approach to marine spatial planning for the Solway Firth and clear articulation on how the two planning regimes interact and integrate.

It is not surprising that, at the end of last year, the Solway was chosen as a case study by the Celtic seas partnership project. It has been identified as a best-practice example of how to address co-locational, sectoral interaction and transboundary challenges. The important role that the Solway Firth Partnership plays in ensuring success has been highlighted. The outcome of the first stage of the case study will be presented at a conference in Paris in May, although I do not know whether any members will be invited to attend and hear the results.

Other than campaigning for the Solway to be treated as one entity, the Solway Firth Partnership does not normally lobby, as it has a broad membership and its role is normally one of facilitation and mediation between interests. It did not, for example, contribute written evidence to the RACCE Committee inquiry on the draft marine plan. However, when I read the committee’s report, it struck me that the partnership’s experience could be helpful in addressing some of the issues that the committee raised.

In paragraph 42 of the report, for example, the committee expresses concern

“about the possibility of inconsistency between Regional Marine Plans”

and says that there is a need for

“guidance ... on how regional marine areas will be expected to work together to ensure that users of the marine environment operating at a national level do not face inconsistent or conflicting arrangements.”

It strikes me that such a challenge will be addressed in the Solway because of the different legislative regimes and management arrangements not just between Scotland and England but in relation to the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, too. Some examples from that good practice could be applicable across regional marine plans throughout Scotland.

The sectoral interests of the Solway are diverse. It supports a diverse mixed fishery, which in turn provides employment in Cumbria and in Dumfries and Galloway. As Dave Thompson spoke, I was reminded of the conflict of interest between hand gatherers of cockles and dredgers for cockles; even in the same sector or the same area, there are differences of interest between proponents of different techniques.

There are areas of environmental importance—the estuary is a Ramsar site and the inner Solway is designated as a special protection area under the European Union birds directive and as a special area of conservation. The English side of the Solway was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty back in 1964 and three national scenic areas were designated on the Scottish side 20 years ago. The area also includes a number of national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest.

There is potential for conflict between those interests and the renewable energy opportunities in the Solway. As those of us who were around at the time will know, the 60-turbine Robin Rigg offshore wind farm development was contentious on both sides of the Solway. Five years ago, nine possibilities for tidal energy generation—including barrages, lagoons and reefs—were identified in a report that was commissioned by Scottish Enterprise, the Northwest Regional Development Agency and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. I am not aware of much progress having taken place on any of those proposals over the past five years. However, there could undoubtedly be significant environmental consequences, particularly if the larger barrage schemes were implemented. Those schemes were the only ones that were considered to be commercially viable.

Marine planning in the Solway will be crucial in balancing competing interests and, importantly, in protecting the marine area and the marine environment. As others have said, it will be essential for local authorities on both sides of the Solway to have sufficient expertise and resource to develop a robust marine planning system for the region. They need to be able to draw on the expertise of local organisations such as the Solway Firth Partnership. In his response to the committee report, the cabinet secretary acknowledges the

“existing expertise which can be drawn on locally”

and how much of that expertise there is. However, to enable the best use of local expertise, the national plan must—as the committee recommends—be “clear and concise” in defining the principles that must be applied, without being prescriptive.

The RACCE Committee has been critical of the draft plan. For example, it stated that the plan is

“too detailed and prescriptive in some parts, and yet too vague in others.”

I note that the cabinet secretary has agreed to review the text with regard to the relationship between general and sectoral policies, but I would welcome clarification on what opportunities might be available for scrutiny of any revised plan. The draft national plan has been a long time in its preparation, as we have heard, but the committee’s report indicates that it still has some distance to go before it becomes the final plan.