Hansard

I am glad that the cabinet secretary has, at the very outset, drawn attention to the on-going difficulty in the Sound of Mull with the Lysblink Seaway, which is in Mr Thompson’s constituency but within sight of mine. I shall be on the island of Mull tomorrow, just across from where the vessel ran aground.

The grounded vessel is now leaking fuel oil and there is a boom round the ship. I am very pleased that not only the cabinet secretary but the member of Parliament for the Western Isles, Angus Brendan MacNeil, and the Westminster candidate for Argyll and Bute, Brendan O’Hara, have drawn attention to exactly the same issue that the cabinet secretary raised, which is that we require a tug on the west coast. If there is no tug, such incidents will be dealt with more slowly than they would otherwise be dealt with, which means that a small leak yesterday becomes a larger leak today. This is not yet a crisis, but there could be a crisis, and it is important that a tug is based in the area.

That demonstrates the need for an integrated approach to marine management, and I strongly commend the cabinet secretary for the work that he has done with the UK Government on seeking that approach. It is just a pity that in this matter—and, some would argue, other matters—the UK is not yet measuring up.

The marine plan is undoubtedly good, but the obligation on the Scottish Government is to produce not just a good marine plan but the best plan possible. When Graeme Dey and I met the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee for the Environment this morning, we were impressed by the convener, Anna Lo, who said that she thought that the Scottish Government’s work on marine planning was exceptional and without doubt the best in the world. Of course, it could always be better and Alex Fergusson’s view that the marine plan should be clear, concise and easily understood is exactly correct. That is what the plan should aim to be, and I am very pleased that the cabinet secretary has confirmed to the committee that further simplification is required and has, in a letter to the committee convener, committed to reviewing the text to consider how the relationship between general and sectoral policies is best represented. That will take us a further step along the road to the best possible marine plan that we are aiming for.

I want to raise three specific issues that I think are of importance, the first of which is about ensuring that local authorities gain the expertise and experience in marine planning that they need. That issue has already been raised by a number of members, but it might help if I illustrate it with two examples. Last night, I spoke to Liam McArthur—I am sorry that he is not in the chamber, because he knew that I was going to mention this—about the representations from Orkney fisheries that some members have received, expressing the belief that there is a lack of expertise in the local authority that is hindering the local fishing industry’s work.

Paradoxically, the opposite position has been taken in the representations made to the committee by Argyll and Bute Council, which believes that that lack of expertise, which it admits exists, will in fact lead to more restrictive planning and more restrictions on development. Whatever the final outcome, we need careful and strong resourcing of training and the development of expertise in local authorities to allow them to operate the marine plan. Until that is in place, the plan should not operate in the anticipated regions. The two pilot regions are working reasonably well, and there should be no expansion until that experience is in place.

Secondly, some have expressed concern about the progress being made in conservation. In my area, work on the marine protected area for the common skate and the special area of conservation for the harbour porpoise seems to have moved more slowly that it should have done. Indeed, Northern Ireland has a special area of conservation for the harbour porpoise, but Scotland does not have one as yet. As Rob Gibson has indicated, the enthusiasm of and impetus from local communities to get involved in these processes and to see conservation happen need to be supported by Government. The marine plan is the ideal place for that to happen, because it provides the framework in which communities can understand and influence the process of conservation and designation.

The third issue that I want to raise—I know that the cabinet secretary will expect me to raise it—is marine cables. There is a difference between repairing an existing cable and replacing an existing cable with a new one. I make that obvious point because of the experience last year of the people of Islay, Jura and Colonsay, who for six months did not have a working marine cable that brought electricity to their islands. For six months, there was discussion and debate between Marine Scotland, SSE and other parties about how the existing cable, which had failed, should be replaced.

The marine plan does not make the proper distinction in that matter. It must allow the replacement of cables speedily—indeed, as an emergency; after all, this is the way in which electricity is supplied to remote communities. Of course, new cables should be subject to different regulation and, where necessary, those cables should be buried. I do not think that even the most difficult electricity company would resist that, but to stop communities being connected because a state body could not come to an agreement with the electricity provider about a cable that had failed was wrong and was a disservice to those rural communities.

Those are three of the many issues that the committee discussed, and I have to say that I was impressed by the work of my new committee colleagues on this matter. There is a desire to support the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary to ensure that this is the best possible marine plan, and certainly one that can stand among the best in the world.

However, to ensure that that happens, some simplification and redrafting are required. I remember a senior civil servant saying to me, “Minister, simplification is a complex business.” However, I think that we have here a situation in which simplification can be extremely simple. The committee has given good guidance to the cabinet secretary on how to go about it, and I look forward to reading and debating the final version of the plan.