Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 20 Mar 2008

20 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Marine Environment

Harper, Robin Green Lothians Watch on SPTV

This has been an interesting and important debate. As I reflect on what has been said in relation to the UK position, I note that our SNP colleagues—quite rightly in many ways, and certainly as a source of continuous enjoyment for themselves—enjoy tweaking the noses of Westminster politicians whenever they deem that appropriate. As the marine bill is developed, it will be terribly important to enter into discussions with the UK Government in a constructive and careful way, so that the bill is balanced.

The picture that is beginning to develop, particularly if control is extended out to 200 miles, means that it is extremely important that we recognise the international side of the issue—which is why I included in our amendment the references to the WSSD and the OSPAR convention—as well as the European and UK side, and, of course, the part that we should play in controlling the waters that are contiguous to Scotland.

There are a lot of reasons for that. One of them is that, just as fish do not know boundaries, neither do the minute organisms in our seas. There are parts of our marine environment about which we know very little. An enormous amount of research is being done in deep-sea marine environments and it is recognised that we are hauling fish out of the deep north Atlantic without knowing very much about the ecology that supports them.

Even in the marine environment that we know a lot about, one of the effects of global warming at the moment is the disturbance of quantities of the copepods that exist in the southern North Sea, with the result that southern varieties of those minute organisms are drifting into other parts of the North Sea. The fish that would normally eat the variety of copepod that is being replaced are moving northwards with the new copepods, and other species of fish are moving in. We need a regulatory process and framework for our seas that will be able to cope with such changes in the environment.

That is one of the reasons why the precautionary principle—and, perhaps, the Sandford principle—should be applied to our marine environment as well as to our terrestrial environment. If the marine environment is not protected in a way that ensures that it is at least robust and can survive a certain amount of change, it is going to be ever more susceptible to the damage that is beginning to be inflicted by climate change and which will, without doubt, be inflicted over the next 30 or 40 years.

I was glad to hear that the cabinet secretary has written to the UK Minister of State for Energy about dolphins. I would like to explore the issue of the combined threat to the marine environment of oil exploration and offshore wind power. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that offshore wind power has tremendous possibilities. In many people's minds, it represents a preferable alternative to the large number of wind projects that are presently queuing up to be built in Scotland's beautiful environment, from north of here to Cape Wrath. We will be able to learn from the research that is being done in the experimental stations in Orkney what we can and cannot do in our marine environment.

There is no doubt that any marine development comes at a cost. We need legislation that minimises the effects of developments in our marine environment but at the same time allows developments that will be of value in preserving our environment—I refer, in particular, to offshore wind—to go ahead where their impact will be minimal. I congratulate the minister on bringing the debate to the chamber and look forward to many future debates on the subject as the preparation of the bill continues.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 20 Mar 2008

In the same item of business