Chamber
Plenary, 26 Feb 2009
26 Feb 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Marine Bill Consultation
Nowadays, we regularly have debates in the chamber in advance of a stage 1 debate. In some ways, that is good, because it lets us focus on issues for proper discussion, and we on the Labour benches are very much in favour of extra discussion, particularly about a major bill such as the marine bill. Given the arithmetic in Parliament, it is important for us to tease out the issues, particularly in such a complex and substantial bill, which has been a long time in gestation and is incredibly important for our fishing industry and communities, for the development of the renewables industry, for nature conservation and for biodiversity in our seas.
I know that the minister would rather that we all agreed on exactly what we will end up with at the end of the day, but we on the Labour benches do not see the point in pretending that everyone agrees on everything at the outset, or that we always have a cosy consensus when one does not exist. We are absolutely not going to pick fights where that is not appropriate—and that is not what we are doing today—but it is daft to pretend that everyone is happy with everything that the minister has proposed. In a way, it would have been better if the motion simply acknowledged that and focused on some of the issues that Richard Lochhead mentioned and some that he has not.
It is not just me who thinks that we need robust debate. I quote Roseanna Cunningham:
"We know how to do robust argument and debate in Scotland. It's important so that we know what comes out at the end is in Scotland's interest."
She said that to us at the Scottish Environment LINK reception last night. I welcomed her then to her new ministerial position and I do so again today. I very much look forward to debating with her in the months and years to come.
There is truth in what she said last night. It is worth taking the time to tease things out. It is not just those of us on opposite sides of the chamber who do not always agree with each other; some of the external representations that have been received need to be teased out. Today is a good chance to do that before we get into the detail of the bill at stage 2.
The Scottish National Party's motion classically accentuates the positive and ignores anything that does not agree with the Government. We agree with a three-tier marine planning framework and with Richard Lochhead's point about streamlining the decision process. That is not to say that there is unanimity on all the key details, and we will focus on that today. Given that we have a minority Government, the point of a parliamentary debate before the bill has been published—presumably it is not yet completely drafted—is to enable the SNP Government to test the water on some of the issues.
I will take this opportunity to quote three organisations on the issue of marine Scotland. The Labour amendment expresses our disappointment at the fact that the Scottish Government has already decided the body's status. That would have been more properly addressed in the bill.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation says:
"the Federation has fundamental objections to the status, role and responsibilities of Marine Scotland."
I know that the minister would rather that we all agreed on exactly what we will end up with at the end of the day, but we on the Labour benches do not see the point in pretending that everyone agrees on everything at the outset, or that we always have a cosy consensus when one does not exist. We are absolutely not going to pick fights where that is not appropriate—and that is not what we are doing today—but it is daft to pretend that everyone is happy with everything that the minister has proposed. In a way, it would have been better if the motion simply acknowledged that and focused on some of the issues that Richard Lochhead mentioned and some that he has not.
It is not just me who thinks that we need robust debate. I quote Roseanna Cunningham:
"We know how to do robust argument and debate in Scotland. It's important so that we know what comes out at the end is in Scotland's interest."
She said that to us at the Scottish Environment LINK reception last night. I welcomed her then to her new ministerial position and I do so again today. I very much look forward to debating with her in the months and years to come.
There is truth in what she said last night. It is worth taking the time to tease things out. It is not just those of us on opposite sides of the chamber who do not always agree with each other; some of the external representations that have been received need to be teased out. Today is a good chance to do that before we get into the detail of the bill at stage 2.
The Scottish National Party's motion classically accentuates the positive and ignores anything that does not agree with the Government. We agree with a three-tier marine planning framework and with Richard Lochhead's point about streamlining the decision process. That is not to say that there is unanimity on all the key details, and we will focus on that today. Given that we have a minority Government, the point of a parliamentary debate before the bill has been published—presumably it is not yet completely drafted—is to enable the SNP Government to test the water on some of the issues.
I will take this opportunity to quote three organisations on the issue of marine Scotland. The Labour amendment expresses our disappointment at the fact that the Scottish Government has already decided the body's status. That would have been more properly addressed in the bill.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation says:
"the Federation has fundamental objections to the status, role and responsibilities of Marine Scotland."
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3528, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the marine bill consultation.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):
SNP
Scotland has a world-class marine environment and an enviable maritime heritage. We have 10 per cent of Europe's coastline, 20 per cent of Europe's seas and ...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
Nowadays, we regularly have debates in the chamber in advance of a stage 1 debate. In some ways, that is good, because it lets us focus on issues for proper ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I was intrigued by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's submission. I assure the member that I spoke to the organisation yesterday to clarify its position. ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I have read the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's submission and the key points in it, and it does not seem to me that the cabinet secretary has dealt in det...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I simply ask the member to note the quote from RSPB Scotland that I read out in my opening speech. It is a major player in Scottish Environment LINK.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I was just coming to RSPB Scotland. The quote that I am going to use was also given in response to the consultation. Again, RSPB Scotland's points about the ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No. I have taken a couple of responses from the cabinet secretary already.Marine Scotland's status is important. We are being denied the opportunity to debat...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
I welcome the debate on the Scottish marine bill, which comes at an appropriate time, following the introduction of the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill at ...
Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
I clarify that we have no antipathy towards marine Scotland. Our query is whether it should be an arm of Government or should be independent of Government. T...
John Scott:
Con
Forgive me for misunderstanding Labour's amendment, but it seems to me that it expresses antipathy towards marine Scotland and making an early start on it. T...
Liam McArthur (Orkney) (LD):
LD
Like Sarah Boyack, I welcome Roseanna Cunningham to her new role, but I am disappointed that the Government's gain is the Rural Affairs and Environment Commi...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I welcome that final sentence of the member's comments, but let me pick up on what he said about the timescale for the bill. Does he not recall that his part...
Liam McArthur:
LD
The previous Administration had been in place for eight years when Mr Lochhead made his statement in June 2007—I am confused about the commitment that he gav...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
My contribution will be short, but very sweet. My amendment is motivated by the growing perception that the present world crisis offers an opportunity for us...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The debate is fully subscribed so I will stop members as soon as their time limit is reached.
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP):
SNP
Our coasts and seas provide food from fisheries, energy and mineral resources, routes and harbours for shipping, tourism and recreation opportunities and sit...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I have spoken many times about the importance of the seas to our basic existence as human beings. Indeed, the seas provide the basis for life on our planet a...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I am sorry, but the member's time is up.
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
I am pleased to be involved in this debate on the proposed marine bill. If the bill is eventually passed, it will impact on the lives and wellbeing of many o...
Alasdair Allan (Western Isles) (SNP):
SNP
It will come as little surprise to hear the member for the Western Isles speak in favour of a marine bill. The sea has represented life and, often, death for...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I join other members in wishing Roseanna Cunningham well in her new post. I agree with other speakers about the need for a robust and overarching marine poli...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I suspect not.
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
Okay. I am sorry, Mr Lochhead.In the proposed bill, political ideology again comes ahead of the needs of the communities that we serve. The minister must cha...
Robin Harper:
Green
The debate has been interesting and I welcome much of what has been said. There is a growing consensus around the fact that, through a combination of no-take...
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
Robin Harper misses my point. The problem is that scientists are different from fishery protection. The scientists should have full and free access to fishin...
Robin Harper:
Green
I thank Rhoda Grant for that clarification. We certainly must have scientists working with the fishermen. I was glad to hear references to the science from t...