Chamber
Plenary, 26 Feb 2009
26 Feb 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Marine Bill Consultation
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 Committee's loss.
On occasions such as today, tradition is that we welcome the fact that Parliament is being given an opportunity to debate an important subject, which in this case is the Government's putative marine bill proposals. However, although there is no argument about the bill's importance within the Government's legislative agenda, there are questions about the way in which ministers have chosen to engage with Parliament. We are now in a position to consider the responses that were submitted to the consultation that the Government launched in July but, despite the fact that the consultation closed in October, we still await sight of the Government's conclusions. I do not suggest that no progress has been made in the interim, nor do I suggest that the issues and competing interests involved do not present real challenges for ministers, but the issues will not become any more straightforward. As our amendment suggests, continued delay in the Government declaring its hand risks Scotland falling behind the rest of the UK.
The absence of certainty also allows concerns to develop in sections of our communities about how competing interests will be managed. John Scott's amendment highlights that issue in respect of fisheries, about which I know that concerns exist, but there are also concerns about other areas. No single interest will have a veto, but, without clarity, suspicions and fears grow.
All of that is disappointing, as the cabinet secretary is aware of the cross-party consensus on the bill. The proposals in the consultation paper enjoyed broad support. That is not surprising, perhaps, given the extent to which the proposals—as the cabinet secretary acknowledged—drew on the work of the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy, which was set up and chaired by my colleague Ross Finnie. The proposals on the establishment of a dedicated marine management organisation, the co-ordination of marine planning, an increased local focus, a three-tiered planning structure and the approach to marine conservation were all inherited from the work of AGMACS. To his credit, Mr Lochhead has decided to take those proposals forward.
Of course, AGMACS also called for the extension of certain responsibilities out to 200 nautical miles. My colleague Mike Rumbles was successful in securing the Parliament's agreement to an amendment that he moved to that effect last March. We welcome the agreement between the UK Government and Scottish Government that essentially will give effect to that demand through executive devolution. Some of the Scottish ministers' claims at the time were a little inflated, but that should not detract from the valuable progress that the agreement represents.
Of course, another inflated claim was the cabinet secretary's commitment in June 2007 that he planned
"to announce plans for a new single piece of streamlined legislation to protect marine and coastal environments soon".
He produced a consultation paper a year later, but we still have no draft bill 18 months down the road, notwithstanding the volume of responses that were received. That does not square with the cabinet secretary's commitment. In addition, that explains why the Government has found itself under pressure to announce the establishment of marine Scotland ahead of the bill, which is not ideal. However, we cannot go as far as supporting Labour's amendment.
On occasions such as today, tradition is that we welcome the fact that Parliament is being given an opportunity to debate an important subject, which in this case is the Government's putative marine bill proposals. However, although there is no argument about the bill's importance within the Government's legislative agenda, there are questions about the way in which ministers have chosen to engage with Parliament. We are now in a position to consider the responses that were submitted to the consultation that the Government launched in July but, despite the fact that the consultation closed in October, we still await sight of the Government's conclusions. I do not suggest that no progress has been made in the interim, nor do I suggest that the issues and competing interests involved do not present real challenges for ministers, but the issues will not become any more straightforward. As our amendment suggests, continued delay in the Government declaring its hand risks Scotland falling behind the rest of the UK.
The absence of certainty also allows concerns to develop in sections of our communities about how competing interests will be managed. John Scott's amendment highlights that issue in respect of fisheries, about which I know that concerns exist, but there are also concerns about other areas. No single interest will have a veto, but, without clarity, suspicions and fears grow.
All of that is disappointing, as the cabinet secretary is aware of the cross-party consensus on the bill. The proposals in the consultation paper enjoyed broad support. That is not surprising, perhaps, given the extent to which the proposals—as the cabinet secretary acknowledged—drew on the work of the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy, which was set up and chaired by my colleague Ross Finnie. The proposals on the establishment of a dedicated marine management organisation, the co-ordination of marine planning, an increased local focus, a three-tiered planning structure and the approach to marine conservation were all inherited from the work of AGMACS. To his credit, Mr Lochhead has decided to take those proposals forward.
Of course, AGMACS also called for the extension of certain responsibilities out to 200 nautical miles. My colleague Mike Rumbles was successful in securing the Parliament's agreement to an amendment that he moved to that effect last March. We welcome the agreement between the UK Government and Scottish Government that essentially will give effect to that demand through executive devolution. Some of the Scottish ministers' claims at the time were a little inflated, but that should not detract from the valuable progress that the agreement represents.
Of course, another inflated claim was the cabinet secretary's commitment in June 2007 that he planned
"to announce plans for a new single piece of streamlined legislation to protect marine and coastal environments soon".
He produced a consultation paper a year later, but we still have no draft bill 18 months down the road, notwithstanding the volume of responses that were received. That does not square with the cabinet secretary's commitment. In addition, that explains why the Government has found itself under pressure to announce the establishment of marine Scotland ahead of the bill, which is not ideal. However, we cannot go as far as supporting Labour's amendment.
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...