Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 26 Feb 2009

26 Feb 2009 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Marine Bill Consultation

McArthur, Liam LD Orkney Watch on SPTV

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 gave at that stage.

Although I appreciate some of the arguments that the cabinet secretary used to justify his decision, he must accept that there are risks in detaching the establishment of marine Scotland from the publication of the bill. I contrast the approach to the marine bill with ministers' approach to the flood risk management proposals. The collaborative approach with the Parliament and stakeholders on flooding has rightly drawn praise and, I believe, will deliver results in the final legislation. In contrast, the more piecemeal approach to the marine bill does not augur well. There is a risk that the assurances and commitments that ministers give now are effectively second guessing the evidence that will be taken and the conclusions that the Parliament and its committees will reach, although time will tell.

However, the case for a single management organisation is widely accepted. One of the attractions—certainly for many of my constituents—is the prospect of a more streamlined licensing system. The consultation was unclear on whether marine Scotland will act as a single gateway for those who apply for a license or whether it will undertake the licensing work in-house. There are pros and cons with both approaches, and although ministers seem to be clear that responsibility for licence monitoring and enforcement should rest with the new body, there is less clarity about which approach they favour in handling applications.

I note the intention in the consultation to include dredging within the licensing system. From my discussions with Orkney Harbours, there is confusion about how that might operate alongside the existing responsibility to maintain navigable channels. Perhaps the minister will address that in his winding-up speech. Ministers have emphasised their desire for increased consultation, to enable consistency of approach and local involvement, but until we know the detail, it is hard not to see potential conflicts with the streamlining objective.

We believe that the proposed three-tiered approach to marine planning is appropriate. It should enable Scotland to meet its international obligations while setting its own national marine plan and objectives, and allow more local planning and management to take place through Scottish marine regions. We also support the proposals for a marine science strategy to focus on marine scientific effort. In that regard, I make a passing plea for sea bed mapping and submerged architecture. Members will have to wait a little longer for my discourse on differential crustal rebound, but there is already ample evidence that there was a time when my Orkney constituents would have taken a more active interest in ministers' ill-conceived plans for forestry. Although our submerged heritage is now recognised, we are still some way from understanding—let alone being able to protect—our submerged architecture, be it wreck or tomb.

Progress has been made, and the debate among stakeholders has steadily improved, but tensions remain in relation to the detail. That is why the continued delays in the process are highly regrettable. Liberal Democrats urge the Government to come forward with a dedicated marine bill without further delay. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S3M-3528.4, to insert at end:

"and calls on the Scottish Government to publish its conclusions on the consultation and bring forward a dedicated Scottish Marine Bill as soon as possible to ensure that Scotland does not fall behind the rest of the United Kingdom in the sustainable management of its seas and coast."

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 26 Feb 2009

In the same item of business