Chamber
Plenary, 26 Feb 2009
26 Feb 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Marine Bill Consultation
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 policy that is drawn up in collaboration with the rest of the UK and, indeed, Europe, and is informed by the reform of the common fisheries policy. At a Scottish level, our policy direction must be informed by the wider EU and UK strategies. However, we must devolve as far as possible the management of the seas to the communities that are dependent on them for their survival.
The consultation is not clear about the interaction and relationship between marine Scotland and the Scottish marine regions. Organisations that responded to the consultation seemed unsure about the area that the marine regions would cover. Will they be big enough to allow strategic planning, or will that power be held by local government or marine Scotland? Are they small enough to ensure that all stakeholders and communities that are dependent on the seas for their livelihoods are involved?
The bill is also about structural planning for renewable energy and so on. It also has to be about managing the seas, which means that the involvement of our fisheries sector is imperative. When local communities are involved in the management of the seas, we see benefits with regard to sustainability, as fishermen sign up to conservation initiatives. They need a strong voice in any management system.
How are the Scottish marine regions to be devised? What geographical area will they cover? Who is involved in their structure? How do communities become involved? How does the industry become involved? What is the role for non-governmental organisations and industrial developers? Those questions need to be answered if people are to be able to respond more fully. I heard the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment say that he will listen to people's thoughts on those matters before coming to a final decision, but I also ask that that final decision be consulted on.
Colleagues have talked about the proposed structure of marine Scotland in detail. It is unfortunate that a decision has been made before any parliamentary scrutiny. Will the structure of marine Scotland be set out in the bill and will it be possible to amend it at that stage? I hope so. The approach is more about political expediency than it is about what is good for our marine environment. For years, work has taken place between Fisheries Research Services and fishermen. Bringing them together has been a long and tortuous process, but it is bearing fruit. However, the new structure will tear apart that fragile relationship and undo the good practice that has been developed.
Placing Fisheries Research Services and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency together in one organisation will immediately breed concern, because of the enforcement aspects of the protection agency. I am not an apologist for anyone who has anything to hide from the agency, but I am realistic. Good research is based on an open and transparent flow of information. Putting the organisations together will ensure that the relationship between fishermen and scientists is no longer open and transparent. Which one of us, when driving along observing the highway code, does not feel uncomfortable when a police car draws up behind us and follows us down the road? Every fishing crew that works with fishery researchers on board will feel the same discomfort, because those researchers will be part of the enforcement agency.
We will lose the joint working that has had a real impact on our fisheries science and research. The proposals are unnecessary and damaging, and they bring nothing to the table but political dogma. In Prospect's response to the consultation, it states:
"the merger of regulation and research could impact upon FRS's ability to collect fisheries data."
Prospect goes further and states that the loss of FRS's independence will be damaging, pointing out that it is a respected international centre for independent marine science and advice and that
"There is a real danger that FRS will lose its reputation for independent scientific advice if it becomes too close to its customer the Marine Directorate."
This week, the cabinet secretary has set up a quota management system that is more about constitutional wrangling than it is about the industry's needs. It is centralising rather than devolving, and it is creating a bureaucracy that will wrap our fishing communities in red tape rather than supporting the industry.
I agree with other speakers about the need for a robust and overarching marine policy that is drawn up in collaboration with the rest of the UK and, indeed, Europe, and is informed by the reform of the common fisheries policy. At a Scottish level, our policy direction must be informed by the wider EU and UK strategies. However, we must devolve as far as possible the management of the seas to the communities that are dependent on them for their survival.
The consultation is not clear about the interaction and relationship between marine Scotland and the Scottish marine regions. Organisations that responded to the consultation seemed unsure about the area that the marine regions would cover. Will they be big enough to allow strategic planning, or will that power be held by local government or marine Scotland? Are they small enough to ensure that all stakeholders and communities that are dependent on the seas for their livelihoods are involved?
The bill is also about structural planning for renewable energy and so on. It also has to be about managing the seas, which means that the involvement of our fisheries sector is imperative. When local communities are involved in the management of the seas, we see benefits with regard to sustainability, as fishermen sign up to conservation initiatives. They need a strong voice in any management system.
How are the Scottish marine regions to be devised? What geographical area will they cover? Who is involved in their structure? How do communities become involved? How does the industry become involved? What is the role for non-governmental organisations and industrial developers? Those questions need to be answered if people are to be able to respond more fully. I heard the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment say that he will listen to people's thoughts on those matters before coming to a final decision, but I also ask that that final decision be consulted on.
Colleagues have talked about the proposed structure of marine Scotland in detail. It is unfortunate that a decision has been made before any parliamentary scrutiny. Will the structure of marine Scotland be set out in the bill and will it be possible to amend it at that stage? I hope so. The approach is more about political expediency than it is about what is good for our marine environment. For years, work has taken place between Fisheries Research Services and fishermen. Bringing them together has been a long and tortuous process, but it is bearing fruit. However, the new structure will tear apart that fragile relationship and undo the good practice that has been developed.
Placing Fisheries Research Services and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency together in one organisation will immediately breed concern, because of the enforcement aspects of the protection agency. I am not an apologist for anyone who has anything to hide from the agency, but I am realistic. Good research is based on an open and transparent flow of information. Putting the organisations together will ensure that the relationship between fishermen and scientists is no longer open and transparent. Which one of us, when driving along observing the highway code, does not feel uncomfortable when a police car draws up behind us and follows us down the road? Every fishing crew that works with fishery researchers on board will feel the same discomfort, because those researchers will be part of the enforcement agency.
We will lose the joint working that has had a real impact on our fisheries science and research. The proposals are unnecessary and damaging, and they bring nothing to the table but political dogma. In Prospect's response to the consultation, it states:
"the merger of regulation and research could impact upon FRS's ability to collect fisheries data."
Prospect goes further and states that the loss of FRS's independence will be damaging, pointing out that it is a respected international centre for independent marine science and advice and that
"There is a real danger that FRS will lose its reputation for independent scientific advice if it becomes too close to its customer the Marine Directorate."
This week, the cabinet secretary has set up a quota management system that is more about constitutional wrangling than it is about the industry's needs. It is centralising rather than devolving, and it is creating a bureaucracy that will wrap our fishing communities in red tape rather than supporting the industry.
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...