Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 17 June 2020
Amendment 61 is an important one that deserves the support of Parliament. It applies a new maximum penalty for the few instances in which fisherpeople are convicted of contravening a marine conservation order or of committing offences relating to the protected features of nature conservation MPAs. I drew the amendment narrowly. I hear what the minister says about other marine protected features, but I focused particularly and deliberately on marine protected areas.
As with the amendments dealing with vicarious liability, I am talking about the few vessels that operate illegally and with disregard for those invaluable habitats and species.
I stress the word “habitats” as well as “species” because what is right for the land is also right for our marine environment. Marl beds, kelp areas and other protected areas are invaluable habitats. They are as valuable as the creatures themselves. There can be damage to the sea, just as there can be on land to the badger setts and the nesting and resting places that Parliament has already agreed to protect. It is high time that our sea creatures and habitats had the same respect and protection as those on land. Damaging the marine environment is no less of a wildlife crime than the destruction of a hen harrier nest.
Illegal damage to marine protected areas can mean the loss of precious habitats that took decades to establish and threatens our iconic biodiversity. I understand that the minister says the bill is about wildlife, but all creatures exist within habitats.
The measures to which amendment 61 refers are not overly punitive. They relate to serious damage, and the provisions seek to ensure that those who inadvertently cause damage would not be disproportionately punished.
I understand that members may be concerned because I am raising the issue for the first time at stage 3, but the amendment is analogous to the Scottish Government’s amendment 29 on the conservation of seals.
Before stage 2, I genuinely thought about how I might say something about the marine environment. I missed a trick. I should have thought about introducing the marine protected area amendment at stage 2, which I agree would have given more opportunity for discussion, but I thought about doing so only after stage 2. However, I consider the case to be very strong.
It is clear that the penalties issued in response to fishing in closed areas are inadequate as a deterrent. There have been multiple reports of vessels operating illegally in sites. In November 2018, there was wide reporting of the illegal damage to Loch Gairloch by two vessels. In July 2019, that happened again a few miles north in Wester Ross MPA.
I thank Open Seas and the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust for their support with amendment 61. Open Seas states that part of the reason for repeat offences is that illegality is treated as a fisheries offence and not as a wildlife offence. Part of the offence in the amendment includes the intentional killing or injuring of animals in a protected area. It is hardly a stretch to say that that is committing a wildlife crime.
The Government guidance for penalties states that the level of fixed penalty imposed will reflect any financial gain. Other factors that can be taken into account in determining the level of fixed penalty are whether the stock in question is identified by commissioners as a recovery stock and whether the person has received a fixed penalty for the same category of offence. That cannot be right. In addition to the value of the stock, it has to be about the effect on the habitat and on the wildlife.
I recognise that the Government may think that the issue can be tackled by the roll-out of the inshore vessel monitoring systems to the entire fleet, but progress on that has been slow, and it looks as though it will continue to be slow. In addition, Marine Scotland’s resources are stretched.
As the minister highlighted when talking about taking action in the round, the inshore fisheries bill has now been shelved. We do not know when it will come, especially given the situation with Covid.
In light of the climate and environment emergencies, it would be very disappointing if the Government does not support this important shift on marine wildlife crime. Higher penalties are a much-needed deterrent to keep MPAs thriving.
Scottish Labour will support amendment 29, on the conservation of seals. That issue came to the committee in 2018, and I am not sure why we had to wait. We are where we are, although I hope that it is not because of US demands that we are only now considering the amendment.
We had intended to abstain on Mark Ruskell’s amendment 29A, but I understand that he will not press it. We have concerns about dolphins and other cetaceans, but I have concerns about that amendment for a number of reasons. The Fisheries Management Scotland briefing highlights the concerns about seals predating on wild salmon in our rivers. The issue is not only about fish farms as the minister has highlighted; it is also about wind farms and other installations.
In that context, it makes sense to support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 55, which seeks to place an obligation on the Government to report by March 2021, which is in only 10 months or so. We should really tackle the issue, and look at whether we should be banning acoustic deterrent devices altogether or at how we should otherwise progress matters. The issue is unresolved, and it needs to be tackled quickly.
We will also support amendments 55A and 55B, in the name of the minister.