Hansard

That is a reference to the remoteness issue, which I will come to. I could probably have worded the amendment a bit better—we were a bit pressed this week.

I have no real quarrel with any of the aims, except for the remoteness issue. However, communities need to know what all that means in practice. In the past, the minister has, rightly, reassured the chamber that designation as a coastal and marine national park is an accolade. It is not a designation like that of a site of special scientific interest or a special area of conservation, and it would not, of itself, restrict activity in the designated area. I concur with that. However, equally, if there is just to be business as usual, there is not much point in creating a coastal and marine national park. It may be that some activities will have to be modified while others will have to be actively encouraged and developed.

For example, on Mull, where there is cautious interest in a coastal and marine national park, the chamber of commerce has asked whether the designation would bring extra money—say, to employ more rangers to enhance the already-thriving wildlife tourism sector. It is perfectly reasonable for communities that could be eligible for the accolade to want to know what, frankly, they would get out of it. Communities' support is vital. This cannot be just a top-down exercise or it will not work. Communities must be involved. They must be more than just acquiescent; they must have their own vision of a coastal and marine national park. They must also be keen to take on responsibility, including the responsibility for regulation.

I hope that the roadshow that the Executive has going round the country to consult on the issue will be able to give communities real answers. My assistant went to the roadshow in Inverness and felt that she got more woulds and coulds than definite answers. There are communities that are already keen; there are communities that are interested but not yet convinced; and there are communities that are hostile to the idea, although some of the hostility may be due to unfounded concerns. Any coastal and marine national park must belong to its stakeholders, and all the stakeholders must be involved from the start—even those who have to be actively sought out and reminded that they are stakeholders. Ideally, there would be consensus within a community, but that may not always be achievable. It would certainly not be appropriate for the Executive, in the name of awaiting consensus, to allow one stakeholder to exercise an effective veto despite the views of others.

A keen host community will be one of the crucial elements in making any coastal and marine national park a success. This is where I return to the issue of remoteness. It has been clear, so far, that the Executive's preference is for Scotland's first coastal and marine national park to be easily accessible from the central belt. That would exclude Fair isle, which cannot be described as easily accessible. I know that because I went there by boat from mainland Shetland this summer and, as a poor sailor, I found the three hours on the boat rather long—although, at £2.60 each way, it was the best-value public transport that I have been on for a long time.

However, Fair Isle is increasingly visited by sea. With the rise in recreational sailing, it has a regular stream of visitors who are attracted by its natural heritage. The people of Fair Isle have a long and distinguished history of managing their land environment themselves to maximise its unique environmental features and wildlife while making the most of the opportunity to exploit them sustainably. They wish—the whole island's population is behind it—to have the same rights and responsibilities over their marine environment, and they should.

Fair Isle could become—dare I say it—the best small marine national park in the world. However, I do not say that it should be Scotland's only coastal and marine national park, because we should not have only one. Our coastal areas are so varied and each coastal and marine national park would be so different that there is no reason not to proceed with designating more than one. Many areas could have a great deal to offer as coastal and marine national parks and would have a great deal to gain from the accolade, so we should introduce it. I hear what other members say about consolidating marine legislation, and I agree that it is a dog's breakfast, but the establishment of our first coastal and marine national park need not await consolidation. We should go ahead with it.

I move amendment S2M-5008.3, to leave out from "and notes" to end and insert:

"expects the Executive to take account of all stakeholders' views with no one sector having primacy; recognises that very many livelihoods depend on our safeguarding our coastal and marine environment; expects local management of marine resources to underpin the organisation of any future coastal and marine national park, and believes that location should not be a barrier to the siting of a marine national park."