Hansard

The debate has been interesting and, in the main, remarkably consensual. The areas of concern as well as the areas of consent are broadly accepted by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and indeed by the parties in the chamber. That also reflects our discussions and deliberations with stakeholders. I add the thanks of members on the Labour benches to those which other members have expressed to both the stakeholders and the committee's clerking team and SPICe for all the help and information that they have given to committee members, especially those, like me, whose constituencies do not contain any element of coastline. It has been a steep learning curve for us.

We all recognise the value of our marine environment and we want to get the bill right. That is why I urge ministers to look again at the timetabling. I have made this point to previous Administrations as well as to the current one. Parliamentary scrutiny of bills is vital because we have only one chamber. If members receive the Government's response to a committee's stage 1 report only late on the night before a morning debate, that does nothing to encourage effective scrutiny. Perhaps ministers could reflect on that and ensure that members are given at least 24 hours to read and reflect on Government responses before we comment on them in the chamber. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment always wants to work with the committee, so I hope that he will take that point on board.

The Scottish seas are a source of great pride to us all. One of the key issues in the marine debate is that there is a three-tier system between Scotland, the UK, and our international partners. It is imperative that that remains in place and we welcome the fact that the bill does not seek to rock the boat in that regard. Fish swim and boats move, so it is important to have a co-ordinated approach throughout the UK and with our international partners. However, there is clearly a case for Scotland-led legislation regarding certain sectors of activity. The bill's proposals are therefore broadly to be commended, including the new systems of marine planning, streamlined licensing, and the establishment of marine protected areas.

As well as being a source of pride, our seas are a source of beauty, but they are also a source of economic activity for many of our coastal communities. That is why the committee's comments on genuine community engagement— which were articulated well by others, particularly Peter Peacock—are crucial in the area of policy that we are discussing. We need to take people with us. It seems to me that the dual mandate proposal to pursue economic prosperity alongside strict, regulated conservation through one Government body and the variety of stakeholders will be highly conflicting. The minister needs to explain how he proposes to ensure that there is a strong commitment to promoting both national economic development and the cultural and historical preservation of our seas, which are often on opposite sides of the debating table. It seems likely that, when the choice is polarised between prosperity and sustainability, as it will inevitably be in the discussions between local authorities, conservation groups and ministers, the short-term interests will trump the long-term interests. For the future of Scotland and its seas, we need to ensure that we take the long-term approach.

One of the key issues in the committee's report is community engagement. The committee found from the evidence that it took that there are polarised views on certain issues and it is important that we ensure that the broadest possible range of people are represented. Paragraph 105 of the committee's report deals with the issue, but the ministerial response is not as positive as we hoped it would be. I am sure that we will return to the issue at stage 2, given the overwhelming evidence that we have had.

The issue of seals clearly demonstrates those differences and debates. I appreciate John Farquhar Munro's comments. Indeed, only yesterday, we took evidence from marine scientists who outlined the impact that the seals are having on fish quotas and the availability of fish to our fishermen. John Scott and Jamie McGrigor outlined their concerns about fish farming and the potential impact on economic stability if our decisions are too stringent. However, Robin Harper passionately made the case for the seals. I agree with him that science is vital in that regard, or in any regard. My experience in 10 years as an elected member has been that lobbyists on both sides always overegg their pudding to make their case, so clear, independent scientific advice will be crucial to the committee when it makes decisions.

As my colleague Elaine Murray articulated, the committee's consensus to date has been that seals need to be controlled but that that must be done as humanely as possible and that legal methods should be the last resort. When licences are made available, they should be issued only to those who can demonstrate high levels of marksmanship to prevent unnecessary suffering and the painful and prolonged death of the seal.

Only yesterday, members received the Law Society of Scotland's concerns about sections 37 and 38, on fixed monetary penalties and the appeals process. Its letter states:

"The Society suggests that it would seem appropriate for a person in receipt of a notice to have a clear right to appeal to a Sheriff and that the current provisions within the draft Bill did not appear to be fair and reasonable."

Perhaps the minister will comment on that concern before stage 2, either when he sums up today or in a letter to the committee.

For me, the key issue in the debate is the balance between the economic needs of our coastal communities and the needs of future generations to have a vibrant ecosystem. That is why a whole ecosystem approach is crucial to the debate. I understand our fishing communities' concerns about their future economic activity, but we need to ensure that the fishing industry is sustainable for the long term, not just the short term. That is what the bill is about. It is about protecting our marine environment for future generations so that members, who are growing older in years, can be assured that those who come after us have a marine environment that they, too, will be able to celebrate, share and use for their purposes in a positive and sustainable way.

I commend to members the stage 1 report and the bill. I am sure that a constructive approach ahead of and during stage 2 will lead to positive legislation at the end of the process. I look forward to working with ministers and the rest of the committee in that regard.