Hansard

I will speak to all 17 amendments in group 14, so I apologise in advance for the length of this speech.

Amendment 20 would restrict the ability to include parts of small islands in MPAs. The amendment would replace the reference to "island" with the terms

"reef, skerry, stack or sandbar".

The existing drafting allows features that extend above high-water mark to be included in an MPA if they are connected to the features in the sea. Historic and marine biodiversity features are sometimes found above high water in places that would not be covered by the amendment. For example, historic artefacts above high water could be part of a submerged feature. The proposed provision would mean that unless the part above high water was on a reef or so on, we could not include it in an MPA even though it was very well connected. Therefore, two separate protected areas would need to be designated for a single feature. That would add to bureaucracy and cost and, as most members will accept, would be rather confusing to the public. In our opinion, the bill is best served by the term "island", which covers reefs, skerries, stacks and sandbars but is not restricted to those categories. I repeat that our intention is not to use the MPA powers to designate large islands or inhabited areas. I will be happy to write to Liam McArthur and to Orkney Islands Council to confirm that point if Liam McArthur will withdraw amendment 20.

Amendment 50 is a drafting amendment that will change the term "order" to "designation order" for the purpose of clarity in section 59.

Amendment 51 is connected to amendment 53. Together, amendments 51 and 53 will move text that was inserted by an amendment in the name of Elaine Murray at stage 2 that linked the designation of MPAs to the network of conservation sites. The text is much better moved to a more suitable place in section 59. In so doing, the amendments will retain the substance of Elaine Murray's stage 2 amendment.

Amendments 52 and 60, in the name of Liam McArthur, would introduce a new step in the MPA process by requiring SNH to maintain a register of candidate sites. Our intention has always been that Marine Scotland would lead on the identification of MPA proposals, with support from SNH. My aim has always been to move away from red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy where possible and, in doing so, to benefit the health of our seas and our marine industries. Amendments 52 and 60 risk creating confusion about, for example, what a candidate site is. Is a candidate site the same as an MPA, or is it a new category? Creating a new category of site would not be helpful to the process. We have to keep things simple if we can.

Amendments 52 and 60 would also add another layer of bureaucracy by in effect importing into the bill one of the more bureaucratic elements of the habitats directive. I wonder whether Liam McArthur really wishes us to go down that road. If greater transparency is the reason behind the amendments, I reassure him that we will work closely with stakeholders in identifying marine protected area proposals. For those reasons, and with the assurances that I have given, I urge Liam McArthur not to press amendment 52.

Amendment 3, in the name of Peter Peacock, is well intentioned and we are happy to support it.

Amendment 54, in the name of Robin Harper, seeks to reverse an amendment in the name of Karen Gillon that was agreed to at stage 2 that allowed for consideration of socioeconomics as part of the MPA designation process. We opposed Karen Gillon's amendment at the time, but she pressed the amendment and it was agreed to by the committee. Karen Gillon has subsequently written to the Government to clarify the intention behind her stage 2 amendment. We now understand that the text was amended to introduce a degree of flexibility into the MPA designation process that could be used only in exceptional circumstances. We have accepted Karen Gillon's clarification and we placed a letter in the Scottish Parliament information centre earlier this week to outline our thinking on the issue. As a result, I do not think that there is anything to be gained from amendment 54.

However, let me reaffirm that science should be the primary consideration, with provision to take account of socioeconomics in exceptional circumstances, for example when choosing between locations that make an equivalent contribution to the MPA network or when the network duty has already been met. Whether or not socioeconomic factors are considered for particular site proposals, the legal obligation will be to create a network of sites, as required by section 68A of the bill. We understand the good intentions behind amendment 54, but the committee has already voted on the issue at stage 2. For all the reasons that I have outlined, I ask Parliament to resist amendment 54 in the name of Robin Harper.

Amendment 55, in the name of Elaine Murray, is a good amendment, which we support. At stage 2, Elaine Murray lodged a similar amendment that was not pressed. At the time, we were opposed to the amendment not on principle but because it would have conflicted with the six-yearly reporting and monitoring requirements that are set out in section 91 of the bill. However, the revised amendment that Elaine Murray has lodged—amendment 55—has solved that problem and would allow the reporting and monitoring of MPAs to fit into the six-yearly reporting cycle that is required by section 91. We congratulate Elaine Murray on her revised amendment, which we urge Parliament to support.

Government amendment 56 is a consequential amendment to ensure consistency of drafting following acceptance at stage 2 of a Government amendment to tighten the test in section 61(1) for designating historic MPAs.

Amendment 114, in the name of Karen Gillon, would allow Scottish ministers to have regard to any social and economic consequences in considering whether it is desirable to designate an area as an historic MPA. As discussed at stage 2, our approach to heritage protection, whether on land or at sea, has always been that cultural significance should be the sole criterion for decisions to designate our most important heritage sites. We should take proper account of socioeconomics in how heritage sites are subsequently managed. We remain of that view on historic MPAs. The Parliament might be tempted by a drive for consistency with the position on nature conservation, but we should remember that each marine historic asset is a unique and finite resource that is non-renewable, vulnerable to man-made pressures and without capacity to recover if damaged.

For example, there is only one HMS Campania in the Firth of Forth. We cannot choose between two locations to minimise social or economic consequences. If we do not designate a nationally important historic asset where it is found because of the pressure to have regard to social or economic consequences that would come with amendment 114, we run the risk that the asset will be lost without our even having the right to ensure that it is properly investigated or recorded. I am sure that no one wants to go down that road.

There is also an issue that is specific to marine heritage. Some historic wrecks are directly targeted for commercial gain through the recovery and sale on the open market of valuable artefacts, which is a process that shows little regard for national heritage value. One of the unintended consequences of amendment 114 would be that treasure-hunting companies would argue that designations would have economic consequences on their pursuit of profit from Scotland's historic shipwrecks. We obviously want to avoid the risk of heritage value becoming sacrificed to narrow commercial interest. For those reasons, I ask Karen Gillon not to move amendment 114.

The Government's amendment 57 is a technical drafting amendment.

Peter Peacock's amendment 4 seems reasonable and would enhance the accountability and transparency of the MPA designation process for the general public, so we support it and urge Parliament to do likewise.

Elaine Murray's amendment 21 seeks to shorten the period for which an urgent MPA designation may stay in place. Designation is based on marine research, which can take a significant amount of planning and resourcing, and is entirely dependent on the weather. A period of 12 months would be too short to guarantee that proper research into a potential MPA could be carried out. Urgent MPAs will be used only in exceptional cases, when there is a clear need to act fast. They will not be used as a matter of course. I hope that that gives Elaine Murray some comfort.

Under the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Scottish ministers have powers to designate MPAs in the Scottish offshore zone. The UK act powers are now fixed and include a two-year period—the period that is currently set out in the Scottish bill. It is important that timescales inside and outside the 12 nautical mile zone are consistent, so that they can be understood by the marine industries and other stakeholders. We urge Parliament to resist amendment 21.

Robin Harper's amendment 115 seeks to require Scottish ministers to review any urgent MPA designation that extends beyond six months. In practice, I am not sure that it is necessary. When Scottish ministers designate an MPA using the urgent process, they will seek to review the situation as soon as possible, and normally within the period that is mentioned in amendment 115. The review will determine the case for the designation to be made permanent. However, it could well be that the data that are needed to make a full assessment of the site are not available within the six-month period, which could restrict the case for making the designation permanent. Nonetheless, we are content to accept amendment 115 because we are relaxed about the impact that it will have in practice.

Robin Harper's amendment 59 seeks to constrain use of the urgent MPA designation process for a second time in the same location. If an urgent designation order were made and Scottish ministers did not take steps to make the order final, any attempt to make a second urgent designation could, I believe, be challenged. I have said repeatedly that, if used at all, an urgent MPA would be used only in exceptional circumstances. For those reasons, we are doubtful that amendment 59 is necessary, but we are content to support it to make the position absolutely clear on the face of the bill.

Liam McArthur's amendment 90 was debated and defeated at stage 2, and our position on it has not changed. We see no particular reason for designation orders to be statutory instruments, and the Subordinate Legislation Committee was content with that position. If Liam McArthur is still intent on moving the amendment, I urge Parliament to vote against it for the reasons that I have outlined.

I am sorry for the length of my remarks, but there were 17 amendments to deal with.