Official Report 279KB pdf
We move to item 3. We will hear from a range of stakeholders first, and then from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and Scottish Government officials.
In its written evidence, COAST argues that the bill fails to acknowledge
In the work that we did for the marine spatial plan in the Firth of Clyde, we found evidence of some issues that need to be addressed. In addition, potential issues—specifically for the Firth of Clyde—to do with the number of species that are found on the sea bed have been identified in the work on the water framework directive classification. Fewer species are found in certain areas of the Firth of Clyde. That is the impact of some activity, but we are not sure what. There are therefore issues in the marine environment in the area, but part of the difficulty is finding out what is causing the problem and getting evidence.
First, I want to thank the committee for inviting us along this morning. We can associate ourselves with many of John Eddie Donnelly's comments. Inshore fisheries in the Clyde have noticed the changing paradigm of the fishery. Many environmental, ecological and climate factors impact on that, some of which are anthropogenic and some of which are not. We recognise that further evidence is required to illustrate how the changes are impacting and what that means for the future. The inshore fisheries group in the Clyde is cognisant of that fact and is happy to support the putting in place of any measures to which it can contribute.
I thank the committee for inviting COAST to give evidence. My best evidence is my experience, which has been mainly of the Clyde. Having dived in it for 36 years, my experience is that it is in a dire state. The fish that I saw as a teenager diving in the Clyde no longer exist. They are ecologically extinct.
Can I just clarify that? You are saying that there are no white fish to catch, but you have not given me figures. You have given me anecdotal evidence, which is that you have noticed from diving that there are fewer white fish and that there is a high bycatch. Do we have any figures to show that there is a significant drop in the white-fish catch in the Clyde? Is there, or is there not, a viable commercial fishery? Do you have figures?
The Clyde fishery has relied on prawns since 2002-03. Prawns now account for 80 to 90 per cent of the fishery catch—it is basically all that the fishery catches in the Clyde. I can think of only one other thing that is caught: juvenile fish. I know that the juvenile fish are there because I see them with my own eyes. In 2006, the Clyde was full of juvenile cod. I want to know what happened to those fish from 2006. They should now be cod of about 18in, but there is no cod of that size in the Clyde. Where have they gone? I noted on numerous dives throughout this summer—on every dive except one—that the Clyde was full with juvenile cod, which is good news. The maximum extent of my vision when I dive is 8m to 10m. On most of my dives, I see thousands of juvenile cod, which is exactly what I saw in 2006. I want to know where those fish go.
Are you saying that they are moving out of the Clyde or being caught by the prawn fishers as bycatch, or that other fishers are using nets that are far too small?
In my opinion, it is a mix of bycatch and a sea bed that has been totally destroyed. You have to remember that the only two forms of fishing left in the Clyde to the mobile sector are bottom prawn trawling and scallop dredging. Both methods impact on the sea bed. As the juvenile fish grow, they are either caught as bycatch or have no habitat. As I can see with my own eyes, the whole Clyde sea bed is a desert. The areas in which I see juvenile fish are the few areas on which scallop dredging has not yet managed to impact. The areas for juvenile fish are getting smaller year on year because of what I would call a free for all: the Clyde is a free for all, especially for scallop dredging. With the exception of the small area in Lamlash bay, there are no areas where scallop dredging is banned, so there are no areas for juvenile fish.
Do the other witnesses have any comments on that?
We would like to remind Howard Wood that there is also a static gear fishery within the Clyde limit; it is not just mobile gear.
Prawn fisheries are found quite widely in the British isles. Are the techniques that are used in the Clyde the same as those that are used elsewhere? I am thinking of net size and measures to avoid bycatch.
More or less, yes. The Clyde fishermen operate exactly the same systems as are used by fishermen in the outer Hebrides. Parameters, such as the size of the trawls, are set and we work within those limits.
I welcomed the introduction after last December of fish escape panels in the nets, but that was too little, too late. Fish escape panels in nets are not a new invention; they have been around for six or seven years. They could have been put in by the Clyde fishermen if Marine Scotland and its predecessors had told them to do that. Why did we have to wait for Brussels to impose that on the fishermen when it was a quite obvious solution?
We are straying into the common fisheries policy. Can we stick to how the Marine (Scotland) Bill can help?
That was going to be my question. We seem to be going into the past a bit, which may be helpful if it informs what we do in the future. However, for whatever reasons, we are where we are. By and large, are we agreed that the Marine (Scotland) Bill provides the best way forward?
There are opportunities in the bill to create marine protected areas, which will allow us—once we have identified the most appropriate areas to protect—to put in place a mechanism to stop whatever damaging activity is taking place.
I totally agree with that. We are where we are and we cannot go back. Hindsight is wonderful, but we must look to the future sensibly. We must consider not only the environmental impacts and the work that John Eddie Donnelly has been doing, but the socioeconomic impacts of the changes that we make. The inshore fisheries groups are not against the designation of marine protected areas; in fact, we support that. However, we need to consider the designation of MPAs for fisheries management as opposed to the headings that are currently in the bill. There is not one for fisheries management purposes. It is the remit of the inshore fisheries groups to look at local fisheries management issues and the future of fisheries management, so we strongly support the inclusion of such a designation.
I would like to pursue the point about species recovery and the condition of the seas. Dr Sinclair says that the bill must make an impact. COAST has said that the environmental recovery provisions in the bill are
Yes, I agree with that. Given my background, I believe fundamentally that we need to carry out the research to know what we are dealing with. We cannot attempt to control or manage an ecosystem such as the marine ecosystem, which is one of the most complex on the planet, without the fullest possible understanding of it. We could never gather all the data—they change all the time—but we need to understand what we are dealing with and what impacts the conditions that we impose on the marine environment will have. I spent five years working with a marine park authority in Australia, which has been trying for 20 years to do that and is now starting to achieve some success. We are building on what that authority has developed and the knowledge that is out there, but we must apply it locally and nationally in Scotland to achieve the results that are starting to be achieved in Australia. My primary concern about what we do and how we consider developing the resources in the marine environment is that that must be underpinned by sound, valid research.
The first part of my question was about what ministers will be required to think about in setting policies for the seas and whether it would be appropriate to make the health of the seas a primary objective.
I agree.
I will come in on that. Although I agree that we need as much scientific knowledge as possible, we will never have full scientific knowledge of what goes on in the sea. In the 15 years for which I have been campaigning for marine protected areas, the excuse that we need more scientific evidence before we can do anything has been trawled out to me time and again. In that 15 years, I have seen the marine environment degrade in front of my eyes because people have been saying that we need more scientific evidence. We will always need scientific evidence, but that should not stop the precautionary principle moving forward.
No, it should not, but we have to ensure that we make valid assessments of the information.
We have definitely got the point.
Are the existing and proposed structures, such as marine planning partnerships, that are required to enable involvement and effective decision making adequate? If not, what else might be needed?
The inshore fisheries groups are happy that we can fit into those structures. We consider that Marine Scotland is best placed to lead those developments and to act as the conduit for future developments.
In the Clyde, we have worked closely with the Firth of Clyde forum, the local coastal partnership. The main aim of the Scottish sustainable marine environment initiative is to inform the debate through carrying out different activities and doing marine planning on the ground. Our aim was to bring in the local coastal partnership, which consists of the main regulators and stakeholders in the Firth of Clyde. That would give quite a good structure to a marine planning partnership, which would develop a marine plan. The approach that we took is interesting in that there was no lead body. We took a consensual approach; we got agreement around the table from a vast range of different stakeholders, such as RSPB Scotland, the Clyde Fishermen's Association, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. That was an interesting way of developing a plan, but it is something that we could move forward with within the Firth of Clyde to ensure that most stakeholders have their views put forward and we get the most sustainable way of developing different activities in the Clyde.
COAST agrees with the regional management group. Our worry is, as it is with the IFGs and numerous bodies, about a lack of community involvement. We have had to battle for years for non-fishing communities to be heard. It was only in 2006, when COAST came before the previous committee, that our proposals were taken seriously. The community of Arran's proposals were ignored by the Government for more than a decade. The proposed regional management groups have to have some mechanism that allows interested communities to have their say. At present, we are worried about how the IFGs have been set up. We have to acknowledge that the sea and what it produces are a common resource. There is a public right to fish in it, so it is a common resource. How the IFGs have been set up means that they are verging on illegality. There is an executive committee that is comprised solely of commercial fishermen; communities and other stakeholders are allowed only to be advisers. We are challenging that at the moment. We have been in discussions with Marine Scotland about that over the past six months. We are not happy with the constitution of the IFGs.
It seems only fair to give the IFG gentlemen a chance to respond.
We appreciate COAST's concerns, but the IFGs were set up to look at inshore fisheries management for the inshore fishermen. Their constitution states that inshore fishermen are approved for membership of the executive committee. I strongly dispute the claim that we do not have local community involvement. In the advisory group, through which all management plan actions developed by the executive committee have to be approved, we have representation from a number of different bodies. We have representation from the Scottish Sea Angling Federation.
Can I come back on that—
I do not think that we need to get into any more of a debate about the rights and wrongs of this at this time.
Neither I nor the IFGs have a problem with section 85. Fishing boats have many opportunities to enter MPAs without fishing. It is very difficult—indeed, nigh on impossible—to determine the impact of an individual fishing boat in an MPA without physically seeing the damage being done. As we have said, the IFGs support and will continue to support MPAs, given the validity of their designation.
This kind of provision is necessary because if it is not in the bill, all activities will be excluded from an MPA. After all, there will always be some activities that do not damage these protected areas and not having the provision will make it difficult for planners to plan such activities.
Section 85 is extremely important to the bill and I am worried that if it remains, Scotland will become the laughing stock of the world. No other country has an exception that gives fishermen an excuse to be in an MPA. They can of course have an excuse for going through such an area—that is not a problem—but the fact is that, since the no-take zone was introduced in Lamlash bay last September, we have had a lot of experience of dealing with fishery protection issues and incursions. For example, within a month, two scallop dredgers had entered the zone. After reporting the incursions to the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and the local police, we managed within another month to arrange a meeting in Lamlash of the SFPA, Strathclyde Police's marine policing unit and the Scottish Government marine directorate. At that meeting—
Can you please be brief?
Okay. At the meeting, the SFPA's operations manager said that because of the wording of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, which bans not fishing but the taking of fish, it was almost impossible to get a procurator fiscal to bring a prosecution and there would be major problems proving whether the fish, shellfish or scallop came from this or that area. We must ensure that enforcement of this legislation is relevant, strong and fair to everyone. At the moment, the law simply does not work. After 15 years of campaigning—
Okay. That is fine.
John Eddie Donnelly seemed to be talking about boats passing through MPAs. I presume, however, that they would not cause any damage and, indeed, that there would be no offence unless it was alleged that damage had been caused. Is there any comparable example on land of individuals having a catch-all exemption from causing damage to a protected area such as a site of special scientific interest?
The biggest example is recreational activity. Footpaths go through SSSIs. People can stray from footpaths, and horses, for example, go along them. That can cause inadvertent damage. Boats might moor within an MPA. There are a number of important pieces of infrastructure on the Firth of Clyde, such as Hunterston and the Finnart deep oil terminal, and boats have to anchor before they go to areas around those pieces of infrastructure. If an anchorage is also an MPA, anchors could cause damage, although that damage would be limited to a certain area. Moving through and stopping in an MPA could therefore require an exemption.
Is it the case that the defence of fishing would not be an absolute defence? Section 85(2)(b) states that it is a requirement of the defence that
Perhaps if the witnesses have a thought about that, they could write to us and let us know.
The question that I was going to ask has been answered.
The issue that I want to ask about has probably been touched on, too. In its written submission, the Clyde inshore fisheries group stated:
The designation of MPAs is a primary concern as far as inshore fisheries activities are concerned. We have repeatedly stated that we support MPAs, but it must be recognised that when they are designated and boats are no longer allowed to fish in those areas, those boats must be removed to somewhere else if people want to carry out their natural activities. That impinges on their ability to carry out those activities.
Further evidence that we received from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment suggested that the MPAs should be designated on scientific grounds, but decisions about permitted activities would take into consideration social, economic and other factors. Is that a reassurance to the extent that is possible that legitimate activities will not be proscribed unless there are good, overriding scientific and environmental reasons for activities not to continue?
That is a reassurance to the extent that is possible. When the designation process for a particular area is under way, we hope that further consultation will take place and that there will be clarification to members of the inshore fisheries fleet about exactly what the situation is and how it will impact on them. We hope that they will be given the chance to comment.
What the fishermen will do is a difficult issue, but we must start to manage both the fisheries and the marine environment for the long term. For too many years, they have been managed only over one or two weeks or for the next year. I hope that we will start to look at the future as a result of the bill. We must start to do that at some point. Choosing what will happen to fishermen over the next few years will not be easy, but that choice should have been made 10 years ago.
We have had evidence suggesting that the inshore fisheries group regions should be the basis for the Scottish marine regions, but we have also heard suggestions that an ecosystem-based approach that is co-ordinated with river basin management plans should be taken, or even—because of the planning issues—that local authority boundaries should form the basis for the marine regions. What are your thoughts on the optimum arrangement?
If we tried to split up the Clyde, for example, by local authority boundaries, it would become a difficult area to manage, as there are seven local authorities. In the terrestrial environment, local authorities come together, for example in the Glasgow and the Clyde valley strategic development planning authority. There is a history of authorities working together to take a more strategic approach in larger areas. In Scotland, one size will not fit all, so probably several different approaches will be taken to the marine regions. The Firth of Clyde management system is a good model. Local authorities and stakeholders have been brought together and there is a stakeholder and regulator-led process. However, in other areas, it might be more appropriate for the local authority to be the lead agent. There will be more debate on how the regions are to be made up, but the approach will probably be different in different areas. The Clyde system provides a good model for the firths.
The Clyde inshore fishery stretches from the Mull of Galloway to the Mull of Kintyre, so the inshore fisheries group would be happy if the boundaries of the region were set along the IFG boundaries. That would make sense to us, but the issue is not prescribed as far as we are concerned. We are happy, as long as the boundaries that are designated take into account the fact that the marine environment is significantly different from the terrestrial environment. Having five or six local councils working in an area compounds what is already a difficult issue. The primary concern is not about where the regions should be specifically; it is that the size of the marine regions and partnerships should be workable and that the regions should be objective and functional.
Among the regions in Scotland, the Clyde is probably the easiest of the lot to plan for in that, as William Sinclair said, the area between Corsewall Point and the Mull of Kintyre, including the whole Clyde, is an obvious area to take. What happens in the rest of Scotland is much more difficult. I have no problem with the IFG areas.
As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for attending. If you want to submit supplementary information, could you please send it to the clerks by Monday 14 September, so that we can have it before we start drafting our stage 1 report?
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our second panel of witnesses: Richard Lochhead MSP, who is Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment; Stuart Foubister, who is a divisional solicitor in the relevant division; David Mallon, who is head of the marine environment branch; David Palmer, who is head of the marine strategy branch; and Linda Rosborough, who is deputy director of marine planning and policy. All of them are from the Scottish Government. In addition, we have Gordon Barclay, who is head of policy at Historic Scotland.
I thank the committee for the invitation to give evidence today and for the opportunity to make some quick opening remarks. I have endeavoured to follow the committee's proceedings closely and I look forward to the committee's report and the subsequent debate in Parliament. The Government looks forward to the committee's comments on how Parliament and the Government can manage our marine environment through effective legislation.
Thank you very much. We have a number of areas of questioning, which Alasdair Morgan will kick off.
I want to ask about the objectives behind the national marine plan, which will obviously filter down to the regional plans. As might be expected, Scottish and Southern Energy is very keen that renewable energy and climate change mitigation objectives should be included in the objectives behind the plan. In its written evidence, Scottish and Southern Energy asked for
The objectives cover a variety of ways in which we must manage our marine environments in future. All Government policies must take account of the impact of climate change, as is clear from the Parliament's passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The duty to take account of the impact of climate change will apply to Marine Scotland, which will be the champion of the national marine plan, and will be reflected in other Government policies.
I want to ask about boundaries between Scottish marine regions. I accept that you addressed the issue in your letter to the committee last week, when you referred to the consultation that will take place. However, a particular point has been made about the Solway Firth, where there is jurisdictional crossover with England—the issue is of interest to me and probably also to Elaine Murray. The Solway Firth Partnership takes the view that there should be a single plan for the area. Would that be a sensible approach? How would we achieve a single cross-border plan in the Solway or anywhere else where such a plan was necessary?
We must address the specific needs of the Solway. On the one hand our European obligations mean that we must follow our regional seas approach—I am sure that the committee supports that sensible concept. On the other hand we must acknowledge that there are separate bills north and south of the border, given the constitutional settlement.
I take it that the Isle of Man Government and the Northern Ireland Executive would be included in the arrangements.
Of course. The current arrangements involve not just the Scottish Government but all the devolved Administrations and the UK Government.
Does Elaine Murray want to comment on the Solway?
The cabinet secretary mentioned the main issue of contention. The Solway Firth Partnership will meet Hilary Benn in the near future to discuss a possible amendment to the UK bill to facilitate arrangements for the area.
Our priority is to get the Marine (Scotland) Bill through the parliamentary process, after which we will consult on the setting up of Scottish marine regions and marine planning partnerships. As I said to Alasdair Morgan, the future of the Solway will feature in the consultations and the debate that takes place then. The consultations will take place in the next year or two—I expect that the consultation on the setting up of marine regions will take place sooner rather than later. We will consult first on the national marine plan. If all goes well in Parliament, and with the committee's support, that could begin in a few months' time. We will consult on the marine regions straight afterwards. That is the plan of action.
I will take you to the other end of the country, to circumstances that on paper perhaps appear to be a lot less complex. I know that the potential for each of the island areas to be designated as standalone marine regions has been raised with you. In the case of Orkney, there might be a joint region with Highland Council, spanning the Pentland Firth. Have you reflected on island designations, and is there a way to make clear in the bill the specific status of the island authorities? Can you reassure the island authorities, which have each expressed much the same view on the matter, that it is likely that their particular interests will be taken on board in early course?
I thought that you might take me up to the other end of the country. I assure Orkney and Shetland and other communities that, as I hope they will see from the bill, we are attempting to be as flexible as possible.
I will follow up on Alasdair Morgan's initial question about the national marine plan. It is interesting that the bill does not create a duty to produce a national plan, although I accept that it is inconceivable that one will not emerge in some shape or form in due course. It is perhaps of more concern that there is no duty to set out objectives in the plan; Alasdair Morgan indicated the various views that have emerged on that.
I will reflect on those points, but it is important to strike a balance in the approach that we are taking in the bill between duties and powers. As you point out, there is a lot of emphasis on powers and not so much on duties. That has been done on purpose. We want to maintain flexibility for some of the reasons that I have mentioned. Scotland is a diverse country with a diverse marine environment, and various sectors use different parts of our seas. We do not want to have long lists of duties prescribed.
I accept that there is a balance to be struck and that flexibility will enable diversity to come through. I am perhaps struggling to understand how the setting of some objectives would not provide a degree of clarity and some shape for the consultation. It seems strange to have a plan but no objectives.
As I said, the broad objectives are outlined in the bill. The question is to what extent to place duties on ministers. I hope that I have explained the approach that we are taking and our reasons for it, but we are open to any views that the committee expresses in its report.
To continue on the planning theme, what level of detail do you envisage? An amendment was made to the UK bill that imposes a duty on marine planning authorities to "seek to ensure" whole coverage of their marine planning regions. Seafish believes that there is a need for such a duty, but the bill states:
Will the whole of the country be covered by a marine plan? Not necessarily. The national marine plan may well lay down some objectives that we hope as a country to put in place for our marine environment, but we might then delegate the powers to regional plans. There is no prescriptive approach to that whereby we will lay down that there will be X number of regional plans covering 100 per cent of Scotland's seas. Many stakeholders asked whether there would be any point in going through all the surveying exercises that would have to be conducted, and all the bureaucracy, for areas of the sea where there are no activities and there is no foreseeable potential for activities. If the situation in such an area were to change, the bill provides ample opportunities to amend the plans and recognise that new opportunities have arisen.
I want to develop the theme that Liam McArthur and John Scott touched on. You indicated that the European Union requires a regional seas approach to the development of the work and you also touched on the important relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK on the matter. I understand that a marine policy statement will emanate from the UK bill that sets out priorities for marine planning regions in the UK. Will the marine plan that you talked about be the equivalent Scottish policy statement—the statement of objectives, perhaps, that Liam McArthur mentioned—or will there be a separate Scottish marine policy statement?
That is a good question. How can I best illustrate the position? First, during the debate on the extent to which powers over the marine environment should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, as part of the negotiations to ensure that there is a common understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, we agreed with the UK Government to set out what were at that time referred to as high-level marine objectives. I hope that the committee has a copy of those objectives, which were produced in the context of the negotiations on marine policy to ensure that we were all going in the same direction.
If the joint statement that you have just mentioned is agreed, will all of Scotland's interests be covered by the UK objectives? You will not publish a separate set of objectives for Scotland, which would shape the marine plan in Scotland and the local regional plans.
The marine policy statement will apply if there is UK-wide agreement and all the UK Administrations sign up to it. It will be delivered by our marine plan and the other aspects of our respective bills, and will apply across the UK, unless we do not agree on its contents.
I imagine that you would be able to agree to the vast majority of the statement, but there might be some things to which you felt that you could not agree. Is it reasonable to assume that if you were to fail to agree a UK-level document, there would be an equivalent document for Scotland?
Yes. If we fail to agree a UK marine policy statement, a Scottish marine policy statement would be produced, which would be reflected in our plan, the purpose of which is to deliver our policy—[Interruption.]
That is fine, unless the minister has anything to add.
My colleagues have pointed out that our policy statement would not necessarily be published as a separate document; it would just appear within the plan.
In that context, it would perhaps be helpful for the reasons for any such disagreement to be set out. Is it envisaged that the Government will undertake to do that, perhaps by reporting back to the Parliament at an appropriate juncture?
Prior to the publication of the plan, there will be a debate and a consultation on the marine policy statement across the UK. We will look for input on what Scotland's policy should be. The policy will be quite detailed. For example, in theory, it could lay down how many megawatts of energy we as a country want to produce from offshore renewables. Some of those policies may already exist, but we will pull them together in our marine policy statement. There will be a debate about Scotland's policy so that we are sure that the marine planning that takes place in Scotland achieves our national policy objectives.
But in the unlikely event of there not being alignment between UK and Scottish objectives, which Peter Peacock has described, will the Scottish ministers set out the reasons for that disagreement and perhaps report back to the Parliament?
I am happy to give such an assurance to the committee; that would certainly be part of our plans.
We are concentrating on the negative aspects. I presume that the balance of probabilities suggests that there will be a jointly agreed marine policy statement. Do you expect that to be the case, or do you envisage difficulties?
I am hopeful that that will be the case. It is clear that our approach to the future management of our seas is set in a Scottish, a European and a regional context. In addition to our policy commitments at European level, there are policy decisions that we will take here in Scotland. There will be a regional element to the process as well, whereby people in local communities and at regional level will be able to reflect their priorities in their local regional plans. When it comes to what we sign up to with the UK, I hope that there will be a lot of agreement.
I will move on a bit to the number of plans that will exist, of which there seem to be a great many. I know that you do not like lists, but I have a small list of plans. There is the national marine plan, regional marine plans, a regional seas conservation plan, seal management plans, management schemes for marine protected areas, and there might be plans under the river basin planning system, inshore fishery group plans, fish farming framework plans and so on. There are a lot of plans and, in one sense, the process that has been set up creates another plan on top of those. Consistent with another Government policy, which seeks to reduce plans—I will not comment on how successful it is—will there be any scope under the auspices of the marine regions and the marine planning partnerships for rationalising the number of plans that will be required?
My official says that the answer to that is yes, which coincides with the answer that was just about to come out of my mouth.
Can you say which plans will go?
First, it is worth bearing it in mind that the reason why we have a Marine (Scotland) Bill is that there is in effect no planning at sea. There is cross-party support and support across Scotland for the proposal that we should have plans for our waters and seas. There is a recognised need for planning at sea, so there will be new plans for the sea—that is the purpose of the bill.
I will come on to the structure of the partnerships shortly, but first I want to tie down some points about the plans. One question that has arisen from the evidence, based on observation of the number of plans and the interrelationship between all the different groups, is what is the highest order plan? In other words, is there a hierarchy among the plans? At one level, if you, under the powers in the bill, approve a regional plan, it will have statutory force. Am I correct in assuming that it will therefore be the highest in the hierarchy of plans in terms of its authority and ability to deliver? If that is the case, what will be the mechanism for reconciling, for example, a difference between what is in the regional marine plan that you approve and an inshore fishery group plan or, indeed, any other plan?
The first point is that the bill lays down that there will be a national marine plan for Scotland. That is our starting point, and there is huge support for that proposal. I know that the committee agrees that that is a very exciting development for Scotland. Because the Government treats the input from local communities very seriously and because—as I explained—we have a diverse country, we want there to be a local dimension to planning so that local communities, local stakeholders and public authorities that are familiar with local needs and the local seas can influence the planning regime for their own waters. An enabling power in the bill will allow that to happen if there is a desire and a demand for it. We cannot say at this point how many regional plans there will be in Scotland, because that will depend on local communities, local authorities and so on saying that they would like one for their area. We can then discuss that and see where it goes.
I want to tidy something up before I move on. Let us assume for the moment that you decide that there will be a regional plan for a particular area, because of local demand. You would not sign it off, however, if you believed there to be unreconciled differences between the different plans that already exist in the area. Do you see it as your role—as the minister and with your officials—to acknowledge that there might be a desire for something to happen, but not to sign off a plan until some accommodation or reconciliation of competing issues is achieved? Is that fair?
That is fair comment, yes. It is an important aspect of the debate. We will have a national marine policy and the main policy settlement, I hope, then we will have a plan for putting policy into practice in Scotland's seas. Regional plans will be obliged to take account of the national plan. If they do not, the Government will have the opportunity not to sign them off, to send them back and seek amendments. There is a lot of discretion for the minister in that regard.
Let us move on to the structure of the marine planning partnerships. In your letter, you mention that you are undertaking further work with the Scottish coastal forum to help sort out the regions. You are talking about a system for creating partnerships, bringing people together to interact with one other and sort out their thinking for the future, reconciling differences and so on. We heard evidence from your officials that they are taking a fairly relaxed approach to the matter. For example, people will be able to come together, and if the partnership in an area has 50 people in it and is led, by agreement, by the local council, that will be fine. If another area takes a different approach, and the partnership comprises 20 people and is led by the coastal forum, that will equally be fine. On one level, that is commendable, as it allows a lot of flexibility.
I want to reflect on the comments that have been made to the committee in relation to our future thinking on the composition of marine planning partnerships. It is a matter of being sensible about the whole issue. Most committee members probably consider their own areas—if they represent coastal areas—and will be able to think of obvious candidates to be part of marine planning partnerships. I am sure that common sense can prevail.
So you are open to creating a clearer framework—I do not want to use the term "direction"—while leaving flexibility for local areas to add to it in light of their local circumstances. You are not against that in principle.
Yes, I am.
Yes, you are against it?
Sorry—I was responding to your initial question. We have an open mind.
Apart from the membership, do you intend to develop how the partnerships might be structured and how they might operate, or will you leave it largely to them? Will matters such as voting procedures—in the event that a vote is necessary in a partnership, although we hope that that will not occur—be set out in the secondary legislation too?
I will ask the officials for feedback from stakeholders, because there are continuing discussions about such issues. My inclination is that such matters will not be in the secondary legislation, because we are talking about partnerships that will bring together existing bodies, not about establishing new elected bodies. If we started discussing that kind of approach, it would take us into a whole new debate.
The situation is different in different parts of Scotland. The maturity of the existing coastal partnerships varies a lot: in some places, they are non-existent; in others, they are mature and have substantial responsibilities. The amount of capacity building that might be needed to create an effective marine planning partnership varies markedly from place to place. In some places, telling the partners how to run the business of the partnership in every detail might not be the best way to encourage them to take on new responsibilities; in others, support will be welcomed. We envisage variable support, depending on the maturity of local partnerships in different parts of Scotland and the extent to which they are used to managing coastal and marine matters.
In an earlier answer, minister, you hinted that, once the marine planning partnerships are established, some organisations might think about whether they need to continue to exist—you mentioned coastal partnerships in particular, but you may have had other things in mind as well—because the new arrangements may take over their objectives with more force. Will you say a bit more about that?
I am not trying to pre-empt what may happen once the marine planning partnerships are established. I am simply making the point that, if some fora evolve into marine planning partnerships, there will not be extra bodies. There is a variety of circumstances, and I am not pre-empting anything. Many good organisations do good jobs but, once the marine planning partnerships provide a new focus in their areas, the circumstances might change in some cases.
In earlier evidence, it was suggested that the involvement of Marine Scotland would help to ensure consistency, or at least manage expectations, in marine planning partnerships. Some witnesses even suggested that a chairing role might be appropriate for Marine Scotland. Are you considering that?
There will be a close relationship between Marine Scotland and all the marine planning partnerships. Marine Scotland will be the champion of Scotland's seas and the champion of the legislation, so a close relationship is inevitable. It would be nice to think that Marine Scotland will not have to chair some marine planning partnerships to get them going, but I have no fixed view on such suggestions.
I would like to return briefly to Peter Peacock's point about the hierarchy. As you will be aware, there are some concerns about the overlap between the Marine (Scotland) Bill, the Orkney County Council Act 1974 and the Zetland County Council Act 1974. I know that the issue has been raised with you over the summer. Have you had an opportunity to reflect on potential clashes? I know that there is a concern that, as a result of the bill, certain activities that the harbour authorities are allowed to undertake under those 1974 acts will no longer be automatically permitted. Can you offer any reassurances in that regard?
I am sure that there is a lot more reflection to be done, but we have reflected on the matter and we are going to bring forward a list of exemptions in relation to activities that should be licensed. For example, we are looking at the threshold for environmental impact, with a view to including in a list of exemptions those activities that do not go above the threshold. We are conscious of the concerns of some local authorities, and we want to get the best outcome for those areas. I hope that we will be able to give some comfort to those councils in future.
Have you had legal advice on the possible impact of the bill on the 1974 acts?
Obviously, we do not comment on legal advice on any particular issue, but I will ask officials whether there are any legal obstacles.
I do not believe that anything in the 1974 acts needs to be amended. The main part of the bill that might impact on the 1974 acts is the licensing part, but the provisions are a combination of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and the Coast Protection Act 1949. No provisions in the 1974 acts specifically exempt them from the requirements of the 1985 and 1949 acts.
A plethora of plans is going to be developed. How will they be paid for? To whom will you allocate funding for the plans?
The financial memorandum lays out our estimated costs at this early stage. Clearly, much will depend on how many plans are developed. Marine Scotland will incur much of the cost of setting up the plans. It will be the linchpin for the national plan and the regional plans.
Will you allocate money to local authorities? They have concerns about the increased planning load that they might have to bear.
No doubt that will be taken into account. However, my point is that Marine Scotland will carry much of the cost for a lot of what will happen. I cannot sit here and say that a room has been hired for a marine planning partnership to meet in—that is a matter for Marine Scotland. Generally speaking, the costs of the plans and so on are taken into account in the budget projections. The financial memorandum lays that out. I am happy to clarify the point in writing, if that would be helpful.
It would be, thank you.
We will move on to deal with marine licensing.
Before we do, I would like to ask about shellfish. The minister raised issues about shellfish in his recent letter to us and in his opening statement.
I would rather write to the committee on that point. I am not aware of any intention to frustrate that process or create any conflict. There is European legislation on the designation of shellfish-growing waters, which I understand will not be interfered with, but I am happy to write to the committee, if that will help to reassure the industry.
Various people have expressed concern about the licensing system. A witness told the committee that the licensing system is
I am not sure that I am 100 per cent clear about what it is that might be intellectually incoherent.
I think that it is to do with the fact that the section contains many different licensing arrangements and opt-outs. It is felt that the licensing scheme has too many pieces.
The first point to make is that one of the successes of the bill is that it will streamline the licensing system. I will explain the position using the example of a renewable energy company that wishes to develop in our seas. Currently, as a first stage, the developer has to identify the consents that are required and apply to the relevant bodies, which involves making applications under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, the Electricity Act 1989 and the Coast Protection Act 1949, and often securing a wildlife licence. That process will be replaced with the requirement to submit one application to Marine Scotland. I hope that the committee appreciates that that will streamline the system significantly, as opposed to making it less coherent.
I think that the particular concern involved planning applications for marine aquaculture, with regard to which there is an opt-out to allow local authorities to voluntarily relinquish their responsibilities. The argument is that, if not all of them do so, there will be two regimes—one in which local authorities have maintained their powers and one in which they have relinquished them—therefore the industry will be faced with different landscapes in different areas.
That is a fair point. I should have mentioned the aquaculture sector earlier.
It is correct that, in connection with aquaculture consents, where the responsibility remains with the local authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the terrestrial plan and not the marine plan will take precedence.
I wonder whether you can clarify something for me. It is possible that some marine regions will cover more than one local authority area. Does that mean that, within such a marine region, where one local authority decides to surrender its responsibility to Marine Scotland and another local authority decides to keep its responsibility, there will be two different methods of applying for an aquaculture consent?
Each local authority will have a right to grant consents for its local waters. A marine region may be quite a large area but, within that, individual local authorities will have their own decision-making rights. If one local authority chooses to delegate the matter to Marine Scotland, Marine Scotland will have to pay due attention to the marine plan in deciding on aquaculture consents. I do not think that it is much more complicated than the existing situation.
You say that terrestrial plans, which are in the gift of local authorities to determine, will take precedence over regional marine plans. That issue was raised in evidence last week. If a local authority such as Highland Council decided that, instead of fish farming or aquaculture, it would prefer marine leisure developments, but that was not what the marine plan wanted for that region, would the local authority's plan or the marine plan take precedence?
In that circumstance, Highland Council would have the ultimate say. Unless it had delegated the power over aquaculture consents to Marine Scotland, those consents would remain within its gift and it would get the outcome that it wanted. The terrestrial plan would take precedence.
Might that risk thwarting the overall intentions of the marine plan?
No. It is a question of local accountability. The feedback from local authorities that have an interest in aquaculture is that they want to keep their power over consents in the interest of local accountability. However, if they change their mind, there is a power in the bill to allow them to delegate responsibility to Marine Scotland. In that circumstance, the process will be more streamlined than it would be otherwise.
Let us move on to a slightly less vexed issue. The letter that you sent to the committee earlier this week discussed licensing exemptions. You say that you are prepared to look again at some of the dredging functions that the British Ports Authority and all three of the islands authorities have raised with us in oral and written evidence. Can you describe your current thinking in relation to maintenance dredging?
Our current thinking is that we do not want to stand in the way of accepted techniques for dredging, so we are considering what exemptions could be provided for existing activities. Dredging per se will be included in licensing, but we will ensure that there are exemptions for appropriate dredging that has been taking place for a long time.
Do you plan to initiate consultation on that in the coming days? What is the timeframe?
Clearly, the exemptions will not be delivered until the licensing regime is in place. That issue will be part and parcel of the consultation on licensing.
Liam, do you want to ask about the appeals procedure?
Yes, although the issue is also perhaps dealt with in the letter that the cabinet secretary sent the committee on 8 September. Cabinet secretary, you state that you are
That debate is very much an offshore version of the debate on the onshore third-party right of appeal, which Parliament considered in the previous session and under the previous Administration. The decision was taken then to reject a third-party right of appeal in the terrestrial context. We take a similar view in the offshore context, and for the same reasons. Such a right could frustrate the progress of appropriate developments and would open up the possibility of vexatious third-party appeals that would slow down the process enormously. We will have rights of appeal for some people, such as those whose licence applications are rejected, but we are ruling out a third-party right of appeal.
I accept your analysis, but I was surprised that the SSPO was fairly comfortable with the notion of a third-party right of appeal. I presume that that organisation's members would be in the firing line of objections through the appeals process.
Sure. I will consider the SSPO's comments, but a third-party right of appeal would, of course, be available not only to the aquaculture sector. If we gave it to one sector, it would have to apply to all kinds of developments at sea, so as far as I am concerned, the argument remains.
I have a question about the remediation measures in section 35. The UK bill will allow remediation notices to cover compensation for damage caused and for restoration of damaged sites. The point has been made to us—I think that it is correct, although, frankly, section 35 does not exactly get the clear English mark—that the remediation procedures in section 35 will not allow that, but will simply allow the order of further steps to protect the environment. There is nothing about restoring the environment or providing compensation. Are we correct that there is a difference between the UK and Scottish bills and, if so, is it intentional?
I will ask the officials to respond, as they might have a better understanding of the UK bill in that context.
That is one of the provisions in the UK bill that has been amended during proceedings at Westminster, either since our bill was introduced or maybe shortly before that. To an extent, we have not caught up with those amendments. The intention is to give serious consideration to what has been done to the UK provision and, probably, to match it.
One would think that a remediation notice, by its very nature, should remedy the defect rather than just stop what somebody has been doing.
There was a fair bit of debate about that in Westminster.
We will write to the committee on that point, too.
Shetland Islands Council raised concerns about potential double charging for dredging, as there is the cost of a licence fee plus the sea-bed lease cost. Have you had discussions with the Crown Estate about that and, if so, can you tell us about them? Will there be double charging?
The only general comment I can make is to allude to what I said to Liam McArthur. Tried and tested dredging techniques that are recognised and have been in place for some time would be candidates for exemption from the licensing scheme. Although I cannot pre-empt where we will be once the secondary legislation is put in place, I can say that it is certainly not our objective to implement double-charging schemes for local authorities or anyone else. However, I cannot say that that will definitely not happen until we have the consultation on the secondary legislation and the exemptions list is decided. I will take that point away with me.
That might be a yes or a no.
We move on to marine protection and enhancement, which is part 4.
In the submissions and the evidence sessions before this one, concern has been expressed about the level of input from community groups in coastal communities and their participation in the process. COAST's written submission said that it was pleased with the suggestion in the consultation document that coastal communities might be able to nominate marine protected areas, but that does not seem to have been translated into the bill. Is there a reason why that is no longer considered to be appropriate?
I have been following the campaigning activities of COAST for some time. It has achieved a lot in highlighting some very important issues about local waters. I have met representatives from COAST on more than one occasion, but I do not necessarily agree with all the evidence that it has given to the committee. For the record, a couple of its references were inaccurate. One was about many wrecks on our sea beds being wrecked by trawling and other activities, but we have a list of many identified wrecks that are still in a natural condition on the sea beds.
I want to press you on one of the differences between the Scottish bill and the UK bill. The UK bill sets up inshore fisheries and conservation groups whereas the Scottish bill refers only to inshore fisheries groups. Again, we heard concerns this morning that, although community and conservation groups could advise the IFGs, they would not have an executive place on the IFGs. Why is a different approach being taken here in Scotland to the level at which the conservation voice is heard?
We are starting from a different place than they are south of the border, and there are some fundamental differences in the UK bill. It addresses some of the issues that our bill seeks to address, but it also contains coastal access elements and other issues that you have mentioned. The bills are different in that respect.
Your reply suggests that you would be prepared to review the membership of the groups in the future. You have fairly recently had the report on the importance to the Scottish economy of sea angling. I can understand your desire to get things moving, but circumstances change. Is it a matter that you would return to—for example, to allow the sea anglers a seat at the table?
Do you mean in terms of inshore fisheries groups?
Yes.
Inshore fisheries groups are established on the basis of commercial fisheries—that does not include the sectors that Elaine Murray may be thinking about. In all issues such as this, the question is where we draw the line. If we set something up to give commercial fisheries the opportunity to introduce fisheries instruments to manage their local fisheries, that is clear and understood. If we start expanding the role of inshore fisheries groups, they become different beasts and it gets incredibly complicated. I am sure that all of us around the table know that even within inshore fisheries groups, debates are taking place, and that there are complications from time to time. To compound that is not an attractive option.
I want to follow up on a slightly different dimension of marine protected areas. There is general agreement—including from you, in announcements that you have made—about the degraded state of our marine environment over many decades. Indeed, the motivation for the bill is, in part, to address that. However, outwith MPAs, there is no great force in the bill to do anything to restore the health of the seas, which would benefit us all in the long term, help to sustain our communities and so on. Would it be helpful to strengthen the bill by requiring ministers, as a sort of overriding duty in all that they do about the seas, to think about the health of the seas as a primary objective of all our activity in the marine environment? Would that help to give some force to our aim of ensuring that, in decades to come, we have a better marine environment than we have today?
You have gone to the core of the issue. The role of the Government in this, as well as that of everyone else who uses our seas, is to ensure that we have healthy seas for the future. We are already committed to that and we are already signed up to obligations under European legislation to achieve that. Those obligations mean that we have to work through established networks of MPAs, through elements in the Marine (Scotland) Bill and through international commitments to achieve a healthy status for our seas in the years ahead. That does not just apply to Scotland—that is European Union policy.
This legislation will hopefully endure for decades to come, and throughout those decades Governments will inevitably change. Would it complement EU obligations for Scottish law to place a duty on ministers, as a primary consideration in all they do about the seas, to have regard to the impact of the decisions that they make on the health of the marine environment? That would be a comparatively simple mechanism to put in the bill, which would put beyond doubt the duties of Scottish ministers in these matters.
I will certainly reflect on that suggestion. As a former minister, Mr Peacock will be aware that ministers always take the view that, if something is already the case, they do not have to reiterate it in new legislation.
Ministers do not always take such a view, I have to say.
The fact is that Scotland has already signed on the dotted line, which means that we are now responsible for achieving a good, healthy status for Scotland's seas. Perhaps we can reflect on whether we should repeat that in the bill, but it is already the case.
I have a few questions, both on the duty and on something that Wendy Kenyon from the Scottish Parliament information centre raised previously, so I suppose I might as well bring them in together. First, I have just a quick question on the inshore fisheries group's membership, which you said consisted of commercial groups. I understand that there were over 100 commercial charter boats in the Clyde about 20 years back. If there is such a presence of commercial charter boats, could they count as a commercial group for the purpose of inshore fisheries, given that millions of pounds are involved?
By commercial fisheries, I mean people whose livelihoods depend on going out to catch commercial fish stocks. A debate can always take place about whether people who take out anglers and the sea-angling fraternity can be regarded as having a commercial fisheries operation. However, we already have commercial fisheries legislation. I can only reiterate that the MPAs in the Marine (Scotland) Bill cater for the general protection of Scotland's marine environment. There is therefore a tool to provide an avenue for any public authority or community to pursue action to protect a part of Scotland's marine environment from whatever activity, if it thinks that that is necessary.
To return to the MPAs, there is no duty to designate MPAs—none has been produced for discussion. Previously, when I asked officials about section 59, I was informed that an area had to meet the scientific requirements to be designated as an MPA, but that an area's meeting the requirements will not necessarily mean that it will be designated as an MPA. Leaving aside the provisions in section 59(5)—that is, assuming that there is only one site and not two of equal value, and that ministers are not considering designating it as an MPA for another, sufficient reason—can you give me an idea of the reasons why a site that met the scientific criteria would not be designated?
There is a difference of approach north and south of the border, and within the wider debate. We have very much not taken the view that we must achieve certain targets and percentages of closed areas. Such a view is being taken elsewhere, and some people may think that it is valid, but I do not. I think that we should start from the need and the case, and not simply say that we want to find 30 per cent of our seas to close, or whatever. We should start from the bottom up. For that reason, we have avoided going down the route of duties which, by their very nature, are prescriptive. To impose a duty would mean that it would be incumbent on ministers to go out and identify areas of sea or the marine environment, and protect them if they met certain criteria.
To continue on that theme, you referred in your letter of 8 September 2009 to
We are subject to OSPAR—that is one of our international commitments—so we are obliged to establish a coherent network of marine protected areas. We pay attention to any definition of "coherent network". David Mallon has done a lot of work on the issue, so perhaps this is a good opportunity for him to contribute.
In the context of our signing up to the OSPAR commitment to develop an ecologically coherent network for the north-east Atlantic, it is important to highlight that the characteristics of ecological coherence to which Bill Wilson referred are guidelines. All the countries around the north-east Atlantic are considering the guidelines in order to ascertain which elements they want to apply when they contribute to the network.
As I understood it, you were saying that there is a requirement under European regulations only in relation to a certain section of the sea. I presume therefore that the bill could include a duty to ensure an ecologically coherent network—however you defined that—for all Scotland's seas. You would have an obligation to create a network of MPAs, but you would not have to specify exactly what spot they had to go in, which would allow for the possibility of saying, "There are three or four examples of this, and this is the one that we are going to keep."
Yes, but as the cabinet secretary said, we have taken the view that the bill does not need to repeat what we have already signed up to. We have included a duty to report the extent to which the designated MPAs contribute towards an ecologically coherent network. We think that that is sufficient.
Perhaps that takes us nicely to our next question. Why have the Scottish ministers adopted a policy of presumption of use within MPAs? On one hand, sea anglers, for example, want to adopt the precautionary principle in MPAs, to provide greater protection; on the other hand, the renewables industry is afraid that there will be too much protection and that it will not be able to build offshore platforms. Can the cabinet secretary reassure both parties? Can you say on one hand that the approach will not render MPAs pointless, while reassuring the renewables industry on the other? How will you strike a balance?
I will do my best. Let me talk about the purpose of the marine policy statement, which will be reflected in the marine plan for Scotland. The nation, the Government and the Parliament want to set out what we expect from Scotland's seas and our aspirations to protect our seas. We want to ensure that our seas continue to sustain hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland. I think that most members believe that our seas can contribute towards tackling climate change and supplying food for the table, and that through wildlife tourism we can enjoy the fantastically rich natural heritage that exists below our waves—and above, in our seabird populations. That is our starting point as a nation.
Where there has been resistance to MPAs, it has been born out of the fear that any activity or development will be prevented in them. However, you have tried to reassure us on that point this morning.
I will reflect on that. However, as ministers and indeed the Parliament need to remember, a balance must be struck between policy and the legislation that delivers it. Policy evolves and when it evolves to the point that the original legislation does not contain the necessary tools to deliver it, the legislation needs to be changed. In this case, however, we have laid out our policy in the policy memorandum to which you referred, and we hope that the bill will deliver the tools with which to achieve it. The fact is that the more that policy statements are put in the bill, the more the possibility is raised of all kinds of legal debates in the future.
I am conscious of the time and the fact that we still have two sections to discuss.
Sorry—I want to raise a small technical point that I hope will prove intellectually coherent.
I will give that interesting point some more thought and come back to you. It has not been brought to my attention before, which, I suppose, justifies the process of evidence taking by committees.
As I said, I am conscious that time is marching on and that we still have two sections to discuss. I ask members for brief questions and panel members for brief answers.
Will you impose any conditions on the licences, such as marksmanship, range or seasonality? Will the licences be issued on a group or an individual basis?
The bill gives us the opportunity to modernise the legislation to protect seals. We have taken the view that although we will not prevent the culling of seals full stop, we will ensure that all situations are licensed. The licence conditions can be varied. The bill explains to some extent the kind of factors that could be taken into account. It is perfectly possible to take into account marksmanship or training and so on as part of the licence conditions. We are considering where to go with that.
Obviously, the culling of seals is quite a contentious issue. Some animal welfare groups would like all non-lethal methods of deterring seals to be used before shooting, and believe that shooting should be the last resort to deal with seal attack. As a licensing condition, would you seek some form of pre-scrutiny so that you could be assured that all other forms of deterrent had been tried, such as acoustic methods and anti-seal netting, before we got as far as issuing a licence to kill the seals?
The short answer is yes. The bill outlines conditions that already have to be taken into account, and some of the conditions under which the killing of seals is permitted. We would want to learn from the Moray Firth seal management plan because it has been good at addressing alternative means of controlling seal populations. For example, the plan has a code of practice that people have to follow. It is policies such as that that we would want to take forward. We would be keen to explore your suggestion.
The bill considers only the condition of having a licence in a seal conservation area rather than in the seas in general. Is that still the case?
To clarify your question—
Is it the intention that a licence to shoot a seal would apply only in seal conservation areas or would it apply throughout the seas? There was some doubt about that when we were taking evidence last week.
The requirement for a licence?
Yes.
It would apply throughout.
The legal position is that no one is allowed to shoot a seal unless by licence, so getting a licence to shoot a seal is a major step. We have had conflicting evidence about how seal kills should be reported. On the one hand, the salmon farming industry suggests that seal kills should be reported annually. On the other hand, other groups and individuals say that it would be helpful to monitor what is going on if it was reported much more frequently. The bill says that a report to Scottish ministers should be done
I will certainly reflect on that. There is, of course, no obligation to report at the moment. The debate that is going on in the media always interests me. Some organisations claim that thousands of seals are shot dead every year in Scotland by certain individuals, companies and organisations, but there is no evidence whatsoever that that is the case. However, it might be argued that there is no evidence whatsoever that that is not the case, so the key is to get information to hand and make it the law that people must report seal kills. I ask members to bear in mind that the starting point is that we do not have such information.
I gladly acknowledge your point. The provision is new and welcome, but it might be helpful to everybody if there was a more precise definition or if guidance was issued that said what is meant by the phrase
That is a fair point, and I will reflect on it.
You may be aware that, in its written evidence, the Hebridean Partnership stated:
There have been high-profile cases in Scotland in which people have been prosecuted for shooting seals when they were not supposed to do so. Therefore, it is clear that there is enforcement. I am happy to write to the committee about the matter—perhaps we can speak to the police, for example—but my understanding is that, given the nature of such activities, there is a lot of local intelligence in some of the communities in which such offences take place, as members can imagine. I am therefore confident that the provisions can be enforced. It is clear that Marine Scotland will have a role because it will be able to enforce the legislation. Likewise, the police will be able to take enforcement action under the existing legislation. As I say, I am confident about enforcement, but I am happy to get back to the committee with more views on it.
Okay.
Section 132 provides the power to marine enforcement officers to direct a vessel or marine installation to port if the officer believes that an offence may be being committed. We received oral evidence on that matter from the British Ports Association and from Orkney Islands Council last week. The concern is that there is a lack of clarity about the terms under which the power would be used. There also seems to be a lack of clarity about how the power would operate alongside the power that the secretary of state's representative currently has to direct a vessel into port. I think that the United Kingdom Government financially underwrites SOSREP's decision. It would be helpful to hear the cabinet secretary's views on the circumstances in which the power would be used and on where liability would lie should there be any environmental damage or any other cost relating to such action.
Again, I will speak to our lawyers and get back to the committee on that. My initial comment is that the powers are largely similar, if not very similar, to the existing powers that we have in fisheries legislation. We are not reinventing the wheel with the bill. However, I will double-check and get back to the committee on the issue for clarity.
I have a general question. Do the common enforcement powers in the Scottish bill parallel those in the UK bill so that the enforcement system for planning and conservation is wholly consistent from zero to 200 nautical miles? Indeed, do we need such consistency?
The powers are very close to the ones that are set out in the UK bill. Indeed, the power to direct a ship to port, which was mentioned in the previous question, came to the Scottish bill through the UK bill, so that will be a UK-wide power.
The Finance Committee's report expresses concern about how some of the costings and financial estimates were determined, and particularly the costs to local authorities. Argyll and Bute Council estimates that it will require four full-time professional staff for regional marine planning, but Government estimates in the financial memorandum suggest that only two will be required. How valid are the estimates in the financial memorandum? Can you give more clarification of what will be expected of local authorities?
Any costs that fall to local government will be taken into account, as ever, by the settlement with local government. We will have our own budgets within Marine Scotland to fulfil many of the measures that will have to be taken in setting up the plans. Clearly, a lot of the work will fall to Marine Scotland, particularly the scientific aspects of the marine plans.
If local authorities' estimates prove to be more accurate than yours and there is a shortfall, will you be happy to reimburse them?
I am saying that that will be taken into account.
Argyll and Bute Council's evidence perhaps contained a slight misunderstanding of the details in the financial memorandum. We identified £100,000 in relation to the partnership costs and another £100,000 in relation to the costs of implementation. That would equate to at least four staff. Over and above that, we identified separately the full cost of preparing a marine plan, including data collection, environmental assessment and the plan process. Taken together, the separate sums that we have identified add up to considerably more than four staff.
Argyll and Bute Council was mentioned, but other councils have expressed concern that the lack of clarity about the responsibilities that will fall to them makes it difficult to establish costs.
Yes. I know from speaking to staff on the vessels in particular that they are excited about the new responsibilities that they will have and the fact that they will play a role in protecting the wider marine environment as well as implementing sea fisheries legislation. There is no evidence that there will be a huge increase—at this point, in the changeover time—in the enforcement measures that will have to be taken beyond 12 miles. Most of the activity at sea occurs from zero to 12 miles.
There is no doubt that Marine Scotland was excited about the new responsibilities, be they for mapping or enforcement, but it certainly expressed concern that it would struggle to meet them with the resources that it had available. You are confident—
I am unaware of that concern. It has not been expressed to me. Clearly, when there are new responsibilities, it is always a matter of concern to ensure that adequate resources are in place. We are all concerned about that. That is why we are ensuring that the resources will be in place.
Part 3 of the bill regularly refers to
Yes. We have been thinking about that. To put it on record, we will put it in writing to the committee, because I know that some organisations may find that helpful.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance. If we could have any supplementary evidence that you promised by Monday 14 September, that would be helpful. It can then be circulated before we start drafting our stage 1 report.
Meeting continued in private until 12:33.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation