Official Report 360KB pdf
Scottish Marine Regions Order 2015 [Draft]
No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the draft order. There is, however, an issue that, while it is not a matter for this committee, we might wish to draw to the attention of the lead committee.
The boundary between Scottish and English waters within the territorial sea is set out in the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, and it forms the boundary of the Scottish marine area under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, which is the parent act under which this order is made. The order therefore uses the 1999 order to describe the limit of the Solway marine region.
In conceptual terms, the landward limit of the territorial sea is the mean high water mark of spring tides. It is a recognised feature of estuarial areas such as the River Esk within the Solway area that that limit can change from time to time. One of the purposes of the 1999 order was to provide a defined boundary that would not change. However, examination of a high-resolution map of the area as it now stands shows that the boundary line that was set in the 1999 order does not extend fully to the point that is now reached by the mean high spring tide. It appears that the 1999 order boundary is out of date in that respect.
The effect appears to be that there is a small part of the boundary line for the sea within the Solway marine region that cannot be fully delineated by the order. Does the committee agree to draw the matter to the attention of the lead committee?
Members indicated agreement.
We should certainly do that. I looked up the map just before I came to the committee because I wanted to explore the issue in more detail. I found that an additional line has been inscribed on the map that takes the current end of the line, which is a couple of hundred metres short of meeting the Scotland and England border, and joins that point to an extension of the boundary that comes down the River Sark, thus filling that gap on the map.
I recognise that that has no effect on the legislative expression of the boundary, but at least it suggests that the issue that we are talking about has been recognised, and an attempt has been made on the map to reflect what would be sensible. We should ensure that, when we communicate with the lead committee, which I agree we should do, we at least draw that to its attention. That might enable it to pursue on what basis officials have added that bit of line, which is sensible in practice if not necessarily in law.
I agree with Stewart Stevenson. We should write to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I commend the investigative qualities of my colleague Stewart Stevenson for having been so diligent as to discover that fact. In law, 200m is a significant distance, and it is entirely appropriate that the matter is drawn to the attention of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.