Official Report 725KB pdf
Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 2015 (SSI 2015/435)
Inshore Fishing (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Luce Bay) Order 2015 (SSI 2015/436)
South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015 (SSI 2015/437)
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the third meeting in 2016 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I remind those present to switch off their mobile phones, or at least turn them to silent, and that members of the committee use tablets. We do not want any interference during the meeting.
Under the first agenda item, the committee will take evidence on three pieces of negative subordinate legislation: the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 2015; the Inshore Fishing (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Luce Bay) Order 2015; and the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015. Motions to annul the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 2015 and the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015 have been lodged by Jamie McGrigor, who has joined us. Good morning.
As is the usual practice in such circumstances, we will first have a brief evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead, who has also joined us, so that we can ask questions or seek clarification on issues. We welcome the cabinet secretary, who is with Michael McLeod, head of marine conservation, and David Palmer, head of marine planning, both at the Scottish Government. Good morning. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
Thank you for the introduction, convener, and good morning to the committee and to Jamie McGrigor. I thank the committee for all its hard work over a number of weeks in taking evidence on the marine protected area network, which we are designating and putting management measures in place for.
I do not need to remind the committee that Scotland’s seas support a huge diversity of marine life and habitats. There are around 6,500 species of plants and animals and, of course, plenty more that have still to be discovered in Scotland’s incredible waters. Our seas account for 61 per cent of the United Kingdom’s waters, and they remain at the forefront of many of our key sectors and of our duty to protect our wider environment, with all the benefits that those deliver for Scottish society.
The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, which the Scottish Parliament passed on 4 February 2010, was a ground-breaking piece of legislation that recognised that our seas needed better management and that we needed to create a range of powers and duties to deliver that. Those included the power to designate marine protected areas to complement existing obligations under the habitats and wild birds directives. The act places a duty on ministers to improve the health of the seas, where appropriate, through our decision making and requires them to act in a way that is best calculated to mitigate climate change.
MPAs have been selected and designated for a broad range of habitats and species that are important elements of our overall marine ecosystem. Ensuring that those habitats and species are properly protected and allowed to flourish is a key aspect of improving the health of our seas overall. Many of those habitats, such as seagrass beds, capture and store significant amounts of carbon, which makes them a key element, but not the only element, in mitigating climate change.
“Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan”, which was published in 2011, highlighted two key things that are worth mentioning: first, that in some cases, high-impact fishing can be a significant and widespread pressure on Scotland’s marine environment; and, secondly, that many of our species and habitats are in a state of decline. Parliament therefore agreed that the status quo was not an option, and the committee supported that.
Our marine protected areas need to be managed in a way that improves the health of our seas and ensures that they continue to contribute to our many economic sectors at the same time. Of course, we also need to improve the status of those habitats and species. That requires the removal—in some cases—or the reduction of fishing pressures, particularly from the higher-impact methods that I mentioned.
I have been lobbied very hard by many sectors of Scottish society about the MPAs that have been capturing headlines and those that we are discussing today in response to the motions to annul from Jamie McGrigor. Some sectors feel that we are not going nearly far enough with the MPAs that we are designating—or, more important, with the management measures that we are putting in place for those MPAs, including the ones that we are discussing today—and that includes some fishing sectors. Meanwhile other sectors, including in some cases the mobile fishing sector, argue that we are going too far with our management measures.
Given the considerations that we must take into account, what we have here is a proportionate and pragmatic response to fulfilling our responsibilities. On that note, therefore, I put it to committee members that they should support the orders that are the subject of this discussion.
Thank you. Do members of the committee have any questions for the cabinet secretary before I bring in Jamie McGrigor?
This might not be a question directly for the cabinet secretary; it might be for his officials. I would like to delve into the information on the economic impact that we have before us. There seems to be a wide gulf between the representations that we have had from some of the fishing interests and what is in the papers that the cabinet secretary and his officials have put to us, which give quite detailed assessments of the impact on employment. I would like to hear their comments on the detail of the research that the Scottish Government has carried out into the employment impact.
I will answer initially, but my colleagues may want to come in with more of the detail.
With such designations and legislation, we always have to carry out economic appraisals and assessments of what we are putting forward to Parliament. Those have been available publicly for some time now, both for individual MPAs and for the overall network.
It is worth highlighting that in Scotland there are 160 of the over-15m vessels that will be affected by the MPA network. According to the information that I have been given, 690 men are employed across those vessels, but 71 of the 160 vessels will not be affected by more than £1,000, according to our calculations. Those statistics are based on the assumption that the fleets affected will not take any mitigating action. As the committee may be aware, we have argued all along that the fleets will be able to adapt, given the very modest impact that the MPAs will have on their fishing activities. The detail of the economic appraisals for the south Arran MPA shows that 9.9 jobs may be affected, again on the basis that no mitigating measures are undertaken by the fleet concerned.
I have been the fishing minister for nearly nine years. Over those nine years I have seen many different policies adopted by the European Union and, indeed, domestically that have led to the fishing fleets having to adapt, as they always do, to changes to designations and fishing patterns—adaptations as a result of changes in stocks or of legislation from Europe or elsewhere. I hope that there will be minimal, if any, economic impact from these measures. Across the whole MPA network, 214 under-15m vessels with 510 crew members will be affected. Of those 214 vessels, 119 will be affected by less than £1,000.
The big picture for the south Arran MPA that has been mentioned is that the impact will be shared by 137 vessels, which currently gross £19.2 million between them. Therefore, the effect on their income will be 2.4 per cent. Again, our expectation is that the vessels will be able to mitigate that impact by fishing elsewhere. For instance, at the fishing negotiations that the Government successfully conducted a few weeks ago, there was an increase in the prawn quota for the west of Scotland. Various factors will affect what actually happens in the real world at sea for the fishing fleet, and those must be fed in to assess the economic impact.
I have been as conscious of the economic impact as I have been of the conservation impact. We have had three rounds of consultation on the MPAs, and we have listened carefully to the representations made by fishing communities. The third round of consultation is still to be discussed, perhaps by this committee, but today we are discussing the other consultation rounds. All along, I have gone to great lengths to listen to the representations that the affected fishermen have made.
Those on the other side of the argument about the economic impact—in the fishing industry, such as static gear men and divers, and in other sectors that have expressed an interest in the future of MPAs—argue that protecting our marine environment through MPAs will have a massive economic benefit. I know that the committee has had representations from environmental organisations and others who make the case about MPAs’ economic benefits for Scotland.
There are two ways of looking at the issue: there is the direct impact on those in local fishing communities who feel that they will be affected, and I have given you our statistics on that; and there are the economic benefits that Scotland will enjoy as a result of MPAs being put in place.
It is helpful to get that on the record. You talked about mitigating the impact and about making adaptations. Will there be support from the Scottish Government to assist industries—some of which are locally based and others of which are more widely spread—to make the changes that you referred to?
That is another good question. A few weeks ago, we announced a three-point plan to address some of the concerns that stakeholders have expressed. Some of the mitigating measures that I mentioned address in particular the concerns that were expressed by mobile fishing sectors.
We have said that, shortly, we will allocate funds through the European maritime and fisheries fund, which is now available. It comprises more than €100 million for Scotland for diversification and adaptation. Vessels will be able to apply to the fund if adaptations for new fishing methods generate any expense.
We have also said that we will carry out environmental monitoring. As part of that, I have allocated £500,000 over three years to look at MPAs’ effectiveness over time. Vessels that can put forward a case for being most affected by MPAs can apply to that £500,000 fund to undertake environmental monitoring for us, to help to offset any potential economic impact on them.
The third point of the three-point plan is economic monitoring. We will work with public agencies, our own people and the affected industries to put in place economic monitoring over the coming months and years, to ensure that we understand fully the MPAs’ economic impact.
Such issues are always controversial. When I was fishing spokesperson for the Opposition in 2005, I recall that the fishing industry said that some measures would be devastating for it and of course, as an Opposition MSP in the Parliament, I expressed the industry’s concerns. Now the industry tells me that those measures and the economic benefits that they deliver to the sector are some of the best things that have happened to it. Sometimes in the heat of the debate it is difficult to understand exactly what the economic benefit will be.
Thank you for putting on the record the economic information, which is vitally important. I will press you a little, however, on adaptation.
People will have to adapt to a greater or lesser degree—your evidence indicates that some will have to adapt to a greater degree. That will put pressure on existing fishing grounds and fishing operations that are undertaken by other people. What work has been done on the economic effect of that conflict and on the effect of gear conflict and other conflict between the people who already fish in those other areas? There is considerable fear that those effects will result in more difficulty. As an MSP who is directly affected, I already see evidence of that conflict.
09:15
I can give you some answers on the overall picture. I am not sure whether you are speaking specifically about the south Arran MPA or about it and the others that we are discussing today. I will try to give you the general picture, and if there are questions on specific MPAs I can come back to them.
The question is a good one and a number of factors have to be taken into account in analysing what the impact will be. First, there is the fact that we are still allowing fishing in the Firth of Clyde, where the measures will affect only 4 per cent of trawl grounds and 19 per cent of scallop grounds, the quid pro quo being that 96 per cent of trawl grounds and 81 per cent of scallop grounds are still available to the fleets. Overall, an estimated 98 per cent of inshore trawl and dredge grounds will still be available.
Other factors have to be taken into account. I am not saying that this is the whole answer, but I gave one example of the prawn quotas going up, which clearly shows that prawn stocks are healthy and so are an option that is available to the fleet. In most cases, it still has the vast majority of the grounds to fish in and it can certainly fish for those stocks because they are in more abundance overall. There will be specific circumstances in certain parts of the sea that have different stock levels, but overall the vessels are mobile and are able to adapt their fishing patterns—that happens as a matter of course in the fishing industry. I know that smaller vessels can travel only shorter distances and that there are more safety issues to take into account, but most of the measures in the approach that we are taking are very modest and all vessels should be able to adapt.
Could I follow up with a slightly different issue? You have made some small changes to the other MPAs, but in the final consultation you have made no changes to the south Arran MPA. What is the reason for that?
It is important to say—especially in light of some of the commentary that I have seen in the media and elsewhere—that 64 per cent of the south Arran MPA is available for trawling, and that of the burrowed mud, which is most important to the trawl sector, 60 per cent is available to the prawn trawlers. That is not closing south Arran to fishing, and of course that is just one part of the mobile sector. I have read comments saying that we are closing south Arran to fishing, but that is not the case. We are trying our best to take a pragmatic approach that balances conservation needs with the economic needs of the local fishing fleet. However, it is worth noting in relation to south Arran’s role in wider fisheries conservation that the wider Clyde ecosystem has been impacted by fishing down the decades and that, as we speak, it is one of the most frequently trawled areas in the whole of Europe.
I have a map here, which I suspect members cannot see in detail from where they are sitting but which they may have seen in earlier papers. It shows the intensity of fishing across Europe. The deeper the red areas, the more intensely trawled those areas are. If you look at south Arran, you will see that it is one of the darkest red areas in the whole of Europe, so we have to take into account that the Clyde is under some pressure. The prawn stocks are sustainable, so I am not saying that fishing activity is not justified in those areas, but I am saying that, with the MPA and the measures that we have put in place, we felt that we had already got the balance right.
Can copies of that map, in colour, be distributed to members of the committee? At the moment, it is like getting that information via radio rather than television, and it would be interesting to see it.
Yes, we can do that.
I found the cabinet secretary’s comments helpful because I wanted to ask questions about the south Arran designation and because I also had some more general questions, a lot of which have now been answered in response to other members, so I will not go into them again, as they are on the record.
Concerns have been expressed to me about the fact that there was not a further consultation on south Arran, although there have been some small changes to the three other designations that are before us today as a result of further consultation. Will you explain why the decision was made not to consult further, in order to reassure those who have concerns?
Clearly, there are sensitive issues with regard to all the MPAs, and all MPAs have environmentally sensitive areas, which is why they were designated as MPAs in the first place. With regard to south Arran, we took the view that we must recover the maerl beds, which are important for all kinds of environmental reasons. As you know, some of the MPAs are about safeguarding and some are about recovery of certain environmental features. There are other features within the south Arran MPA as well: the Lamlash bay no-take zone is already there and we want to protect that. Indeed, given some of the sensitive features in the south Arran MPA, there are some minor restrictions on the creel fishing sector, so it is not just about the mobile fishing sector that is largely being discussed as part of the debate.
I repeat the statistic that I gave to Michael Russell on the burrowed mud, which is of most importance to the prawn fleet—60 per cent of that will be available, so we thought that we had the balance right.
Further to that, I seek clarification of which of the options was adopted for the south Arran MPA. It is unclear to me which of the options was the preferred option of Marine Scotland. Was the preferred option that there should be no trawling, as has been highlighted to me? You seem to be saying that that is not the case.
I will ask colleagues to remind me of Marine Scotland’s position 18 months ago but—
There is some confusion in people’s minds. It would be helpful to have this on the record.
I will respond on where we are now and then Michael McLeod can comment on where we were originally. In the initial consultation, we put forward some proposals. We had more than 5,000 responses to those proposals over a year ago and we had to reflect on what people said to us. Yes, people wanted the proposals to be proportionate. They also wanted them to be simpler, although I know that they are not as simple as perhaps they could be in some areas. The simpler the proposals are, the easier they are to manage and to understand, so that people can obey the law and everyone understands what is restricted, what is not restricted and where those restrictions are.
We announced our final proposals after the consultation. There were changes between the initial proposal for south Arran and our final proposal for south Arran because we had a consultation, just like we had consultations for all the MPAs. I took on board the fishing industry’s representations, as I did in relation to a number of other MPAs. However, I do not have a uniform approach for every single MPA, as we have to look at individual features within each MPA, what is best for the environment and the individual issues that the fishing industry raises in relation to those parts of our seas.
Michael can comment on the initial proposals.
The original consultation ran from November 2014 to February 2015 and included three approaches for south Arran. The preferred approach was the third one, which was at that point the most stringent approach. There was pretty much no support from any stakeholder for any of the three approaches that we consulted on, which led us to go back to the drawing board, trying to make the approach as simple and as straightforward as possible.
Another key factor in the consultation was that a lot of stakeholders said that we were not going to recover anything with the measures that we had proposed. That made us think about exactly what we were trying to achieve with that MPA, which was about recovering the maerl beds in particular. That led us to the revised proposal, which is the one that is before you today. That was consulted on over the summer, between June and August 2015, so everyone got a chance to provide their views on that proposal.
In response to that consultation, our stakeholders remained very much split—as are the two groups that are gathered outside the Parliament this morning, with some who still do not think that we are doing enough and others who think that we are going slightly too far. We are probably somewhere in between.
I have two further questions, one of which follows on from that. Will the cabinet secretary or his officials give us some details of how the local consultations were organised and advertised? That is important because I have had some correspondence, not from my own constituents but because I am a member of the committee, saying that local people were not listened to. I have been sent a lot of evidence from the other side, too, so it would be helpful to have on record how the consultations were arranged and organised.
In the process of developing the management measures, the first step that we took, back in the autumn of 2014, was to have a series of management forums. Representatives of community groups, environmental non-governmental organisations, the fishing industry and recreational interests all came along to participate and to consider the various approaches that were probably going to be in the first public consultation.
During the consultation, we had a series of events at strategic locations in relation to the MPAs, which were advertised in the local press, on radio where possible and in Fishing News. The events ran from the middle of the afternoon until 9 o’clock at night, to try to ensure that anyone with an interest had the opportunity to come along and make their views known. Notes from those meetings were published in our consultation report, which set out a broad spectrum of opinion and views from people around the coast.
Cabinet secretary, you have highlighted the socioeconomic concerns, which have been expressed to me and other members. In view of the fact that we are talking about fragile coastal communities all the way down the west coast, can you say more about what local socioeconomic monitoring there will be if the orders go ahead today?
I understand that if the orders do go ahead, there must be a review in six years’ time. In view of the concerns that have been expressed, would you consider the possibility of an earlier review?
The review is scheduled for 2018, which will be six years after the proposals were made in the context of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.
We have the ability to review the position before then, should we wish to do so. I am happy to say to the committee and all sectors, first, that we will work with them on economic monitoring—we will work with local councils and others who have an interest in the local economic impact; and, secondly, that we reserve the option of returning to Parliament at any time before the official review in 2018 to amend the orders should something arise on either side. If there is a greater economic impact than we expected, we can intervene and review any of the orders, and if there is more environmental damage than we expected, we can strengthen an MPA.
I am happy to put that on record as an option; we reserve the right to come back to the Parliament if anything arises that we think needs to be addressed.
I support the principle of MPAs. We have to conserve our environment and I am 100 per cent behind that, however, I have witnessed the decline in fishing over the past 50 years. When I was a boy, the harbour of my home town of Lossiemouth was jam-packed with fishing boats; now it is jam-packed with yachts. There is a totally different economy that is a lot less lucrative, given that in the past many butchers, bakers and all the rest of it made their livings from supplying the fishing boats. I take your point, cabinet secretary, that there appear to be minimum effects, in that fishing boats and fishermen do adapt, but the expression “death by a thousand cuts” springs to mind. Lots of little things—I mentioned the 50 years of decline in fishing in Lossie—can over time have a serious impact and effect.
09:30I was interested in your answer to Claudia Beamish about the reviews. I urge you to come back with reviews later this year. Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Government and others need to keep a close eye on how things develop. There are conflicting views. The science is not particularly good about many areas on the west coast. There is the example of Broad Bay in Lewis, which has been closed to fishing for 30 years—there are only starfish there now, and there are various reasons why that could have happened. Perhaps the bay had been denuded to such an extent before it was closed that it could not recover. Because it is a bay, it is enclosed, so it is quite different from the situation at south Arran on the open Clyde.
What I am saying is that at the moment we do not know the impacts or effects of many things. I welcome the environmental monitoring, but I urge you to consider the matter very closely over the next six to nine months—over this year—and to come back to us fairly early with your initial conclusions both about those matters and about economic monitoring. Can you assure us that you will do that?
I am happy to tell the committee, in response to Mr Thompson’s point, that we can perhaps bring back a progress report before the end of 2016 in order to inform the committee about how the implementation of the management measures for the MPAs is progressing. Although I cannot promise a full review, we will make some resource available in order to produce a progress report, and we will pass that to the committee before the end of 2016 if that would be helpful, but with the proviso that Parliament passes the MPAs and the measures are put in place. Otherwise, there will be nothing to report on.
On the very serious point about the decline of fishing communities in Scotland, I will perhaps break the rules and speak as the MSP for Moray for two seconds, as I am familiar with Lossiemouth, which Dave Thompson mentioned, as well as with many other fishing communities in Scotland, as cabinet secretary. If you speak to any wise, elderly, long-in-the-tooth gentleman at Lossiemouth harbour, he will tell you that the decline of fishing in Lossie and many other communities has been down to a range of factors. First, there has been poor fisheries management over many decades. Secondly, a vessel today can catch several score times the catch of vessels pre-war. I am not suggesting that Dave Thompson was around Lossiemouth pre-war—I am simply mentioning that technology plays a big role in vessels’ capacity to catch; there are fewer vessels but they catch even more fish.
The decline of fishing in some communities has been largely down to not getting the management right in the past—it is not just because of other factors. Thankfully, fish stocks are now recovering in Scottish waters, in large part thanks to conservation measures that have been adopted by our fishing fleets. I commend them for that, having worked closely with them to put those measures in place over many years.
I must make this fundamental point: there are spillover opportunities and benefits for fish stocks from MPAs. The scientists will tell you that protecting maerl beds and other marine features will help spawning scallop stocks, spawning cod stocks and so on. As well as providing those benefits for fishing, MPAs are there to protect marine features. They are not fish-stock regulations—they involve protecting the species and habitats on our sea bed, which we have learned a lot more about in recent decades through advances in science and knowledge.
The science is very important in respect of the spillover effects and the other factors that you mention. That is why we really must put in a lot of effort on the west coast. I think that a lot more has been done on the east coast than the west.
There is also the crucial issue of critical mass in small communities such as Mallaig, on which I will go into more detail when the small isles MPA management proposals are brought forward. If one or two boats out of 15 drop out for whatever reason, that means that the slip, the ice factory and the transport are not viable, and the whole fishing infrastructure is destroyed. That issue must be examined carefully, especially with regard to the many fragile communities further up the west coast that are quite remote from the central belt. Problems have already arisen in Lochaber, as Marine Harvest has announced that jobs will go across the north, and the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter is undertaking a review that could affect 150 jobs directly, and many others indirectly. That might not seem like an awful lot of jobs to people sitting in Edinburgh or Glasgow, but it is a massive number, and we do not want to add to the problem by jeopardising ports such as Mallaig.
We are extremely conscious of the social and economic impact of MPAs and of any other measures that we put in place at Government level, but we also look at the economic benefits of those things.
You mentioned the history of decline in some communities. We have to do some things differently to stem that decline and regenerate those areas. The future of the Clyde, including its fisheries and marine management and the other economic sectors, is hotly debated just now. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but we know that there is reduced diversity in the fish stocks in the Clyde. We have a good prawn fishery, but once upon a time we had good white-fish fisheries too. The white-fish stocks have not been in great health—to say the least—for the past few years.
We are still looking at the answers and trying to regenerate. We are speaking to our scientists and fishermen, and to other economic sectors, to understand how we can build a healthy ecosystem with healthy fish stocks and healthy economic marine sectors in the Clyde for the future.
The decline to which Dave Thompson referred is something that we must try to prevent, stop and reverse, which means that we must do some things differently.
I do not want to curtail questions, but I ask everyone to keep them as short and to the point as possible. Jim Hume will go next, followed by Jamie McGrigor.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will try to keep my question as short as possible. I am interested to know why the MPAs that we have now are quite different from those that were originally proposed and consulted on fully. Even the SNH recommendations—especially the recommendation on south Arran—were quite different from what we have now.
We have talked a little about the science, and you have said that, during the consultation process, you thought about changing the proposals. You mentioned that south Arran is a heavily fished area, but there are important maerl beds there, despite the heavy fishing. Where did the evidence—scientific or otherwise—come from at such a late stage to suggest changing the original proposals for the MPAs?
We are speaking about management measures that are informed by the science. We have to decide how to manage MPAs effectively through balancing interests—as we have discussed previously. We must strike a balance between the conservation benefits and the aim of the 2010 act, and the social and economic impacts. The science is just the same now as it was at the beginning of the consultation process. The scientific advice from SNH and others said that addressing high-impact activity is the way to help the marine environment to recover. The Government must decide, while working with all the stakeholders and our consultation responses, what the best management measures are to make that happen.
There is also a wealth of scientific evidence on the benefits of protecting marine features that clearly informs our management decisions. We are aware of—the committee knows about this, too, from evidence that it has taken previously—the carbon capture and storage that is known as “blue carbon” and its relationship to the role that marine features play in tackling climate change. We know about the benefits for shellfish and other species of having in place marine protection measures. There is the importance of sediments and the importance of water quality to the wider environment. I could go on and on about the environmental benefits of marine features. That scientific information is out there and it informs all the management decisions that we take.
Regarding south Arran, I can only reiterate what I said to Michael Russell earlier. Large areas are available for fishing activity to continue in south Arran. We did not see any need to revisit that issue, which is why there was no further consultation on it. If we keep consulting over and over again on MPAs, they will become watered down and will become just paper MPAs as opposed to making a meaningful difference to protection of our marine environment. We will run out of parliamentary time as well, so we will not have an MPA network. I think that three rounds of consultation on the other MPAs is more than adequate, and the rounds of consultation that we have had for south Arran and the MPAs that we are discussing today were also more than adequate.
My first question is a very basic one. Regarding the south Arran MPA, it appears that no copy of the final draft was served on the interested parties, although I think that that is required in law under section 87 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, which was passed by this Parliament. Why was no copy of the final draft served on the interested parties?
I am unaware of that. As far as I am concerned, we have done everything that we should have done. The real complaint that we have had from some sectors is that there has not been enough time for the third round of consultation responses for some of the MPAs. I will ask about the final draft on the south Arran MPA.
Section 87 requires us to publish a draft of the order and to make it available to all interested parties, which is what we did on 11 June, when we published our response to the original consultation.
According to a great many fishermen who are standing outside the door, they never received anything. Is that not actually against the law? I am sorry—I am not accusing anyone of breaking the law—but it appears that it could be against the law.
The response to the consultation and the draft orders were made available to those who responded to the consultation. In the case of Clyde fishermen, the Clyde Fishermen’s Association had made the response, so they were made available to the association. There were also emails sent out to the various sea fisheries groups, so the fisheries monitoring and conservation groups for inshore and offshore waters also received notification that a draft order had been published.
I take that point, but I would have thought that individual fishermen and fishing boats were interested parties, since they are the people who are going to have to stop fishing in some of the areas. Do you agree that there is something a bit wrong if they did not get the draft?
We cannot answer that question. I know that the fishermen whom you spoke to are outside Parliament this morning. There has been plenty of commentary from the—
I did not speak to them this morning. This has been—
I am sorry. I thought that you said that you had spoken to the fishermen outside.
We have had plenty of commentary from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. I do not think that there is any indication that it is not aware of what is happening. I know that you are honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, so I am sure that you are aware that they know all about—
I am going to make a declaration about that a bit later on, cabinet secretary.
My second question—
It would have been better to make that declaration before you started talking about the subject and asking questions.
If you want me to do that, I will, but I was originally told that I was questioning only as an MSP. I was to declare my interests when I came to move my motions. May I leave it like that?
We recognise your interest and you can declare—
I will say it then. I declare an interest in that I am honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association—not vice-president, as some people who have been talking on the website have said. I think that I have been promoted.
09:45Moving on to my second question, I note that with regard to the south Arran MPA there were two maps—one relating to scallop fishing and the other to prawn fishing—that were discussed at the workshops with the Scottish Government last year. The fishermen and the CFA thought that they had got agreement on the maps, and they appeared to meet all the requirements for protecting the marine features that the cabinet secretary has talked about. Why, then, was a final map produced—I have it with me—that went way beyond what was suggested in the initial consultations?
As I have said to the committee, we had an initial consultation—Michael McLeod has laid out the options that were available for south Arran. Because there was not much support from stakeholders for any of the options, we listened to the 5,000 responses to the consultation that we received and which I have already mentioned. As the proposals changed, new maps were produced. Over the past year or year and a half of the consultations, we have clearly been listening to people and adapting the proposals accordingly. Indeed, we have had three rounds of consultation for some of the MPAs to ensure that we are doing our best to take on the genuine concerns that sectors have expressed. However, changes have been made.
All I can say is that the final map seems to shut out scallop fishing almost altogether from the south end of Arran and leaves only a bit of burrowed mud for the prawn trawlers. On the initial maps, which were the ones that were actually consulted on, there was room left for people to continue their livelihoods. That is what the whole argument about the south Arran MPA is about.
I am sorry, convener, but I have a number of other questions.
First, does the cabinet secretary wish to respond to the question that Jamie McGrigor has just asked?
With regard to livelihoods being at risk, I reiterate that the analysis of the measures that we are putting in place in south Arran show that the effect on the income of the vessels concerned is 2.4 per cent. The 137 vessels that fish in the area gross £19.2 million. I accept that for some vessels the percentage of their income will be much higher than 2.4 per cent; indeed, the figure could be 10 per cent or, in some cases, up to 20 per cent. That is why we have made available to the prawn fleets in the trawling sector substantial fishing grounds in the south Arran MPA.
The latest SNH document on the south Arran MPA makes it clear that the featured burrowed mud, of which a lot has been made, does not require restoration or recovery, but the Government document states:
“The aim is to recover the maerl beds and conserve”—
“conserve” is a very important word—the protected features of the MPA. It therefore goes without saying that stopping fishing to protect those features is not per se justified, according to SNH’s advice. Can the minister explain why he disagrees with SNH’s evidence?
Michael McLeod wishes to come back on that.
It is probably more appropriate if I seek to explain this, because I can give a bit more detail.
SNH advised that we should remove or avoid mobile gear pressure on maerl beds, the maerl gravel habitat and sea-grass beds, and the advice about burrowed mud was to reduce or limit the amount of pressure being exerted. We have made absolutely sure that we have removed the mobile gear pressure from the most sensitive habitats—in other words, the “remove” or “avoid” habitats—and for burrowed mud we have gone for a combination of spatial elements with 38 per cent of burrowed mud closed to trawling and a limitation of 120 gross tonnes on the size of vessels. As the cabinet secretary has said, the Firth of Clyde around Arran is one of the most heavily fished areas in the whole of Europe, so—
That is because it is very good for scallops.
No—we are talking about trawling. We will not conserve that habitat if the whole area continues to be fished with that degree of pressure. The habitat would probably continue to decline, which would mean that we were not conserving. We therefore have to take pragmatic measures to ensure that we are furthering that conservation objective.
But would you agree that there is a difference between conservation and restoration? It is quite obvious to me that there is a difference between them and that the measures that are needed for conservation and those that are needed for restoration are two different things.
That depends on the sensitivity of the habitat or species that we are trying to protect.
Is it to do with species, not the habitat?
It concerns a habitat, with species and biotopes that live upon it or in it.
Right. Can I continue, convener?
Yes, bearing in mind that we will have debates on the motions.
I am aware of that. I am sorry—
No, no, go on.
The measures now suggested for the south Arran MPA will shift effort to other areas of the Clyde for both scallop dredging and prawn trawling. In point of fact, I am told that that could wipe out all scallop dredging within two or three years because if the effort is shifted to other areas, those areas may well be denuded and the vessels will just disappear. As I said, the measures will severely restrict prawn trawling as well. I do not wish to be too subjective, cabinet secretary, but have you quantified the effect that the measures will have on jobs and income in towns such as Tarbert and Campbeltown and those on the Ayrshire coast?
I gave some figures earlier. However, on the overall economic impact, we are talking about scallop vessels in the main, which are clearly very mobile and which fish for tens of millions of pounds-worth of scallops. Therefore, I cannot see the very modest impact of the south Arran MPA on the income of scallop dredgers wiping out the industry as you suggested.
I know that this issue is controversial and that debates about it are difficult because we are trying to balance conservation with economic impact, but we have to have a sense of realism about the statistics and the phrases that we use. There is no danger of the scallop sector being wiped out by the south Arran MPA. However, I am very conscious of the economic impact, which is why I have said that we will monitor it carefully. Economic monitoring is one of the points in the three-point plan that I mentioned.
We will use part of the £500,000 available for environmental monitoring to deploy the vessels affected to undertake some environmental monitoring, if they so wish, in order to offset some of the economic impact, if indeed that materialises. We are very sensitive to that issue, but we believe that the overall economic impact will be very modest.
You are quite rightly very proud of Scottish Food and Drink. In the past few years practically every fish restaurant that has sprung up around the west coast of Scotland in particular, and in other places, has scallops on the menu. As we know, scallops do not go into creels; they have to be dredged or dived for. I am told that the diving sector produces only 1 per cent of the scallops that are harvested. If we did not have the dredging sector, would scallops simply be imported from other countries and would Scottish restaurants not be able to use Scottish scallops any more?
I love Scottish scallops. If I am lucky enough to see them on a menu, I take advantage of that because they are fantastic. I work with the sector all the time to promote Scottish seafood and scallops.
An estimated 98 per cent of our inshore trawl and dredge grounds in Scotland will still be available. On economic value, in an industry that is worth tens of millions of pounds, only 2.4 per cent of the income of the vessels that fish from south Arran will be affected.
The measures that we are discussing are proportionate. I highlight again that there is scientific evidence that MPAs can help scallop stocks and ensure that there are scallops in those areas in the future. Hopefully, these protective measures will have benefits for stock regeneration in some parts of Scotland.
Do you have many more questions, Mr McGrigor?
I have a couple—well, one, anyway.
One more—very good. We will have the debate too, of course.
Thank you very much. As part of the MPA process, 20 areas were formally designated in mid-2015. Sixteen of the accompanying management measures that the Government ministers decided on were as expected. However, four measures in the west of Scotland were more severe than what would be required to meet the conservation objectives and they were not consulted on in the series of workshops that were held in the final 18-month period.
Although there was some consultation on three of the measures, no further discussion or consultation was granted on the south Arran MPA—which, after all, was suggested as an area for designation by a third party and was not originally proposed by Marine Scotland—before today’s consideration by this committee. How did that come about?
Given that zonal management measures for the south Arran MPA were recommended by SNH—as I have said previously—and were accepted by all during the process, why did they become so much more draconian than they were when they were presented in the workshops when the consultation took place? That is the core of the issue.
It is clear that you have a certain view of the role of MPAs—you use words such as “severe” and “draconian”—but many sectors in Scotland say that the changes are beneficial and that we have not gone far enough in making more changes to the MPAs to bring more benefits.
I believe that we have struck the right balance. There are three MPAs on which strong representations were made—in addition to south Arran, where people made strong representations; I am not saying that they did not. We took a decision to listen to a number of the communities and make some changes. We judged each case on its merits across the proposed MPAs on which the communities made representations to us. We will potentially have a further opportunity in the next few weeks to consider the three MPAs to which further changes are being made.
Thank you, cabinet secretary.
We move to item 2, which is consideration of motion S4M-15336, which asks the committee to annul the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 2015 (SSI 2015/435). There is an opportunity to debate the motion just now. Given that we have had a good evidence session, I hope that the debate will not need to last for the 90 minutes that is procedurally possible. Officials cannot take part in the formal debate, so only the cabinet secretary will debate the motion. I invite Jamie McGrigor to speak to and move the motion.
Before I move the motion, I declare an interest, as I have already done, as the honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. The main job for me in the association is not to take part in any policy decisions that are made—indeed, I have never actually been to one of its proper meetings—but to turn up at the annual lunch, which I have been doing for 15 years.
I have to say that at the annual lunch I have heard politicians from pretty much every party in this Parliament extolling the virtues of artisanal fishing for nephrops and scallops, which underpins many jobs, many livelihoods and many families in Tarbert, Campbeltown and the Ayrshire coast. I have heard politicians from all parties singing the praises of the Clyde fishermen and extolling their virtues. It is important that, in their hour of need, those fishermen get the same support from politicians that they get at the annual lunch.
10:00MPAs must have specific objectives that are supported by the best available evidence. It is self-evident that they should meet their conservation objectives and, where possible, contribute to the maintenance of existing sustainable activity—in this context, fishing.
There is an issue to do with the Scottish Government’s introduction of a tranche of MPAs for the protection of specific features. A logical process, which was agreed by all stakeholders, including the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, was run by Marine Scotland over four years. The features to be protected were agreed, locations were selected and a series of workshops were held over the final 18-month period, which verified the process and examined in detail the potential management measures that would meet the policy’s aims and objectives.
Scottish Natural Heritage, the statutory nature adviser, participated throughout and made recommendations on optimum measures to meet the conservation objectives. I talked about that earlier in the meeting.
The process was meant to be an exemplar of how to plan a network of MPAs, which would demonstrate Scottish leadership to other areas. I think that the network is actually a UK network, not a Scottish one. In mid-2015, 20 areas were formally designated. However, when ministers announced the accompanying management measures on which they had decided, the approach was as expected in 16 areas, but for four areas in the west of Scotland there were departures into measures that were more severe than would be required to meet the conservation objectives.
The problem with that is the potential damage to the sustainable fishing activities that the MPAs are meant to maintain. The central point is that the extra measures are not required to meet the conservation objectives. I am talking about conservation, not restoration—they are two different things. The Scottish Government underplayed the damage to established sustainable fishing that would result; it used broad figures that indicated little damage to fishing overall in percentage terms. Although that is correct, the localised impact on the delicate communities about which Dave Thompson talked is enormous. That point was made to the cabinet secretary, and an additional economic assessment was rapidly provided at the correct level of detail to illuminate the practical effects of what was proposed.
I emphasise that the measures in 16 of the 20 proposed areas were accepted by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation—I am talking about not the CFA but the SFF. The Scottish Government reacted to protests about three of the four disputed MPAs by embarking on further consultation—the cabinet secretary’s decisions are awaited. For one area, the south Arran MPA, there has been no further discussion or consultation, and the unmodified execution of the statutory instrument in that regard—the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015—is being considered by this committee today. In effect, this is the consultation on that proposal.
For all the MPAs, management measures are zonal. That is a logical approach; where features exist they are delineated and suitable protection measures are applied. Existing sustainable activity within the MPA is permitted on a zonal basis, where that is possible without compromising the conservation objectives.
If members will bear with me for a moment, I will talk about some of the areas. I am not talking about south Arran; I am talking about Loch Sween, Loch Goil and Loch Fyne. It will be noted that all forms of mobile fishing are prohibited in Loch Sween. A much restricted fishery is permitted at the mouth of Loch Sween, which is the hatched area on the map that I am looking at. In the two approaches to management that Marine Scotland proposed, the maerl beds at the head of the loch and at the side of Linne Mhuirich were to be fully protected. That position was supported by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. There are no maerl beds in the centre of the loch, although it contains a small area of burrowed mud that harbours the mud volcano worm, which is a terrifying sounding thing, although I am told that it is not. That feature might be of interest, but it does not meet the criteria for protection in OSPAR—the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—region III, which is the European Atlantic coast, given that other substantial areas of burrowed mud have been offered protection.
More importantly, the area was in fact opened up to being a multi-species environment from being a completely dead acidic environment by the operation of small trawlers; it was actually improved by the trawling. The acidity was introduced by the downwash of sitka spruce needles from the surrounding forestry plantations. The Nature Conservancy Council, SNH’s predecessor, did not argue against that case when it attempted to have Loch Sween closed to mobile fishing.
The Clyde Fishermen’s Association is prepared to compromise in order to safeguard the very small but important artisanal summer fishery in the loch. Neither Marine Scotland nor SNH suggests that the burrowed mud feature requires mobile fishing to be prohibited. The compromise that is offered is that a summer fishery, with dates to be agreed by Marine Scotland, would be allowed, with the same class of vessel that is permitted to fish at the mouth of the loch, which I believe is anything under 75 tonnes. In management terms, given that there is no restriction on the size of vessel that can fish in the loch, that compromise represents a more than satisfactory reduction in effort.
I am trying to go through the points on the different lochs. On Loch Fyne, for many years, to meet conservation requests from third parties, the CFA has given an undertaking that mobile vessels in its membership will not operate in certain areas. On the map that I am looking at, those areas are to the north of the line marked A to B and to the north-west of the line marked C to A. The CFA is prepared for that voluntary arrangement to be made statutory, as is proposed. However, it does not accept that a complete prohibition on mobile fishing gear to the south of the line C to A to B has been justified on any scientific basis. It proposes that the restricted mobile fishing that is allowed in the black cross-hatched area be extended north to the line C to A to B.
To the south of that, lying immediately to the north-west of the flame shell protected area, is a large rectangular area in which all forms of mobile fishing are prohibited. The CFA is not making a fuss about the fact that flame shells do not actually merit OSPAR protection; its point is that the flame shell bed is already protected by a separate part of the order and is given a buffer zone that is already more than adequate for protection. The further protection that will be given by the prohibition of fishing in the rectangular area is therefore disproportionate. In any event, it does not contain any feature justifying OSPAR or Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 protection. Mobile fishing on the proposed restricted basis should therefore still be allowed in that rectangular area.
That brings me to the end of what I have to say on the first motion.
I move,
That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 2015 (SSI 2015/435) be annulled.
Thank you. I invite members to join the debate, if they wish to do so.
I chose not to ask questions earlier but I appreciate the opportunity to make a few brief comments at this stage.
I very much agree with many of the concerns that Dave Thompson raised in the question and answer session that preceded this debate. I think that the science base that has been put before us is questionable and witnesses have cast considerable doubt on the financial value of the annual catch of some of the affected vessels that has been referred to during previous discussions.
I do not understand the quantum shift that has taken place from the original SNH proposals, which, as I understand it, fulfilled all the requirements of EU directives and which the scalloping sector—rightly or wrongly—was convinced had been agreed to after the first round of consultation. Many of the problems that have been raised with us since have stemmed from the fact that that apparent agreement was not as it seemed to be.
I will comment briefly on the Luce Bay order, given that it is in my constituency. I find it really interesting because undoubtedly a further compromise has been reached with the Luce Bay order that has very much taken heed of some of the issues, particularly around safety, that were raised by my scalloping constituents, although it is also fair to say that many of the non-scalloping or dredging stakeholders around Luce Bay are not at all happy with the compromise and believe that the order may be challengeable through the courts. Of course, that is a decision for them to take.
However, if such a compromise can be reached regarding Luce Bay, where some of the concerns were just as great as they are now in regard to other MPAs, I cannot understand why it appears to be so difficult to reach a similar level of compromise for other MPAs, albeit tailored to the particular demands of each MPA. It seems strange that that is not the case.
The cabinet secretary said something interesting earlier when referring to previous measures that we passed when he was in opposition. He said that it is not always easy to understand the economic benefits of measures that we pass in this Parliament. That is absolutely true because it is difficult to measure benefits that will happen in the future. It is much easier to understand the economic disadvantages of measures that we put in place and I have no doubt at all that the orders will bring about severe economic disadvantage to the scalloping sector in particular.
On balance, I am not fully convinced that the identified disadvantage, which is measurable, is justified by the orders and I will support Jamie McGrigor’s motion.
The right question to ask at this stage is: how have we got ourselves into this mess? Outside the Parliament, we have groups of people on different sides of the argument—I do not know who did what, but eggs are being thrown. Inside, we are having a debate and the cabinet secretary is talking about a very small degree of financial damage while Jamie McGrigor is talking about Armageddon taking place. I should say at the outset that I will support the MPAs.
We are in this mess because we are not learning from what is happening elsewhere. We only have to take a glance at the conflict throughout the world between traditional methods of land use or sea use and conservation to realise that this is a common problem and that there are ways to resolve it. However, none of those ways has been applied to MPAs.
I will make three points about what the problem is. The first issue is the consultation. It was not a consultation about the minutiae of dog licences but it was run in that way. I am not blaming individuals in Marine Scotland; I am not blaming Michael McLeod, who was deeply involved in it along with others. However, the consultation was badly managed and there was a mismatch. One group of people believed that they had heard one thing; another group of people believed that they had heard something else. That issue was never resolved. I met fishermen in Islay on Monday, and that is exactly what they told me. They understood that they had an agreement, but that never happened. Therefore, my first point is that great care needs to be taken in handling a consultation on such traditional activities—which, for many communities, are lifeline activities—so that everyone understands what is being talked about.
10:15Secondly, the situation must not be confused. When I met the group that is responsible for the proposed regulating order almost a year ago, I said that there would be confusion with the on-going process for the MPAs and that the two issues should be separated, but that did not happen. Now, we have a conflation of two things, which is creating enormous difficulties. When we read coverage of this subject in the press, we read about the regulating order rather than the MPAs. That was the wrong thing to happen.
Thirdly, such confusion and passion on both sides—which I understand—leads to unacceptable behaviour. I disagree with Jamie McGrigor and will not support him in what he is seeking to do, but his actions are not shameful. Yet that is what last weekend’s press release from the Community of Arran Seabed Trust said. He is quite entitled to come to the committee to argue his case. Equally, I have known the cabinet secretary for a long time—man and boy, I could say—and I know that he is not the devil incarnate, nor is he in the pay of American multimillionaire conservationists, but such material is all over the internet and elsewhere.
We must step back and recognise that there are methods of dealing with conflicts between the on-going traditional use of natural resources and the demands of conservation. I ask the cabinet secretary to learn from this experience and to move forward by saying that the next time the Government does anything similar it will create a new means of doing things, particularly given that the regulating order is on the horizon; at present, I will not support it because of the way in which the process has been handled. I am thinking perhaps of an individual or a body who could be trusted by both sides and who could show the persistence and the patience that are necessary to proceed with negotiation. If negotiation can resolve the most intractable conflicts in the world, it should be possible to have a structure and a means of resolving the conflicts that we are talking about. The fact that that has not been the case has led us to a very unhappy place.
As they approach elections, politicians always look for advantage. The cabinet secretary has talked about what he did 10 years ago. As a committee and as a Parliament, we need to find a way of dealing with these matters so that we get the best for both sides. That is possible, although it is not going to happen today.
Hear, hear.
I apologise—I seem to have a cold that is making me lose my voice.
I asked the cabinet secretary a couple of very detailed questions. In my time on the committee over the past year, I have noticed the heated nature of such debates. In assessing the opportunities for and the impacts on a range of fishing interests, it is really important that we get the science and the economic research right as much as we can. When we took evidence in the autumn, it was clear that there were sharply differing views on the impact of marine protected areas and of different boundaries for those MPAs being drawn on the map.
I asked the cabinet secretary what investment was available for our fishing interests. Regardless of the detail on the map, and regardless of what is proposed by the Scottish Government and what is approved by the Parliament, support should be available for fishing interests to enable them to adapt to and to mitigate the potential negative economic impacts on the very fragile rural communities that have made representations to us. It was very important to get that on the record.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s response to my questions and to those from Claudia Beamish about the need for monitoring, because we must track through the effects of what is proposed. We need investment to help some of the very small companies and small fishing interests that are involved to survive and to retain the jobs that they provide, which are important. From Dave Thompson, I picked up the fact that, for small communities, even one or two jobs can be quite important. We need financial support to enable such companies to survive.
We also need support for new industries. Opportunities might come from the network of MPAs that we will debate over the next few months. I strongly support MPAs, but they need to be clear, transparent and effective. We need to get the most out of the regeneration of the natural environment and to ensure that we gain the benefit of the restocking and regeneration that will come from the range of marine protected areas. Like Mike Russell, I think back to the debates that we have had in the Parliament. When I convened the committee from 2003 to 2007 we had many debates about the south Arran MPAs, to which Richard Lochhead referred. There is a historical track that we can take, following the matter over the past 12 years in this Parliament.
Today is important because it comes after questions that we raised last autumn—it is a continuum. It is important that we both support our traditional fishing industries and take the new opportunities that will in come in tourism and wildlife jobs if we have the right network of MPAs and, crucially, if they receive support from the Scottish Government; we need both those things. We have tested the Government’s proposals—we have done our job as a committee in asking tough questions. We need to make sure that the MPAs are not just passed, but that they are implemented properly and get the right financial support from the Scottish Government for the challenges and opportunities that they will bring.
I will support the orders today, convener, but this is not just about supporting the orders—it is about supporting the investment, the monitoring and the continuing discussion. As Mike Russell said, the issues are difficult because people have totally different views of what we are doing today. It is important that we get people’s concerns on the record, but the investment that the Scottish Government has promised and the points that Claudia Beamish made about effective monitoring and promotion after today are also important.
Thank you. I ask subsequent speakers to raise new points without going over the ground that we have already covered.
I will support the orders today—I make that clear from the start. However, as Mike Russell and other speakers have said, we have to get this right. It is a really important issue and mistakes have been made—there is no doubt about that.
People thought that they had agreement and it turned out that they did not—we have to learn from that. We will have an opportunity to do that, either next week or the week after, when we come to look at the orders that are still out to consultation, including the order for the small isles. I believe that a relatively minor tweak to the revised small isles order would satisfy everybody. I do not think that that would be a huge problem, even though it would mean that the order needed to go out to consultation again, which would knock it back into the next session of Parliament. A few months’ delay to get it right would be a price worth paying.
I will support the bulk of the orders today, but we need to learn lessons and to use them as we move on in the process to consider the other orders in the next week or two.
Briefly, I think that we can see across all parties a discomfort about the whole process. I go back to the points that I raised in my question about the science and the evidence—they were not fully answered. The cabinet secretary mentioned that the science was there to begin with but, if so, why did SNH recommend one thing and then another thing happened? I ask the cabinet secretary to address specifically where the science came from that caused the recommendations to be changed to what is in front of us today.
I will not repeat any of the points made by other people in the debate, but I associate myself with the comments of my colleague Sarah Boyack on the MPAs. As we all know, in the interests of having healthy seas, MPAs are necessary statutory measures for the conservation, protection and, in some cases, recovery of our marine environments. That is also in the interests of fishing communities and the range of sectors within them, for both today and—I stress—the future.
I disassociate myself from the remarks of my colleague Jim Hume, because I have no discomfort about the MPA process—I say that for the record. I have expressed concerns, but have had some reassurance from the cabinet secretary today about the consultation process and how it was organised. I put on the record that I have also had reassurance about the future socioeconomic and environmental monitoring, which are extremely important, as is considering the possibility of having an earlier review.
I will say something very briefly about the consultation process, as I understand it. Having been a community activist in the past, I know that saying what you want or hope for in a consultation process does not mean that you can assume that that is what is going to happen. As I understand it, there was a consultation process, and the results of that from Marine Scotland, SNH and all the stakeholders went to the Scottish Government for consideration. I think that people have got somewhat confused about that process—I want to put that on the record, too.
I believe that the MPA proposal is a proportionate response, which is why I am supporting it today. I want to make the point that although I have had discussions with a number of fishermen in the past year—far more than I have had in the rest of my lifetime—I have never met one who is against marine protected areas. As members have said, MPAs are very important for carbon sequestration, biodiversity and enhancing the marine environment for all our futures. I will support the orders.
Bearing in mind all the points that have been made, I remind members that the evidence that the committee took in the autumn required us to look at the Wester Ross MPA, which had to be brought in as an emergency because of infractions there, which we discussed at that time. I hope that we will not find ourselves in a position where the cabinet secretary has to do the same for another area. I ask members to bear that in mind when making up their minds about how to vote on this matter. Jamie McGrigor, do you need to sum up? Sorry, I beg your pardon—it is the cabinet secretary to sum up first.
Just to clarify—
Wait a minute. It is the cabinet secretary first.
I have listened closely to members’ very elegant contributions to the debate. I say at the outset that I have the utmost respect for the Clyde Fishermen’s Association and I very much value the role that its members play in landing top-quality seafood and sustaining employment in many of our fishing communities in the west of Scotland.
Jamie McGrigor very eloquently outlined the Clyde Fishermen’s Association’s views on many of the detailed aspects of the 12 MPAs related to the motion that we are discussing, and I listened carefully to those views. However, as minister, I clearly have to listen to all voices in the debate. The Clyde Fishermen’s Association and the mobile sector represent one among many voices in the debate. I also have to listen to the voices of the creelers and of the hand-divers, which are other parts of the fishing industry, as well as listen to many other sectors that have an interest in the debate and, of course, people living in communities in the west of Scotland.
In many cases, people from those communities have expressed their view, but in many other cases they have not expressed their view because of the passionate nature of the debate. Many people who have spoken to me have said, when I asked them to speak out publicly to make their views known, that they are too scared to do so. As Michael Russell quite rightly and eloquently said in his contribution, it is a sad state of affairs when people feel too scared to speak out about some of these issues.
The 12 MPAs that we are discussing as part of the motion protect our maerl beds, native oysters, sublittoral mud and mixed sediment communities—which are important environmentally—burrowed mud, horse mussel reefs, stony reefs, flame shell beds, and many other very important marine species and habitats in Scotland’s waters. I believe that wider society, which has an interest in this debate, wants to protect those species and habitats as well. That is why Parliament passed the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.
10:30Of course feelings are very passionate on both sides of the debate, and lessons must be learned. On one hand, I will say that there were no back-room deals or agreements as part of this process. I do not understand how that misunderstanding arose from one particular sector. I have said quite clearly, all along, that I have to listen to all voices and not just to that of the mobile sector of the fishing industry. There were no agreements behind the scenes as part of this process. If that impression was given, then it should not have been given. Clearly, lessons have to be learned.
I do not think that the heat will ever be taken out of these debates. Every country in the world with an interest in its marine environment, looking at similar designations, is going through these very controversial and heated debates. We have to protect the marine features and species that I am speaking about, because they do not have a voice. The environment does not have a voice. Parliament put through this legislation to give some kind of voice to the environment. It put through the legislation to protect the environmental features that are part of our ecosystem and deliver wider benefits to society, including fishing industries and other sectors. I rehearsed some of those benefits earlier in the meeting.
My final point is about the help that will be in place, moving forwards. In response to Sarah Boyack’s and other members’ concerns, I want to reiterate the three-point plan.
The Government has said that it will bring forward mitigation through the European funds—that will be available if required.
I also said that environmental monitoring will be in place and as part of that £500,000 is available over three years. We will offer to deploy to the monitoring those vessels that feel they are most affected, to help offset any income that they feel they are losing as a result of the MPAs. However, only time will tell whether that will be necessary.
Finally, there will be economic monitoring. We will make sure that that is robust in the months and years ahead. However, I gave an undertaking today to Dave Thompson and—I think—Claudia Beamish, to bring forward a progress report before the end of 2016. I will make sure that that happens.
The final point that I will make is that we will continue to listen to all voices. I cannot take the heat off this situation. An issue that may impact on people’s livelihood and their income will always be controversial—people have a passionate view on those matters. There will also be people who care about the marine environment and its future. I am not saying that those groups are mutually exclusive. I think that fishermen also support the concept of MPAs and they are responsible in that way.
I will finish on this point. I believe that future generations will look back proudly at the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 passed by this Parliament and at the network of marine protected areas that were put in place as a result of that to protect our marine environment. I believe that future generations will also enjoy the benefits of the marine environment having been protected. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject the motion to annul the order.
Jamie McGrigor now has a chance to wind up and indicate whether he wants to press or withdraw his motion.
Bear in mind, convener, that I have not yet moved the second motion.
We are very aware of the second motion that is still to come.
To sum up, which I will do as quickly as I can, I will quote an extract from the Scottish Government document “A strategy for marine nature conservation in Scotland”. It will take me a moment.
That is new material, Mr McGrigor.
Yes, it is new material.
Well, you would not normally use new material in summing up, but please continue.
It is just to emphasise what I said. That Scottish Government document has as an objective
“To maximise sustainable use of our seas and minimise disruption to sustainable marine activities through proportionate marine management measures”,
and it says that
“A fundamental principle of our approach to marine nature conservation is sustainable use”.
That really sums it up.
We have heard a lot of very intelligent comment, and I am grateful to everyone for contributing. The fishermen are not against MPAs at all. They believe that they can avoid things such as maerl beds. The only point that I really wish to make is that no copy of the draft order was served on interested parties, as should have happened under a law that was passed in this Parliament.
The question is, that motion S4M-15336, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Against
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
Item 3 is to consider motion S4M-15337, which asks the committee to annul the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015 (SSI 2015/437).
I invite Jamie McGrigor to speak to and move the motion, but we should not have a repeat of evidence concerning south Arran that has already been given in relation to the previous order. Unless it is new evidence, it is not necessarily informing us any more. I will leave you to judge that, given the business that the committee has to cover today.
I understand, convener, and I am very grateful for the time that you have already given me.
No consultation was conducted for the proposal that is now before the Parliament. The proposal to eliminate or restrict fishing activity goes well beyond the maximum protection for features of conservation interest that was proposed by the Scottish Government in its consultation. The proposal has now moved from the realm of nature conservation to—in my view and in that of the CFA—a subjective attack on those who derive their livelihood from the Firth of Clyde.
I move,
That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015 (SSI 2015/437) be annulled.
I will not support the annulment of the order. I have taken an enormous amount of evidence. Much of that has been very heated, as other members have highlighted today and as the cabinet secretary has said. I have been reassured by the cabinet secretary on both the process for and the information about the Marine Scotland option, which allows those in some sectors who had concerns the opportunity to fish within the area, albeit in a restricted sense. I have been reassured on that.
I am also reassured by the fact that there will be more localised socioeconomic and environmental analysis in the near future. It is important that compensation issues have been highlighted. More broadly, there will possibly be a review before six years if that is seen to be necessary.
I will not be supporting Mr McGrigor today.
I have the same reservations that I raised under the previous item. It is right to put that on record, and I will support Mr McGrigor.
In the previous debate, I asked the cabinet secretary what evidence and science had come forward, bearing in mind his comment that the science was the same at the beginning of the original consultation as it was at the end, but I did not hear from him about the specific evidence or science that he had heard that would change the SNH recommendations.
I will be voting in the same way—in support of the MPAs. I repeat the request that I have made to the cabinet secretary to think very carefully about how such issues are handled in future and to find some mediation process that can avoid this type of conflict, as happens in many other places in the world.
My comments in the previous debate on the MPAs hold true in this case as well.
To reiterate, I will ensure that the monitoring of the south Arran MPA that I referred to earlier is carried out robustly. I recognise that there are very strong feelings on the different sides of the debate, with some people feeling that we should ban all trawling in the MPA and parts of the mobile sector feeling that we have gone far too far in not making further concessions to them.
The SNH scientific advice for south Arran is to remove or avoid all pressures from mobile gear on maerl beds, maerl gravel and seagrass beds. The measures are being implemented to deliver that. SNH also advises that we reduce or limit pressure on habitats such as burrowed mud, and that is what we have done and why we are allowing trawling to continue in the outer parts of the MPA. I reiterate that 64 per cent of the area will be available for trawling and, most important, 60 per cent of the burrowed mud, which is important for the prawn fleet, will be available. As I have said, I think that that is a very pragmatic approach, which, at the same time, should help the south Arran MPA to be a beacon of sustainability and forward thinking in marine management. Many communities have taken an active role in protecting the coast on their doorstep. Likewise, I believe that the fishermen should have a sustainable living and the statistics that I have referred to many times, which show a very modest impact on their income, will hopefully ensure that that is the case.
I urge the committee to reject the motion to annul.
I understand that the cabinet secretary has a difficult job. I am encouraged by what he has said about looking at some of the issues again. I am also encouraged by members who, even though they might vote against me, have said that they are not entirely happy with the process that is taking place. I thank Michael Russell for his defence and what he said about me not being “shameful”—I never considered that I was that in the first place, but there we are.
Long-winded, perhaps, but shameful, no.
I intend to press my motion, convener.
The question is, that motion S4M-15337, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Against
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
I thank the cabinet secretary, his officials and Jamie McGrigor for attending.
Inshore Fishing (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Luce Bay) Order 2015 (SSI 2015/436)
Waste (Meaning of Recovery) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2015 (SSI 2015/438)
Community Right to Buy (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/4)
Item 4 is subordinate legislation. We took evidence on SSI 2015/436 under item 1. I refer members to the papers and ask for responses.
I would have made the comments that were made in the earlier debate under this item had they not been made already. I have nothing further to add. A reasonable compromise has been reached, although I accept that some of my constituents are not happy.
As there are no further comments on the instruments, does the committee agree that it does not want to make any recommendations on them?
Members indicated agreement.
There will be a brief suspension to allow for a change of witnesses.
10:44 Meeting suspended.Water Environment (Amendment of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Contaminated Land) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [Draft]
The fifth item is to take evidence on draft regulations. I welcome the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Aileen McLeod, and her officials from the Scottish Government: Joyce Carr, the team leader in the environmental quality division, and Neil Ritchie, the branch head of the environmental quality division. I invite the minister to make some opening remarks on the regulations.
I am pleased to be here this morning to support the committee’s consideration of the Water Environment (Amendment of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Contaminated Land) (Scotland) Regulations 2016. The instrument is primarily a technical one, whose aim is to clarify the boundary between our legal regime for the remediation of contaminated land and that for protecting and improving Scotland’s water environment.
By way of background, our local authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are responsible for dealing with land that is contaminated as a result of historical activity and could pose a significant risk of harm to human health or to the environment. For instance, if contaminated land is having a significant impact on the water environment, it is normally a matter for SEPA to take responsibility for remediation at such sites, and where that is not the case it is normally the local authorities that take responsibility for remediation. That approach works well in practice.
However, there is a further complexity to the legislative landscape. SEPA has responsibility for taking enforcement action to remediate pollution to the water environment arising from current activities using the provisions of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. That introduces a lack of clarity at the boundary between our regime for addressing land contaminated by historical activities and our regime for addressing pollution caused by current activities.
We have just published the second round of river basin management plans, and in looking ahead to delivery of the plans SEPA and the local authorities have been reviewing the legal and policy framework for delivering improvements where contaminated land is identified as a pressure on the water environment. They have indicated that the lack of clarity at the boundary between regimes could lead to confusion about who is responsible for taking the remedial action in certain circumstances. I believe that it is essential that our legal framework is clear so that action can properly and swiftly be taken by the most appropriate authority where contaminated land is identified. I therefore recommend that the committee support the instrument.
Are there any questions for the minister?
Can we be assured that the local authorities and SEPA are happy about where the order takes us? Are they fully comfortable with what their roles and responsibilities will be?
Yes. SEPA has been working with the local authorities with the aim of delivering the framework.
Good morning to you and your officials, minister. How will the recent weather conditions and the serious flooding that has happened be taken into account if the regulations are agreed to?
Claudia Beamish makes a good point. I ask Neil Ritchie to give some detail on it.
I do not think that the current severe weather conditions will impact on the regulations. The more pertinent point is how SEPA has offered to be pragmatic and support land managers and others to deal with impacts on the water environment through its regime, such as the controlled activities regulations—
Sorry, I did not hear that. The control what?
The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. They regulate the engineering-related activities around management of the water environment. SEPA is engaging actively with land managers on that.
I will add a point of information for the member: SEPA has recently published its manual on flood risk management. Claudia Beamish might find it helpful to have a look at that as well.
If members do not wish to make any other points, we will move to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion S4M-15274. I invite the minister to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Water Environment (Amendment of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Contaminated Land) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [draft] be approved.—[Aileen McLeod.]
Motion agreed to.
I thank Aileen McLeod and her officials. We will record the result of that consideration.
I will suspend the meeting briefly for the turnaround of officials for the next item, to which we will proceed as quickly as we can.
10:57 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance