Official Report 295KB pdf
Agenda item 4 is our third and final evidence-taking session in the committee's marine environment inquiry. I have a declaration of interest to make: I am a member of the Moray Firth Partnership strategy group.
We have heard conflicting evidence on marine spatial planning. On the one hand, we have heard about limited competition between uses outside the main firths and that the main impacts on the marine environment occur in the coastal zone, and on the other hand we have heard that a system is urgently needed to protect Scotland's marine environment. What are your views on that continuum of conflicting views?
The debate on the relationship between marine spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management has been raging for some time, although I am not sure that it has always cast light on the issues. We take the view that there is now a well-proven track record for the use of integrated coastal zone management—certainly that is the case for our coastal areas. There are now some very good examples of how that can be implemented. That said, the system is not perfect; there are ways in which it can be improved in the future.
Nora Radcliffe is right to suggest that there are often conflicting opinions on resource use on different parts of the coast, but part of the joy of the Scottish coastline is the sheer diversity of uses and activities that exist along it. For example, in Berwickshire, which is my patch, and most of the east coast there is practically zero aquaculture. That contrasts strongly with the west coast, where aquaculture is dominant in most sea lochs. However, the east coast has its own suite of problems with regard to the fishing sector, in that there is often conflict between static and mobile fishing gear. On the west coast, static gear predominates in many places.
I, too, reiterate what Gordon Mann said. On the point about varying complexity, everyone accepts that the new venture of marine spatial planning should be at the level of grain and detail, according to the needs of the area. For example, on the Clyde there are huge conflicts of interest among many stakeholders. I do not mean that they are all in conflict, but they compete for space and for knowledge of what others are doing. It is one of the most complex areas involving tourism, fishing, pipelines, potential wind farms and so on. Without the proposed plan, which will show where everyone wishes to have their space, chaos could ensue. However, in other areas of Scotland, marine spatial planning will be much less complex. As a tool, it complements the need for integrated coastal zone management. That is why I agree with Gordon Mann.
I echo the points that have been made. There is a lot of competition for space and resources—that can be seen in the aquaculture and fishing industries in Shetland, where the Zetland County Council Act 1974 applies. The fishermen are given opportunities to have their say about protecting their grounds, but decisions that are made following negotiations between the fishermen and people in the aquaculture industry are not always adhered to. The spatial planning process could assist with that.
We are talking about the level of marine spatial planning. In her submission, Isabel Glasgow said that there is a need for an EU-level marine spatial plan as well as UK, national and local ones. What would go into a national or UK plan that would not necessarily go into a local plan?
I will turn that on its head: marine spatial planning is based on the ecosystem approach, which is based on all human activities and is therefore, by definition, an integrated approach from the start. Although the ecosystem approach does not acknowledge boundaries, we can take small and large ecosystem approaches. Some habitats are smaller, for example the maerl beds in the Clyde area or salt marshes.
May I offer an example?
Mark, I did not mean to give you leeway to ask lots of questions; you were to ask a supplementary to Nora Radcliffe's question. I will come back to you later. Does Peter Peacock have a supplementary to Nora Radcliffe's question?
I am not sure where Nora Radcliffe was going next, but I want to talk about the role of local authorities.
That is part of the same area.
From my reading of the evidence so far, I have noticed a conflict of views between those who suggest that the leadership of integrated coastal zone management should come from the local authority and those who say that that should not be the case and some other group should take the lead. Who should lead the local process of bringing together different agencies and partners to think about such issues, particularly around the coastline? Should it be local authorities? Do they have a particular role? I am looking at that in parallel with land-use planning—is there read-across from that or should some other form of leadership be applied locally?
It is clear from all the experience to date that local authorities must play a significant and important role in the process. The issue is about the relationship between the land and the sea. If what we do does not integrate with land-use planning policies, we will not succeed. However, there is a difficulty in suggesting that the lead authority should in every case be the local authority. In some areas—the estuaries, for example—seven or eight local authority areas can be involved, so one of the tasks is to bring them together. I chair the Solway Firth Partnership. In order to have a representative of all the agencies involved, we would need to have 23 people around the table simply to ensure that every interest was reflected.
Even in the circumstances that you described around the Solway firth, where there is a more complex mix, is it the role of local authorities, either individually or collectively, to be given or to take the lead in helping to co-ordinate all the different actions?
Our view is that each partnership must be based on local circumstances. It would therefore be wrong to say, "It's the local authority's job to do this." It is important that each partnership develops its relationships suitably and that each party plays its own role. We would not want to say that a local grouping should be made up of A, B and C, with particular groups contributing particular things. It is much better for issues to be resolved locally, especially where local authorities have a particular skill to bring. Some local authorities have developed extensive skills in marine issues—Shetland Council is an obvious example—but other local authorities do not have those skills. The issue of controlling aquaculture may present some difficulties for local authorities because of the lack of skills.
Let me just reiterate that point: it is a question of area. There are so many local authorities involved in the Clyde that it would be difficult to say that one or two should lead. To name but a few, those involved in the Firth of Clyde forum include Glasgow City Council, the Glasgow and Clyde valley structure plan joint committee, the Ayrshire joint structure plan and transportation committee, West Dunbartonshire Council, and Argyll and Bute Council. Our area covers such a large number of authorities that the logic is that any group should not be chaired by one of those authorities. It could be, but I do not think that the natural answer would be that it should be.
I reiterate the point that one size does not fit all. In Shetland, the marine planning process works well, although I am not too sure how other sectors would feel about that function lying with the local authority. That would be an issue to discuss.
I back up what Isabel Glasgow, Gordon Mann and Lorraine Gray have said. With regard to who organises what in local coastal partnerships, a lot has to do with coincidence of scale. Under the ecosystem-based holistic approach, marine spatial planning should be based on a sensible geographic scale and ecosystem. We might think of the Firth of Clyde as an ecosystem in terms of common impacts and uses; it straddles several authorities. On the east coast, somewhere such as Berwickshire would be on a sensible scale, as there is one ecosystem of maritime cliffs, sedge, underwater caves and reefs, so it is perhaps sensible that that should be organised by the particular local authority.
I will bring in Eleanor Scott on those points.
I want to explore the idea of local coastal partnerships. The Scottish coastal forum's submission mentioned the idea of 11 coastal units delivering for the whole of Scotland. What powers would you envisage the local coastal partnerships, or whoever managed the units, having? Would there be any conflict? They may or may not be led by local authorities, and if they were not, there may be two different planning bodies with authority in marine issues. Do you envisage any democratic input to the units so that they could reflect local views? You seemed to propose giving them a lot of authority, but it is not clear how you envisage their operating.
Democratic input is crucial, because any planning in coastal and marine matters must have the community at its core. Coastal communities benefit most from a high-quality marine environment economically and from tourism and the like.
One weakness of the coastal partnerships is that they are voluntary and non-statutory. In a sense, however, that is also a strength because they will work only if they can get all agencies and members of the public to buy into what is proposed. Inevitably, that means that there must be a long process of consultation. Every coastal forum has an annual general meeting and a membership, and there is constant dialogue between the various interest groups and within each coastal forum.
Eleanor Scott may respond briefly—Rob Gibson has been waiting patiently to ask a question.
What decisions do you expect the partnerships to be able to make? How do you expect them to enforce them?
At the moment, the partnerships operate on a voluntary basis, so they make recommendations to organisations that have power. As we move towards marine spatial planning, we must consider the statutory basis on which it is placed and whether it is appropriate for coastal partnerships to have statutory powers. The issue must be debated and explored further.
With the current voluntary approach there is a vital role for brokering—drawing together stakeholders that have signed up to management plans and pointing out departures from those plans. That is a long process, but it means perhaps that there is more buy-in than if we took a statutory approach. The pilot projects on the Clyde—I am not sure about the others—will look into whether a marine spatial plan can be achieved as a voluntary management plan or whether in the marine environment such plans need to be put on a statutory basis. We will not know the outcome of that investigation until we are further ahead with the plan and have put it into effect.
That leads to the wider question of what we are trying to achieve by having a marine strategy. I am interested in seeing such a strategy applied at the most local level. You talked about the need for conflict resolution, settling of disputes and direction from national strategies. During the first evidence-taking session in the inquiry, I asked about the arrangement in Northumberland and south-east Scotland, where SNH and English Nature are trying to rectify some damage that has been done. How can we extend biodiversity? The advisory group on marine and coastal strategy tells us that by 2010 we will broadly have achieved the Gothenburg biodiversity principles. If the form of organisation that you represent is to be successful, it must extend biodiversity and healthy, biologically diverse marine environments. How will you go about doing that?
A sustainable fishery is needed in south-east Scotland. I think that we have such a fishery there, involving the creeling of nephrops and lobsters, and the trawling of nephrops within sustainable limits that are set by EU quotas in order to remove overfishing. If we are to extend biodiversity, we must also acknowledge terrestrial influences.
Okay. Fair enough. In your case, that is what you feel. Once again, you mentioned the voluntary principle. Stable fisheries rely on the crews of local vessels giving information on people going through the area, but there is nothing underpinning that to ensure that it happens. As I said earlier, 20 years ago, we had cod, haddock and prawns in the Minch; now, we only have prawns. Is the situation in each SSMEI such that we could extend the biodiversity in order to have that range of fish once again? If so, what mechanisms will be required?
I will try to answer that, but the issues involved are complex. Obviously, biodiversity is not entirely about fishing industry concerns. The vast biodiversity that is out there in the marine environment may be impacted on by fishing, but other issues over and above that are involved. Marine spatial planning is concerned with the development of spatial plans that are based on studies of the cumulative impact of sectoral activities. Until now, it has been difficult to do that. Marine spatial plans will show the cumulative impact of different sectors on biodiversity, which is one step forward in terms of even seeing whether biodiversity is being affected by those cumulative impacts. That is one good thing about developing a marine spatial plan.
I am well aware of that, but it so happens that, in terms of biodiversity, we have to find practical expressions of some of the factors that we are talking about in all of the various sectors concerned. Obviously, in Shetland, the regulating order has made it possible to measure the stocks of scallops and so on. That statutory element has been helpful in establishing baselines.
That is a good point. I add that the marine spatial plan is a snapshot of the current picture of biodiversity. Marine spatial planning is a process, and data on stocks will continually have to be updated.
Having updated that data—
Rob, before you ask your question, Nora Radcliffe wants to ask a point of clarification.
I notice that Shetland is doing a lot of digital mapping. Are you learning lessons about the practicalities of doing that that you could share with other people? Mapping is not as simple as it sounds, as there are questions to do with what you put in, what you leave out and how you overlay things. Could you talk about the practicalities and also say something about where you get expert information? Have you received expert guidance from Ordnance Survey or similar organisations?
The process is complicated. It has taken me a year to finalise 50 base maps. I began by getting a picture of the data that were available on resources, restrictions and activities. There are issues with copyright and with the confidence level of the data, which means that I must keep an audit trail of where the data come from and which data abide by international standards. There are also complications due to the format of the data. For example, they might be in the form of an Excel spreadsheet or they might be gathered from the anecdotal evidence of fishermen or recreational users.
There are two streams that we should be examining with regard to research. Not only the collecting but the handling of information is important, because unless it is useful, what is the point of having it?
There is a need to gather information, but there is also a need for decisions to be made. Does the panel think that a marine management organisation should replace the role of some regulators and provide another layer? Is it necessary for us to draw everything together into a marine management organisation so that decisions can be made that suit each part of the country?
It is a brave man who steps into this area. In the discussions that the Scottish coastal forum has had, there has been a reluctance to have yet another organisation and more bureaucracy. However, it is accepted that there are many processes, management issues and development issues in relation to which some kind of statutory basis is required. That does not necessarily mean that you need to set up a marine management organisation to overlay other organisations. The marine area is complex and a long list of organisations are involved in it. A move towards simplification might be more appropriate than adding another layer.
That follows on nicely from where I was going earlier. The issue is how the local marine spatial plans—which are being developed on an ecosystem basis, as you said, and involve local partnerships—feed into a national or UK plan for which strategic decisions will have to be taken. That could happen through a marine management organisation or some other structure.
We have argued strongly for the bottom-up approach and for strong community buy-in. However, we fully accept that if we have 11 regional policy statements in the marine spatial plan, they cannot be stapled together and called a national plan. Everyone must operate in the clear context of EU and worldwide obligations that have been entered into and the national objectives—what the Government sets out for offshore renewables or aquaculture, for example. Local plans must be worked out in that context.
How will flexibility be ensured in the future? If we had established marine spatial planning five years ago, marine renewables would have come along afterwards. What scope will exist to fit new initiatives into a marine spatial plan?
I agree entirely with the comment that was made earlier: we are talking about processes. We cannot have a plan then put it on a shelf.
It must be dynamic.
The plan must be dynamic, constantly kept under review and changed if that is the right thing to do.
I ask for more views on how we ensure that local decisions are reflected in national or UK marine spatial plans.
There is much to-ing and fro-ing about whether a marine management organisation will be created in Scotland. We are tasked with producing a marine spatial plan for the Clyde. We will test whether we can do that in a voluntary way or whether we must make the plan statutory. However, that does not resolve how a local plan is matched with a national policy.
My question follows up points that Rob Gibson and Mark Ruskell made, and it might already have been answered. Could an MMO replace existing regulators? Are we talking about simplification or just an additional layer of regulation?
The simple answer is that if we make the situation more complex and bureaucratic, we will have failed. We must think carefully about powers and where they should be exercised. We must consider whether powers should be given to an existing organisation and how far we could go by using voluntary principles. Perhaps there could be a halfway-house approach, in which a voluntary plan is prepared but there is a legal obligation on all agencies to observe it, just as there is an obligation on local authorities to observe development plans. Such an approach might evolve. It is important to acknowledge that our understanding of the processes and mechanisms is growing constantly, so we might take a different view as we gain experience and expertise.
The point is coming across that it is early days and the concept of process, as opposed to a rigid plan, should be uppermost. Perhaps the timing is unfortunate, but local coastal partnerships, the SSMEI and the Scottish coastal forum are doing research and are piloting how marine spatial planning might work. The outcome might be a semi-voluntary approach or a legal obligation to adhere to voluntary codes of conduct, as Gordon Mann suggested, which would be neither a huge new layer of bureaucracy nor a completely bottom-up voluntary process, but would probably fall somewhere in the middle. Perhaps existing organisations or their departments will be tweaked to become an MMO, without creating a brand new MMO. A brand new MMO would be a mistake. Many coastal communities feel disenfranchised enough without a whole new layer of bureaucracy being aimed at them.
As the process of marine spatial planning progresses and plans become operational—let us say that they will be voluntary, rather than statutory—the plans will act rather like terrestrial local plans, in that people and sectors will know what is expected of them, because the plans will have been developed with a lot of stakeholder involvement. If there is a national organisation, it will be easier to regulate on the basis of a simpler system than on the basis of a system in which all stakeholders hold on to their power, because spatial arrangements will already have been agreed locally—albeit that there will have been conflicts of interest, which I hope will have been ironed out locally. This is pie in the sky at this stage, but I hope that spatial plans will help to create a simplified system at national level. I am being optimistic.
I do not have anything to add to that. Isabel Glasgow has set out the position well.
In its submission, the Scottish coastal forum says:
Are you asking specifically about integration at Government level?
You say that you want "integrated government", so I assume that you think that that does not currently exist.
We have seen marine issues reach the top of the agenda, which many of us worked for and hoped would happen for a long time. However, that has resulted in an extraordinary range of initiatives, consultations, working groups and regulations coming out at an almost bewildering rate. There is evidence that departments and organisations are working in isolation. For example, some of the consultation documents that have been produced have not taken account of the other initiatives that are going on. On the one hand, we are delighted that public agencies' interest in the marine and coastal area has increased dramatically, but we need to stop and think, to consult and to get together a little more.
My question is for Gordon Mann, but others might want to comment. Will you give a Scottish overview of the impact of global warming on sea levels? There are different scenarios. The absolute rise in sea levels in the short to medium term might be quite small, but tidal surges and intense storms are becoming more apparent. The implications for the coastal environment include the loss of habitats such as salt marshes; changes to beaches, dune systems and the lower reaches of rivers; the loss of machair; the loss of breeding sites; and potential impacts on tourism, recreation and leisure in coastal areas.
When I was in Benbecula for the launch of the outer Hebrides coastal partnership, I was given an opportunity to have a look around the area. It brought home to me in a dramatic way the effect of increased storminess allied with rising sea levels and the potential for substantial losses of machair and some of the only good agricultural land in the area. There is real concern in the outer Hebrides about what is happening and the speed at which it is happening. That issue will dominate the coastal partnership's thinking. In other areas it is less of an issue, and therefore takes up less of people's time.
Can I press you on that? I accept your broad scenario of what is happening. There will be different impacts in different areas—the impact on the Uists in the Western Isles will be different from the impacts on the Clyde, the Solway and the east coast or Berwickshire—but something will happen everywhere. Does that imply that responsibility ought to lie locally rather than nationally, or should it be a combination of both? Where ought the lead to come from and how would you see it operating?
I say off the cuff that it is terribly important that we have a lead based on national and international thinking. It is necessary first to ask how we will be affected overall. We must then take that information and work out its implications in each local area. Are losses of salt marshes acceptable? What would be the implications for biodiversity if we allowed that to happen? We must have a clear lead, robust analysis and good science and information on the national scene before we can start to think about the local implications. That in turn needs to feed back to influence Government policy.
I agree. In addition, looking at the matter the other way round, marine spatial plans will add to the ever-growing knowledge of local areas. For some years, I have attended the joint flooding committees of local authorities to get information on increasing storm surges, the ability to withstand flooding, erosion and so on, and that information has become increasingly integrated into general knowledge in local coastal forums. Obviously, not all the people in the forums are concerned about the issue, but for many years in our area—as I am sure has been the case in others—we have been discussing it.
Westminster is currently considering marine legislation and our own Parliament and Government in Scotland and the European Union are beginning to examine marine legislation and the marine environment. Many people think that the legislation is complex and that everything must be streamlined, because governance of our marine environment is complex. In the light of that, many people think that the Scottish Parliament should have more powers over our marine environment to help to streamline governance and consolidate everything. What are your views on that?
It is fair to say that Scotland has 60 to 70 per cent of the UK fishing fleet, so Scotland should try to grab as much power over fisheries management as it can. I imagine that any responsibility and power should be meted out proportionally in accordance with the coastline. I do not know the figure for the length of Scotland's coastline compared with England's but, depending on the scale on which you measure it, Scotland's coastline is probably greater, given the islands and its greater complexity. We have a vested interest in trying to lead the way. We are perhaps doing so within Europe in respect of marine management and marine planning, because the coastline is so important to Scotland, but of course that approach should properly be embedded within an overall UK strategy.
I chair the Solway Firth Partnership. The nightmare scenario for us is that we have one set of legislation for one half of the firth and a different set for the other half. There are already problems with cockle fishing, which is a well-publicised industry in the Solway firth. The regulations and control mechanisms for cockle fishing on the English side of the border are different from those on the Scottish side. Also, the introduction of controls on tope fishing in English waters is driving commercial tope fishers to compete with recreational sea angling, which is important to the tourism industry. There are knock-on effects across the board.
Does anybody else want to offer a view?
We will leave it to the politicians.
If you leave it to the politicians, of course, you might get the wrong answers.
Is that really your view?
When Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, was interviewed in The Scotsman a couple of weeks ago, he said that, given the on-going negotiations on the marine environment and the legislation that is coming in both in Scotland and at Westminster, there is a case for more powers to come to Scotland. Is that a good idea?
You do not have to answer that type of question.
In principle, yes.
Can we approach the argument about complexity from a different angle and get the benefit of your experience? You all do things in the marine environment. We are told that the framework that covers the marine environment is enormously complex and that, if someone wants to do something in the sea, they must have regard to about 85 different acts. How difficult is it to operate in that environment and deal with all the regulatory mechanisms? Is it as complex as it looks from the outside? Can you cope with it? What scope is there for streamlining or simplification? As somebody remarked in the first session of our inquiry, some issues are complex.
There are degrees of complexity in all areas. First, we need to get information about where people want to be, although the complexity is not always caused by everyone being in one spot at the same time, because some areas can have multiple uses.
I am conscious of the time and of the fact that the minister is waiting. As there are no further questions, I thank panel members for their written submissions and oral evidence, which have been extremely interesting and helpful. You will be sent a copy of our report in due course. You are welcome to stay to hear what the minister has to say.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
To conclude the oral evidence for our marine environment inquiry, I welcome Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and his officials. I thank him for his written submission, which has been circulated to members and is very helpful as always.
Thank you, convener. I have congratulated you personally on your appointment as convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and, as this is my first appearance before you in an official capacity, I take the opportunity to congratulate you formally.
Looking after Scotland's marine environment will require considerable engagement with the European Union. In your briefing to the committee, you mention the EU maritime green paper and the marine strategy directive. In that context, it was with great interest that I read the leaked ministerial advice from the head of the Executive's Brussels office, which has been in the news this week. The advice was sent to the First Minister on 27 September 2006 and it was copied to you. As I am sure you will know, it says that Scotland's views on European issues are often ignored in negotiations with Whitehall to reach a UK line and that we are sidelined and simply not taken seriously. Did you read that document when you received it? If so, what steps did you take to respond to it?
You would not expect me to comment on a document that is purported to have been read by you and which is purported to have been leaked to the press.
I do not want us to pursue this line of inquiry because—
It is crucial to the inquiry on the marine environment.
That is not the advice that I have.
What advice do you have that my line of questioning is not relevant to the inquiry on the marine environment?
You are pursuing a different agenda. Perhaps you could direct your question at the subject of the inquiry.
The briefing that the minister has provided says that engagement with the EU is required, so I would have thought that the issue that I have raised was central to the debate.
You are sailing quite close to the wind.
The advice from the Brussels office, which I assume the minister has seen, identifies his department as being the biggest victim of the fact that Whitehall does not take into account Scotland's interests. Throughout the document, fisheries are mentioned as the best example of that. Has the minister read the document?
I do not want to fall out with Richard Lochhead, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not concerned about speculation about a leaked document—
But it is—
I am not interested in what draft the document was or where it came from. I am here to answer questions from committee members honestly and openly and I am stating categorically that I, as a minister representing Scotland on the marine environment in Europe, have never been sidelined and am a full participant in discussions. If Richard Lochhead wants to challenge me on that, there are serious issues between us. However, that is the basis on which I proceed.
I am not challenging you, minister; I am talking about a civil servant's impartial advice—
What advice? It is not advice.
Richard, I—
Can I ask another question, convener? It is on the marine environment.
No, not at present. I want to move on—
So you do not want this discussion to take place.
I will bring you in later on the marine environment.
The commitment to a UK bill at Westminster brings significant opportunities for devolution of more powers to the Scottish Parliament, where that makes sense. What does the minister think are the main areas that we should consider for greater devolution?
One of the great difficulties that we have had throughout the process has been that, although I have understood perfectly why one might want a bill, the precise policy content has been less than clear for a while—I am bound to be honest and say that. That is not to say that we are unaware of the issues, but there has been a lack of clarity, which has made it difficult for us. As you are well aware, under the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 the relationship is very complex. We have exclusive powers over most matters out to 12 nautical miles and we have exclusive jurisdiction over sea fisheries out to 200 nautical miles. Certain amounts of offshore licensing are now more clearly controlled by the Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department, but there are reserved matters in relation to specific licences, which I do not need to rehearse.
Last week, we had quite a constructive debate on the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007, in which the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development followed up on David Mallon's commitment to the Public Petitions Committee to investigate any gaps in the regulations, particularly with regard to the marine environment. However, the deputy minister stressed the need to discuss those issues with Westminster. I wonder whether you can tell us what discussions have taken place with Westminster about our obligations under the habitats directive.
At the moment, we are having extensive discussions on the matter. Indeed, I am glad that my team have been able to make it to this meeting, because they have been either in videoconference rooms or in discussions with Whitehall. One cannot discuss the policy content set out in a white paper on a proposed marine bill and its ramifications and implications for Scotland without also looking across the piece at the various and several sets of regulations that currently apply, including the habitats directive. We are not simply putting issues such as marine spatial planning, marine conservation and, indeed, the habitats directive into separate boxes; instead, we are trying to take as holistic a view as possible of the issue in order to assess the scale of the operation and to work out how we can marshal these matters into whatever regulations might be required and where in Scotland they might best be delivered.
You mentioned AGMACS's emerging conclusions. When is the group due to present its final conclusions?
I believe that the group was originally due to report just after the summer or in the autumn. Members might recall that the Queen's speech did not mention a marine bill. However, with the announcement of the white paper's publication, we have tried to accelerate the process and a draft report will now come forward in February or March. AGMACS is a very valuable body of experts, and I am anxious that the Parliament and everyone else should be able to benefit from its advice. Obviously, we all have political views on the matter. However, I want to have an evidence base on which to proceed in responding to the white paper and seeking to set out our views more clearly.
I have two brief questions, the first of which relates to competence and the meaningful devolution of powers. Where do the inshore fisheries groups that are being established fit into the Executive's thinking? The issue, again, involves timescales. If I recall correctly, our competence extends in the first instance to 6 miles out and, then, to 12 miles out. Where have we reached with that, and how does it fit into what the Executive is doing in conjunction with the UK Government?
Under the Scotland Act 1998, our competence in relation to the 6-mile and 12-mile limits, inshore fisheries management or integrated coastal zone management is neither questioned nor threatened. However, we are slightly concerned that, as far as the better management of our seas is concerned, a 6-mile or 12-mile limit might be a bit fictitious. After all, such limits do not affect individuals who are licensed to fish in those areas.
I do not want to dig into the allegations from Richard Lochhead about the alleged report. However, given that you are seeking greater cohesion and have expressed your view that Scottish and UK ministers are working well together, perhaps you could comment on the views that were expressed earlier this week by Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. He said that an agreed position between Scottish ministers and the SFF was eroded from elsewhere—I assume that he was talking about UK ministers. Could you comment on that?
I would not want to get myself into the mind of someone else. That is always dangerous territory. I can surmise only that Bertie Armstrong was disappointed with the outcome. In the final stage of the negotiations on effort, it was clear that we had fulsome support from Germany, Denmark and Holland when the figures of effort control fell below the 15 per cent level. My view is that the outcome was related less to anything that might have been said by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and more to the fact that those member states believed that the reductions in effort were reasonable. The states that pressed the matter further and secured further improvements in the final package were Denmark and us. That is all that I can say; if you want to know more, you will have to talk to Bertie Armstrong.
As you have said, the area that we are discussing today is extremely complex. Many witnesses have told us that we are not going to get a one-size-fits-all solution to the problems. We have also heard that it may be necessary to simplify the regulations. Could you give us your broad view on how marine spatial planning could and should be democratised in such a way that it answers all those conflicting interests?
I am not sure what you mean by "democratised". I know what the word means, but I am not sure what you mean by using it in relation to marine spatial planning.
There are many different tiers at work, some of them relating to local government, some of them relating to affairs beyond the 12-mile limit. I want to know whether you feel that we are already in danger of being overregulated.
Yes, I do. One of the advisory group's sessions was almost entirely devoted to deliberations concerning that issue, the concerns that people have about the existing regulation and their feeling that having another regulation might simply confuse the matter. However, those who have a great deal of expertise in marine spatial planning—and there are not many of them in the UK—began to describe this three-dimensional process and to clarify what activities could take place without conditions and what activities could take place with conditions and how that would be managed.
So, to be absolutely clear, is it the Executive's intention that marine management organisations will absorb some of the interests? I assume that you do not want another layer of bureaucracy to be placed on top of them.
Absolutely. Two issues have emerged already. I think that it is clearly understood at the UK level that if the UK Government were to create a marine management organisation for English waters—although, depending on the definitions, such an organisation could extend into UK waters—Scotland could be left to administer its own waters. I do not think that that is beyond the wit of man—I am speaking personally as the Executive has not yet come to a view on the matter. However, we would have to look seriously at greater integration, for example, and perhaps at a different role for the Fisheries Protection Agency. There is also what happened with the marine labs—I refer to the MV Scotia—or the situation with regard to SEPA and the vessel that is under its management. Minds would have to be opened to creating something that reduced the level of interference and took the opportunity to simplify things.
There has been a lot of discussion of the competition and conflict that exist among the different users in the marine environment. At present, voluntary organisations are trying to gain an overall picture that could lead to the development of marine spatial plans, and organisations such as the inshore fisheries groups are trying to protect the interests of fishermen in the current climate. How can we integrate the approaches of those two types of organisation to manage the marine environment better?
I am hopeful. I say that because the composition of the advisory group includes all those organisations. I am bound to say that, when the group first met, I wondered whether I would be chairing a constructive group or putting on a United Nations blue beret and trying to negotiate a settlement. Since then, I have been enormously encouraged by the fact that, although from time to time all the organisations have trenchantly put forward their viewpoint, a high degree of understanding has developed. Although everyone has their own position, they all know that, in truth, they cannot operate without an element of co-operation with one another. That is the case for every single group around the table: the voluntary organisations; the inshore fisheries groups; those who are involved in integrated coastal zone management or in the operation of marine organisations; the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; and the scientists.
I hear what you are saying on the conflict between current uses and the wish list. The danger is that "wish list" is the very term that we might use to describe the reversing of previous losses in biodiversity by 2030, as referred to in paragraph 10 of the AGMACS report, unless some structure, or superstructure, can be put in place to make that a priority. What will that superstructure be?
In relation to the three-dimensional aspect of the ocean, if we try to identify what is required to achieve the objective that you mention, we may find that some activities are in conflict. It is better to know that, rather than simply saying, "This is the objective." We then have to work out how to accommodate the conflict within the overarching plan. We have to identify—precisely—the conflict between, for example, a fishing activity and an environmental objective. We have to ask whether it is a general conflict or whether there is evidence of a particular problem.
Ought the committee to report to the Government that comes in after the election on 3 May that marine spatial plans will require statutory underpinning? If so, how should such underpinning be achieved?
In my opening remarks, I said that there is clearly a case for some element of Scottish jurisdiction. Discussions continue. People who operate on the borders of any marine division will be concerned by any lack of uniformity or consistency in what we are trying to achieve. Such issues are more difficult in the maritime context than in the terrestrial planning context, but they have to be resolved. If there were an overarching way of achieving that with an English jurisdiction and a Scottish jurisdiction, it might be helpful. We are not there yet, but jurisdiction and legislation will be needed.
I want to pursue the democracy issue and would be interested to hear your views on the Scottish coastal forum's proposal of having 11 coastal units, each with a local coastal partnership. Those partnerships would be created to implement regional policy statements covering what was needed in local coastal and inshore environments. What is your view of that model? How could democratic input be ensured for it or any other model? We elect people to our local councils, which decide planning issues on land, so we have democratic input there. However, if a group included people who had accreted from various places and who had not all been democratically elected, how could we ensure that local voices were heard, rather than just the voices of interest groups that, in some cases, would hold a veto?
That is an horrific problem. I know that I do not have to tell Eleanor Scott this, but in the terrestrial planning context, there is someone who has a direct interest in, or a conditional missive for, the land, and who is therefore seeking planning permission for its use. There is a local authority with a range of statutory responsibilities that impact on all the uses to which the land might be put. There is also an arbiter, in the form of all the legislation on town and country planning, and the parties and their interests are clearly identified.
The convener has made the point several times that people can be stakeholders even though they do not think of themselves as such. It is important to ensure that all voices are heard in whatever structure is put in place.
We must have a clearer definition of interest. However, that is much easier to achieve in the terrestrial planning context.
There are continuing discussions on the production of a strategy and policy on the governance of our marine environments. Is there a danger that that approach could be flawed if, for example, we could not prevent a leaky oil tanker from coming into Scottish waters and damaging our marine environment? A lot of people think that, if we are to try to simplify the governance of our marine environment and consolidate the complex legislation on it, we must ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the necessary powers. I was interested to see some quotes from you in the press recently on that theme. What is your thinking on extending the Parliament's powers over our marine environment?
We should be cautious. I am not sure what powers one would take over a crippled vessel whose crew had to be removed for their own safety. One would be presented with a rock-and-a-hard-place decision on the cargo of the vessel and the oil used to propel it. Would we keep the vessel at sea, which might ensure that the pollutant was released, or would we take the balanced decision of allowing it to be beached and hope to recover as much of the pollutant as possible? I am doubtful whether we could say, "Will you please take this vessel somewhere else?" I would be cautious about going down that route.
I will ask about climate change, which is referred to in the latter part of your submission.
I would not want there to be any confusion between my department and the Home Office.
Granted.
I am obliged.
Richard Lochhead wants to ask a very small supplementary on climate change.
On 9 January, Professor Shimmield of the Scottish Association for Marine Science told the committee that there is no observation system in Scottish waters. That surprised me—after all, Scotland has 25 per cent of the EU's waters—and when I pressed him on the point, he explained that the Irish, the French, the Dutch and the Germans all have systems to monitor the impact of climate change on their marine environment. Are you aware of that? If so, why has such a system not been introduced in Scottish waters? I should point out that Professor Shimmield also said that the systems were, to an extent, publicly funded.
I have discussed that issue with Professor Shimmield. We have a number of observation mechanisms that feed into various scientific processes; in particular, we have developed data systems that are targeted at climate change.
Professor Shimmield mentioned
Again, he is emphasising his point that we could do more to gather more fine-grained information on particular stretches of the Scottish coast. We have a fairly good idea about what is happening overall, but he feels that the information should be more detailed and disaggregated.
Our position is that such systems are not totally absent. We are well aware of Professor Shimmield's differing views, his desires and his representations on how matters might be improved. However, it is not correct to conclude that we do not have such systems. The professor believes that they could be better in certain parts of the inshore waters, and I am happy to discuss the matter with him.
I move on to Nora Radcliffe, whom I should thank for being so patient.
It is quite an opportune moment to come to me, because I want to widen the discussion about how data and information are collected and used. What is the Executive doing to identify gaps in our knowledge and information? For example, one key data gap that has been mentioned is the absence of a comprehensive sea-bed habitat map. Moreover, we do not know whether berried female prawns that are caught are returned to the sea. Is the Executive considering that point and looking at the baseline data that we need? How can we organise and disseminate all that information in a useful and usable way?
We are, of course, interested in having data. We do not collect them ourselves; we employ a number of universities and academic institutions and we part fund marine laboratories to do that. Indeed, we are very dependent on people who have serious expertise for those data. As I said earlier, despite the fact that Scotland has some of the best marine biologists, mapping all of our waters to a distance of 200 nautical miles is not easy. Although we have vast volumes of data, I cannot sit here and suggest that we have an absolutely comprehensive databank.
We probably have much more information about the marine environment than any one of us thinks we have, but we have much less than we need. In the light of climate change in particular there is a continuing policy need for new information, whether it is specifically on fisheries, on aquaculture or on impacts on marine habitats. We need lots more information.
I will ask a parallel question. How you handle all the information, store it, map it and co-ordinate it is a science in itself. Is any research taking place on information handling and the specifics, such as how to produce maps? That is also a skilled area. Has any research been commissioned on how best to deal with the technical aspect of what you do with the information?
A lot of the information has been produced at scientific level within universities and other institutions. It is fair to say that they have developed considerable databanks and exchanges because, as all of our scientific observers know, there is no point in reinventing the wheel. The exchange of information at that level is better than you might imagine. One difficulty is that information might have to be derived from different sources, but I do not think that we have had difficulty in accessing existing information, save only that it is in different sources and is cross-referenced through a variety of institutions. The information is not necessarily located in Scotland—on some topics, a more international perspective is required before coming to a conclusion.
I will bring the discussion down to a much more specific and local level. Shetland has been producing maps of areas around the Shetland Isles. Are you looking at the lessons that have been learned about the practicalities of putting information on maps? Is more work needed on the practicalities of doing what is, on the face of it, quite simple, but is actually quite a complex technical problem?
That is one of the pilots that are part of the Scottish sustainable marine environment initiative. There is a pilot on Shetland, a pilot on Mull, a pilot on the Firth of Clyde and a pilot off the coast of Berwickshire. The pilots all deal with different aspects of data collection, data gathering and mapping. Certainly, all those aspects will be crucial in relation to, for example, marine spatial planning. The four pilots are all slightly different, have slightly different objectives and are deliberately located off different parts of the coast of Scotland to give us experiences of different activities and different marine features that require to be captured in the data. The four pilots are crucial to our work. It is not intended that the data should be seen as being exclusive to Shetland or to the Firth of Clyde. Once we have completed the pilots, there will be an opportunity to share the data that we gather from them all along the coast of Scotland.
We have had a useful discussion about the regulatory powers at Westminster and Holyrood in the context of the United Kingdom marine bill. What are the minister's views on other bodies that have regulatory powers, such as harbour authorities that are not directly accountable to you on environmental issues? Are they up for discussion internally? Are you considering their roles and whether their powers could be transferred to a more strategic body or planning structure?
We must be slightly careful. There is no question but that the privatisation of our ports and harbours has given rise to quite a difficult structural issue. Public duties and obligations previously accompanied some of the ports and harbours. As for obligations that are placed on authorities such as—whisper it—Forth Ports authority, which is a public listed company, there is no doubt that the clear obligations that the habitats directive imposes relate more to the fact that it is a private body that performs the functions of a previously publicly regulated body. The matter is complex. Mark Ruskell and I discussed the matter during the passage of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. When a body previously had a public duty and obligation, that duty is diluted. I accept that—it is inevitable when a different company that is privately funded is created, but that does not get the organisation out of jail in every case throughout legislation. Because of the current controversy, we have examined the situation.
Sure. We can return to the issue when we consider two petitions on ship-to-ship oil transfers. I am glad to hear that the matter is being considered. If any European judgment were given on whether the habitats directive was being implemented properly, that would come home to roost for the Executive as well as—
I will make what I said clear for the Official Report. In relation to considering the regulation of ports and harbours generally, I said that we recognise that function. In relation to the habitats directive, we are clear about the application of the directive to the application by Forth Ports and its duties under that. As my deputy minister has made clear, we are also aware of issues that have arisen as a result of European Court of Justice judgments and of the need for us to consider them actively, which we are doing. Those issues are connected, but I do not want them to overlap generally.
We are all out of questions and if we continue much longer we will be all out of members. I thank the minister and his officials for attending. We have enjoyed the discussion, which has been interesting. We will reflect on what has been said and consider our report in due course.
Members indicated agreement.
Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 31 January, when we will hold day 2 of stage 2 of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. Members are reminded that the deadline for lodging amendments to the remaining sections and to the schedule is 12 noon this Friday. We will also begin our consideration of the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill with a short evidence session with John Swinney.
Meeting closed at 12:50.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation