Marine (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 25A; the marshalled list, which was revised on Tuesday—that is, SP bill 25AML (revised); and the groupings which, as Presiding Officer, I have agreed. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division this morning. The period of voting will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate and 30 seconds for all other divisions.
I inform members at the outset that time is incredibly tight, so I ask everyone to keep their contributions as brief as possible.
Section 2A—Sustainable development
We come to group 1. Amendment 101, in the name of Peter Peacock, is grouped with amendments 2 and 5.
I am pleased to kick off today's proceedings with three amendments. Two are concerned with general duties on ministers and public authorities, and the third is a minor but important amendment to the bill's long title that will reflect the fact that furthering sustainable development is now part of the bill's purpose.
Amendment 101 is a revised version of an amendment that I moved at stage 2, which the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment opposed at that time. It concerns the health of our marine environment. If the Marine (Scotland) Bill is to mean anything, it is important that it makes a real difference to the health of our marine environment in the long term. The amendment would require ministers and public authorities to act in ways that are best calculated to protect and enhance the health of the Scottish marine area. It seeks to translate into the bill the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's unanimous support for that principle in its stage 1 report.
I listened carefully to what the minister said at stage 2 and, although I did not share his anxieties, I have tried to change the amendment to accommodate some of the concerns by linking the health of the marine environment to sustainable development. An amendment on sustainable development was agreed to at stage 2 and is in the bill that is before us today. Amendment 101 replicates the key aspects of the provision that was approved at stage 2 and refers to it, along with the health of the marine area. I have discussed the amendment with the minister and his officials and I hope that he is now ready enthusiastically and generously to support the amendment, and also to do so graciously, no doubt. We will see when the time comes.
Amendment 2 deals with mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Last year's Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 set ambitious targets that will be met only if the follow-through is there to deliver on them. Scottish Renewables estimates that Scotland's carbon emissions could by 2020 be cut by about a third through installation of offshore renewables. Scotland's seas are potentially our trump card in the fight against climate change. As the bill is the first environmental legislation to be considered post the 2009 act, it is vital that those strong climate change objectives be directly reflected in the bill and it is important that climate change be reflected in the national marine plans that will result from the bill, but a general duty will ensure that climate obligations are considered throughout the bill's workings. That will be important as new management arrangements come on stream and new bodies are established in years to come to manage such matters. I hope that the minister has reflected on his stance at stage 2 and feels able to accept the amendment.
Amendment 5 is designed to have the long title reflect a particular change about sustainable development that was agreed at stage 2. It seems to me to be a fairly innocuous amendment, but one that symbolises the fact that the bill is, in significant part, about sustainable development. Again, I hope that the minister will be able to support the change.
I move amendment 101.
I speak in support of Peter Peacock's amendment 101, which is an improved version of an amendment that he lodged at stage 2. It seeks to include in the bill a duty to protect and enhance our seas where appropriate. That will, combined with a requirement to develop our seas sustainably, enhance the bill, so I am happy to support the amendment.
I also support amendment 2 because it will oblige the Government to mitigate climate change where possible. I support Peter Peacock's comments in that regard.
I am conscious that I will be clambering to my feet fairly regularly this morning, so I will keep my comments brief. Liberal Democrats support all three amendments in the group. The bill seeks to protect our marine environment, but if that is to avoid being a process of managed decline in certain instances, we need to ensure that there is a duty on ministers and public authorities not only to maintain but where appropriate—and only where appropriate—to enhance that environment. As Peter Peacock said, the cabinet secretary expressed concerns at stage 2, but I believe—as John Scott does—that they have been addressed in the form of amendment 101.
Amendment 2 acknowledges the threat to our marine and wider environment that is presented by climate change. The general duty that the amendment would place on ministers and public authorities would help to ensure that that is properly acknowledged in the bill. Amendment 5 provides consistency with the approach that we have adopted in other legislation. By adding sustainable development to the long title, it will allow us to put on the tin what the bill is about. I urge members to support all three amendments.
I am pleased to start on a positive note. In the spirit of Peter Peacock's contribution, I "enthusiastically and generously" say that I am content to accept amendment 101, which delivers the right message about the Government's approach to marine management and the need to balance the use and protection of Scotland's spectacular seas. We welcome the reference to the health of Scotland's seas.
I turn to amendment 2. We discussed the issue in great detail at stage 2, when I said that there are already such general duties in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and that I did not believe that it was necessary to replicate them in the bill. However, in order to reiterate our commitment to mitigation and adaptation to climate change, I am happy to accept the amendment.
On amendment 5, again, we debated such an amendment at stage 2. However, my views remain the same. The long title is meant to be an accurate legal description of the content of the bill. I have to say to Peter Peacock that my legal advice is that the amendment would make the long title inaccurate, so on that basis we have no option but to oppose it. I ask Peter Peacock to consider not moving the amendment.
I will not delay proceedings. I am grateful for the support for amendments 101 and 2, and I hope that the Parliament will still support amendment 5, notwithstanding what the minister said.
Amendment 101 agreed to.
After Section 2A
Amendment 2 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 3—National marine plan and regional marine plans
Amendment 102, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 6, 103, 23, 91 and 92.
I lodged but did not press a similar amendment at stage 2. However, I believe that the issue is worthy of consideration by the whole Parliament as it links marine planning in part 2 of the bill with protection and enhancement in part 4. Amendment 102 would require national and regional plans to state how Government policies on nature conservation marine protection areas and other conservation sites that will also form part of the network of conservation sites that is created under section 68A, such as European marine sites, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites, will contribute to conservation or improvement of the marine area.
The minister resisted my amendment at stage 2 on the basis that
"sustainable development policies are about using Scotland's seas in a manner that is best calculated to deliver Scotland's needs, which are protecting the marine area while allowing activity to take place."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 18 November 2009; c 2124.]
I have reflected on that response and I believe that it misses the point. The national and regional plans are the policy documents that will guide the marine planning partnerships' decisions on appropriate development in the different parts of the marine area that they cover. There will inevitably be competing interests. It is important that the policy intention of the creation of nature conservation MPAs and the network of conservation sites is explicit in the plan and is available to members of the planning partnerships, to applicants who wish to undertake activity in the marine area, and to the general public.
Schedule 1 to the bill relates to the preparation, adoption and amendment of marine plans, including publication of and consultation on draft plans, and the laying before Parliament of national plans and possibly—depending on agreement to amendments that will be debated later today—regional plans. As the creation of nature conservation MPAs and the network of conservation sites will constrain some of those activities in some parts of the marine area, I think it sensible that the plans explain the policies underpinning their creation.
At stage 2, Liam McArthur was concerned that there was no counterweight against climate change mitigation. I believe that that concern has been addressed in his amendment 6, his alternative pass in amendment 103 and Peter Peacock's amendment 2, which has just been agreed to. I am happy to support whichever amendment Mr McArthur wishes to press. I am also happy to support amendments 23, 91 and 92, which are in the name of the cabinet secretary.
I also point out that Scottish Environment LINK supports amendment 102. In its briefing for today's debate, it stresses the importance of a three-pillar approach to marine conservation and points out that that was also supported by the advisory group for marine and coastal strategy and the sustainable seas task force. As a result, a clear link between planning provisions and provisions for marine protection and enhancement is necessary.
I move amendment 102.
Before I call Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 6 and the other amendments in the group, I point out to members that amendments 6 and 103 are direct alternatives.
First of all, I have no difficulty in supporting the three Government amendments in this group. The Liberal Democrats also support amendment 102, as it reinforces the three-pillar approach to nature conservation that was identified by the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy and the sustainable seas task force as the surest means of linking marine planning with marine protection and enhancement provisions. I certainly recognise that efforts have been made to address the concerns that I expressed at stage 2.
On amendments 6 and 103, committee colleagues will recall that at stage 2 Alasdair Morgan, showing all the parliamentary cunning that befits someone who has risen to the elevated status of Deputy Presiding Officer, succeeded in hoisting me by my own inferior amendment, and I am sure that some will feel that I am about to make the same schoolboy error at stage 3. However, on this occasion, I have lodged amendment 103 as a backstop.
I hope that Parliament will agree to support the more substantive amendment 6, which I think provides the clarity of direction and purpose that has been sought by stakeholders across the board and the committee itself since stage 1. Its approach would not compromise the flexibility that we all want in regional planning partnerships, but is consistent with the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, both of which require the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to put in place programmes of measures to achieve stated objectives.
Although I am grateful to the minister and his officials for seeking a compromise, I urge the Parliament to go a little bit further and to agree to amendment 6, which will ensure that national and regional plans set out clearly, simply and in a flexible way what will be done and who will be responsible for doing it.
Amendment 102 is useful and reflects stakeholders' concerns. As it makes more explicit the link between the planning and conservation parts of the bill, we are happy to support it.
As for amendment 6, a similar amendment was discussed in detail at stage 2. My views remain the same: the bill contains no powers to require anyone to implement policies and programmes such as are referred to in the amendment. The plans get their force from section 11, which requires certain decisions in a marine area to be made "in accordance with" a plan, and requires that regard be had to a plan when other decisions are made. Given that a marine plan is not a vehicle for delivering freestanding programmes or a series of actions, I oppose amendment 6.
However, I am happy to accept amendment 103, which is similar to amendment 6 but has had removed from it the references to policies, programmes, responsible public authorities and persons. As the Presiding Officer has pointed out, the Parliament has to choose between the two amendments: we choose amendment 103, because it focuses on the objectives for marine plans, the condition of the marine area at the time of the plan's preparation and the pressures of human activities on the area. Although such things would appear in plans anyway, I am happy for the bill to refer specifically to them.
Amendment 23 is a minor technical amendment that seeks to bring section 7(2)(b)(i) into line with section 7(2)(a)(i) with regard to the reference to
"the living resources which the area supports".
Amendment 91 is another minor technical amendment that seeks to correct a reference to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 following changes in the final numbering of that act, and amendment 92 seeks to make a minor grammatical correction in schedule 1 so that the sentence in question will read:
"the Scottish marine region to which the plan is to apply".
I, too, am happy to support amendment 102 in the name of Elaine Murray, as it develops the three-pillar approach to nature conservation that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and others have agreed is vital to the development of a national marine plan.
I have to say that I prefer amendment 103 to amendment 6 in its attempt to flesh out the bill's intentions. Amendment 103 will help commercial development by providing greater clarity in marine plans and making the bill more compatible with the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Both pieces of legislation clearly set out their objectives; this bill should do so as well.
I thank members for their support. I will press amendment 102.
Amendment 102 agreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division of the day, there will be a five-minute suspension.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will proceed with the division on amendment 6.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Amendment 103 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Duty to keep relevant matters under review
Amendment 23 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Delegation of functions relating to regional marine plans
Amendment 24, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 104, 25, 105, 106, 42 and 43.
The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee stage 1 report expressed concerns that functions relating to regional marine plans could, under the present wording of the bill, be delegated to one public authority acting on its own without any other partners.
At stage 2, I introduced a similar amendment to amendment 24 that, surprisingly—considering the committee's view at stage 1—was defeated on the convener's casting vote.
Amendment 24 would require delegation of functions in relation to regional marine plans to
"a person nominated by Scottish ministers"
plus a public authority and/or a person who is
"nominated by a public authority with an interest in the … marine region".
The requirement to include a person who is nominated by Scottish ministers as a delegate reflects the committee's stage 1 recommendation
"that Marine Scotland's experience and expertise will be crucial for the effective running of all MPPs. The Committee would expect that Marine Scotland would take the lead role in administering MPPs."
The inclusion of a representative from Marine Scotland would ensure that national priorities be appropriately reflected in regional plans.
Amendment 24 has the support of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and it is the view of that organisation, and of other witnesses who gave stage 1 evidence, that Marine Scotland should chair the regional planning partnerships in order to ensure fairness and consistency.
Amendment 25 is consequential on amendment 24. The intention is the same as that of section 8(3), which it would replace, and it would require ministers only to give direction with the consent of the public authority or authorities involved in the partnership, either directly or by nomination of delegates.
Amendments 42 and 43 would apply the same principle to the delegation of functions relating to marine licensing, and would mean the requirement of a partnership approach to the issuing of marine licences where that has been delegated by Scottish ministers. The consent of the public authority or authorities involved will also be required if an order is made.
Concerns have been raised that amendments 24 and 42 would mean that only one person who has been nominated by ministers and one person who has been nominated by the local authority or public authority could be on the planning partnership or licensing authority. However, in the amendments, as in all United Kingdom and Scottish legislation, the singular includes the plural. I refer members to the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Publication and Interpretation etc of Acts of the Scottish Parliament) Order 1999, statutory instrument 1379, which states in schedule 1, paragraph 3:
"In an Act of the Scottish Parliament, unless the contrary intention appears,-
(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;
(b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine; and
(c) words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular." [Applause.]
As there is no contrary intention in, for example, the use of the word "one" rather than the use of the word "a", in amendments 24 and 42, more than one person could be nominated by ministers or by the authority, and there could be more than one public authority delegate.
I move amendment 24.
Amendment 104 seeks to give some structure to marine planning partnerships. Section 8 currently enables ministers to delegate regional planning functions to "a group of persons". The policy intention is to delegate, and we support increased local governance for planning, but the bill contains no provision for how those groups would be structured or constituted.
In its stage 1 report, the committee supported a flexible approach to membership, and that support was reiterated at stage 2. However, it also made it clear that the MPPs should be diverse bodies that are not dominated by narrow sectoral interests. Amendment 104 seeks to strike a balance between those concerns and, as with the similar amendment that was lodged at stage 2, it requires ministers to ensure only "so far as" is "reasonably practicable" that the partnerships include
"representatives of persons with an interest in ... the protection and enhancement"
of the area, and in use of the area for recreational and commercial purposes. Amendment 104 is supported by Scottish Environment LINK, Surfers Against Sewage and Scottish Renewables, who
"welcome strong, transparent and inclusive marine planning partnerships that can bring all the stakeholders together early in the process to get renewables rapidly developed in the right places."
On amendment 105, in its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee stated that it found it almost impossible to envisage circumstances in which a single public authority would be an appropriate partnership, and it advocated removal of that provision. Amendment 105 does not go that far, but we agree that ideally, regional planning functions should be delegated to a group of people and not to a public authority. Amendment 105 therefore would require that when ministers make such a direction, they must include a statement of reasons why they have chosen a public authority, and it would require that authority to consult representatives of persons from the three broad sectoral interests that I mentioned when speaking to amendment 104, and any other persons that Scottish ministers consider appropriate, when it is exercising its delegated functions. Again, amendment 105 comes with broad support.
Amendment 106 would require ministers to lay before Parliament a draft of any direction that they give under section 8 to delegate regional planning functions, in order that Parliament has an opportunity to consider a direction that will hand enormous power to those groups. Parliamentary scrutiny of the partnerships and their composition will ultimately give them clear authority to get on with the job with which they are tasked, safe in the knowledge that they have passed the test, that they are representative, and that they have the seal of Parliament. If the composition of the partnerships were to leave out interests, the danger would be that those groups would cry foul at a later date, and would seek to undermine the plans and agreements that had been put in place. It is essential that we get this part of the planning process right.
Despite Elaine Murray's rather learned, three-musketeer style defence of her amendments, I am afraid that we cannot support amendments 24 and 25 because it appears that they would dilute the flexibility that ministers have in the bill as it stands in return for no commensurate benefit.
I am, however, minded to support amendments 104, 105 and 106. Although I am not certain that they would add a great deal of practical effect beyond what is in the bill already, amendments 104 and 105 seem to have the benefit that they would provide additional clarity for those who might expect to be involved in marine planning. As Robin Harper said, amendment 106 seeks to introduce greater transparency and accountability through Parliament's role. On that basis, the amendments are worthy of support.
I speak in support of Elaine Murray's amendments 24, 25, 42 and 43, which will give the opportunity for a wider view to be taken in the development of regional plans and marine licensing than that which might be taken by a single authority acting on its own. In terms of consistency of approach, Marine Scotland should have an input into the development of all regional plans and granting of marine licences. That is why I believe Elaine Murray's amendments to be so important. I know that the minister has concerns about the amendments, but they are, nonetheless, better than what is already in place, notwithstanding what Liam McArthur said. Elaine Murray has more than adequately answered any doubts that the minister might have.
I am happy to support Robin Harper's amendments 104 and 105, although I am unable to support amendment 106.
Amendment 24 would remove the flexibility to delegate planning functions to a single public authority. I believe that none of us would wish the powers to delegate planning functions to be limited in such a way. It is not inconceivable that delegation of planning functions to a single public authority might be appropriate in some cases. For example, delegation to one of the islands councils in Scotland might be a possibility. Elaine Murray referred eloquently to existing legislation, but we must address the wording of the amendment that is before us, so I ask her to consider seeking to withdraw amendment 24.
Amendment 104 is similar to amendment 141—at stage 2. That amendment was defeated, as it was too prescriptive, but amendment 104 addresses the issue by including the phrase
"any other persons that the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate".
That drafting provides more flexibility to meet the wide range of circumstances around the Scottish coast, so we are happy to accept amendment 104.
We want to resist amendment 25, which is consequential on amendment 24.
Amendment 105, which sets out further details on what a direction to a public authority must include, would offer a safeguard to a number of stakeholders who are worried about the use of the Government's direction-giving powers, so we are happy to accept it.
Amendment 106 would introduce another layer of decision making by requiring the Government to lay before the Parliament for consideration a copy of the draft directions that are given to marine planning partnerships. That process, which would take a minimum of 40 days, is not necessary and would add a further layer of bureaucracy. For those reasons, and given the movement that I have made on amendments 104 and 105, I ask Robin Harper to consider not moving amendment 106.
The arguments on amendment 42 are similar to the ones that I have just laid out on amendment 24. Amendment 42 would remove the flexibility to delegate licensing functions to a single public authority. We would not wish to limit the powers to delegate licensing functions in such a way. I repeat that it is not inconceivable that delegation of licensing functions to a single public authority might be appropriate in some circumstances, perhaps to one of the islands councils. Therefore, I ask members to resist amendment 42 and the consequential amendment 43.
To clarify, in the situation that the cabinet secretary describes, a partnership could be a single public authority plus a representative of Marine Scotland. That is not ideal, but that is all that amendments 24 and 42 would require. I do not think that there can be a partnership of one—I have never heard of that—and it is important that Marine Scotland be involved in all the regional marine planning partnerships.
The statutory instrument to which I referred affects all acts of the Scottish Parliament and applies in all cases, including the bill. I have come up against the issue previously when I have complained about something being expressed in the singular and been advised that that includes the plural. The clerks have checked the amendments and discussed them with a senior draftsperson, so I am confident that they would not restrict partnerships to two people plus one local authority. I therefore press my amendment 24.
The Labour Party supports amendments 104 to 106 in the name of Robin Harper.
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab) Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 62, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment 104 moved—[Robin Harper]—and agreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[Elaine Murray].
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab) Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 62, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment 105 moved—[Robin Harper]—and agreed to.
After section 8
Amendment 106 moved—[Robin Harper].
The question is, that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 106 disagreed to.
Section 16—Requirement for licence
We come to group 4. Amendment 26, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 69, 84, 97 and 98.
Amendment 26 is a consequential amendment arising from an amendment that was made at stage 2. The inclusion of section 28A, concerning submarine cables, means that section 16(2) should now refer to exemptions and special cases provided by sections 24 to 28A.
Amendment 69 is simply a drafting amendment to correct the erroneous placing of a bracket.
Amendment 84 is a technical drafting amendment to correct a reference relating to the production of evidence during an inspection. In section 125(3), the first reference to "section 124(3)" needs to be changed to "section 124(2)".
Amendment 97 is a minor drafting amendment to insert missing words in paragraph 10(1) of schedule 2. Amendment 98 is also a minor drafting amendment. It is consequential on a stage 2 amendment, as a result of which what was section 40(5) is now section 40(4A).
I move amendment 26.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Section 17—Licensable marine activities
We come to group 5. Amendment 107, in the name of Karen Gillon, is grouped with amendments 27, 108 and 112.
When we began to consider a marine bill in the previous session of Parliament, the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy, which came to be known as AGMACS, was set up. In that group, and in the bill, it was never the intention to obstruct the legitimate right to sustainable fishing in Scottish waters. However, there is genuine concern that section 17 as drafted will interfere with that legitimate right to sustainable fishing in Scotland.
When I lodged an amendment the same as amendment 107 at stage 2, the cabinet secretary indicated clearly that it was not his intention for section 17 to apply to fishing and that it was not about making fishing a licensable activity. However, Scottish Environment LINK argues in its briefing against amendment 107, on the basis that it would stop the licensing of fishing in the future. There is ambiguity about what is intended in section 17.
Labour members are not against clear, effective and transparent action being taken to control fishing effort if necessary. However, if it is not the minister's intention to license fishing activity, we need clarity in the bill—it is important that the bill is absolutely clear and precise. If we do not intend to make legitimate sustainable fishing a licensable activity, we must include that exemption in the bill. That is the view of the fishing industry, which I share. If we do not do that, we risk making a back-door fundamental attack on the legitimate right to sustainable fishing in Scotland.
Amendments 108 and 112, in Kenneth Gibson's name, are no such back-door attacks on the legitimate right to sustainable fishing in Scotland; they are a full-frontal attack. I am surprised that a member of the Scottish National Party, which prides itself on standing up for the Scottish fishing industry, would come to the chamber and seek to remove from the bill the requirement for Scottish ministers to have regard to
"the need to prevent interference with the legitimate uses of the sea".
Surely we in Scotland have fought hard to protect the legitimate use of our sea. The bill has been developed through consensus and consideration of all the factors concerning our seas. I hope that all members will vote against Kenneth Gibson's amendments, which seek to remove that line from the bill and attack fundamentally the rights of our fishermen.
I ask members to support amendment 107 in my name to make it absolutely clear that licensing does not apply to fishing, and to reject the amendments in the name of Kenneth Gibson, who seeks to attack fishing in that fundamental way.
I move amendment 107.
We debated the issue at stage 2 and my views remain the same. I appreciate that amendment 107 seeks to put beyond doubt whether fishing could be a licensable activity. I am on record as saying that it was not our intention to make fishing a licensable activity under the Marine (Scotland) Bill. If there is any doubt, I am happy to put the question beyond doubt by using the order-making power to create exemptions. On that basis, I ask Karen Gillon to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 27 is a minor technical amendment to ensure that any consequential amendments arising from a change to section 17(1) can be addressed.
I recall that we had various debates about the legitimate uses of the sea at stage 2. Amendments 108 and 112 would remove the duty on Scottish ministers to have regard to
"the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea"
when adding to or removing from the list of licensable activities or exempting activities. That would mean that, in making our decisions, we would not need to consider activities such as navigation, fishing, mineral extraction, amenity use and offshore renewables projects. I am not sure what my colleague Kenny Gibson is trying to achieve, but I think that it would be unwise for me to accept his amendments. I therefore ask him not to move amendments 108 and 112.
To call my amendments "a full-frontal attack" on the Scottish fishing industry is hyperbole, to say the least.
Section 17 lists licensable marine activities and states that Scottish ministers must have regard to the need to protect the environment and human health. Section 17(4)(c) states that in deciding on exemptions, ministers must have regard to
"the need to prevent interference with the legitimate uses of the sea".
It can be argued, therefore, that that effectively makes the marine licensing regime inoperable; that is the point behind amendment 108, and amendment 112, which is similar. Nearly all uses of the sea are legitimate with the exception of the use of personalised watercraft, which probably have no authorisation under the public right to navigation, and the use of beaches except by anglers and swimmers, those uses—neither of is authorised under common law. This exemption process is not included in the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and perhaps that is why.
I welcome the minister's comments and appreciate that he would like to use order-making powers to clarify that fishing activities are exempt from the bill, although that seems a slightly convoluted way of doing what we might achieve by agreeing to amendment 107. For clarity, it is important that we place on the face of the bill that fishing is not to be a licensable activity in Scotland. I will press amendment 107.
Too late, I am afraid.
The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab) Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 106, Against 17, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 107 agreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Amendment 108 not moved.
Section 17A—Pre-application consultation: preliminary
We come to group 6. Amendment 109, in the name of Karen Gillon, is grouped with amendments 28 to 31 and 8 to 12.
The policy intention behind amendment 109 is quite simple and I ask members to see it clearly. It was proposed by the renewables industry to bring consistency to section 17A. I hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to support it and the policy intention behind it.
We are happy to support amendment 28.
I move amendment 109.
I understand the motive behind amendment 109, in that it would give a power to exclude applications from the pre-application consultation provisions where the application relates to an activity that has been carried out and licensed previously. It seems to me that the regulations that prescribe the relevant classes or descriptions of licensable marine activities could be used to produce the desired result. However, I have no particular difficulty with the amendment being agreed to.
Amendment 28 will remove from section 17A(3)(d) some wording that we think unnecessary and perhaps unhelpful.
Amendments 29 and 30 simply reflect that there is no need for section 17B to provide a power to make different provision for different cases or classes of case. All orders and regulations under the bill may do that by virtue of section 145(1)(a).
Amendment 31 is a minor technical amendment so that reference is made to a proposed "activity" rather than "development", since licensing is for marine activities rather than developments.
Amendments 8 to 12 would require that investigations, examinations and tests would be carried out only should any information supplied or articles produced not be sufficient for Scottish ministers to determine a licence application. The amendments would also allow investigations to be carried out only where "necessary", thus removing current references to "expedient". Accepting those amendments is unlikely to lead to any substantial changes in practice, but we have no objections to their being incorporated in the bill.
I had hoped that, in return for my supporting his amendments 28 to 31, the cabinet secretary would support my amendments 8 to 12. Given that he seemed to speak against an amendment in the previous group and then vote for it, I will watch with interest what happens at the end of this group.
The amendments return to ground that was covered at stage 2 and I hope that they address the concerns that were raised then. As I acknowledged at the time, we know far less about the marine environment than we know about the terrestrial environment. However, we need to be careful about the way in which we try to make good that deficit of knowledge. By removing the word "expedient" from section 18, amendments 9 and 12 would allow ministers to require all the information necessary for determining a licence application but stop short of allowing them to go on a fishing expedition that might be nice to have but is not essential for the purpose of determining the application. [Interruption.]
Amendments 8, 10 and 11 would ensure that, where possible, any additional data that are required to support an application could be collected by the applicant under the direction and to the satisfaction of Scottish ministers.
At stage 2, the cabinet secretary appeared to suggest that he was resisting that approach to save the renewables industry from itself by arguing that it would delay consideration of applications as developers fought off attempts by ministers to seek the information required to make licence determinations. That is rather given the lie by Scottish Renewables, which suggests that the amendments would result in
"the most efficient way to handle extra data requirements, given that the applicant is likely to be the person with the greatest knowledge of the site and the person to put the highest priority on getting the data collected swiftly."
On that basis, I urge Parliament to support my amendments, the cabinet secretary's amendments and the amendment in the name of Karen Gillon.
That is the second time that an electronic signal has come through the microphones. I would be grateful if all members would ensure that they have BlackBerrys and mobiles switched off.
I speak in support of Karen Gillon's amendment 109. It seems a reasonable amendment, which, if implemented, would cut down on red tape and the bureaucratic process of reapplication. Karen Gillon is to be commended on lodging the amendment.
I am also happy to support amendments 8 to 12, in the name of Liam McArthur, as they tidy up and add value to this part of the bill.
Amendment 109 agreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 17B—Pre-application consultation: compliance
Amendments 29 to 31 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Application for licence
Amendments 8 to 12 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
Section 19—Notice of applications
We come to group 7. Amendment 32, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 110 and 33.
I dare say that we cannot really claim to have cut our teeth on a bill until we have risen to speak in opposition to an amendment in our own name.
At stage 2, I moved various amendments in an attempt to drag the bill into the 21st century. I said at the time that despite the fact that access to high-quality broadband remains a luxury that is denied to many of my constituents, I believed that it would be useful for the bill to state specifically that web-based information on applications must be made available. The minister accepted that premise at the time and agreed to look at alternative wording at stage 3 to give effect to that.
Unfortunately, on reflection, I think that amendment 32—and amendments 45 and 46—go rather further than I would have wished. By insisting that the information be available only via the web, all three amendments fail to deliver the policy intention behind my moves at stage 2.
As things stand, nothing in the bill will prevent ministers from making that information available via the web. I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree to ensure that that happens.
I have no difficulty in supporting Karen Gillon's amendment 110.
I would welcome clarification from the cabinet secretary about the intention behind amendment 33. The word "appropriate" seems vaguer than the concept of involving those with "particular expertise." I am not sure that such additional vagueness represents a step in the right direction.
I move amendment 32.
The policy intention behind amendment 110 is to ensure that ministers have regard to and take advice from their statutory consultees prior to determining an application.
I understand that the minister is concerned that the amendment as drafted might require him to take that advice as he is determining the application. That was not the intention of the amendment. Perhaps the minister will clarify on the record how he will consult statutory consultees ahead of determining an application and how he will ensure that they are included, so that the consultees who are watching this process will be clear about that. It might be helpful if, after the passage of the bill, he could write to the committee to outline that process, so that the committee would also be clear about it. Such a letter would be on the public record.
At stage 2, Liam McArthur proposed that the publication of licence applications should be on a website, so that they could readily be viewed. Amendment 32 would allow publication to be on a website only, unless it was felt that further publication, such as in a newspaper, was necessary. I am happy to accept amendment 32.
One of the purposes of the bill is to introduce a simplified and streamlined licensing regime. Amendment 110 would require the Scottish ministers to determine applications in consultation with statutory consultees. That would mean that consultees would be contributing to the decision making directly, rather than making their views known to ministers, as we would normally expect in any consultation process. I understand Karen Gillon's purpose and I am happy to reassure her that consultation is a fundamental part of the bill. I am fully committed to delivering the consultation processes that are outlined in the bill. That is why I accepted an amendment from Karen Gillon on pre-application consultation at stage 2.
For the avoidance of doubt, I point out that the consultation processes are set out in section 20(4). I will consult in the summer on the list of potential consultees. I look forward to receiving and using the advice of the many relevant consultees, which will no doubt arise in the consultation process in due course and which will be of high value to this Government and future Governments. Karen Gillon asked me to clarify those points by writing to the committee. I give a commitment to do that.
Before determining an application for a marine licence, the Scottish ministers are required or empowered to consult those referred to in section 20(4). Amendment 33 will simply extend the scope of who the Scottish ministers can consult, so as to cover any persons that they consider "appropriate". I consider that it would be useful to have that flexibility. I hope that that gives Liam McArthur the reassurance that he seeks.
We are in an Alice in Wonderland world, where the cabinet secretary speaks against amendments that he subsequently votes for and I move an amendment that I do not intend to press and do not support.
I heard what the cabinet secretary said about retaining a degree of flexibility about publishing information by a means other than websites. That should offer reassurance. However, after looking again at the wording of amendment 32, I cannot see that it achieves that.
I heard what the cabinet secretary said about amendment 33, which satisfies the concerns that I had about it. We are happy to support amendment 33.
I do not wish to press amendment 32, but I suspect that the cabinet secretary might.
Amendment 32, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 20—Determination of applications
Amendment 110 not moved.
Amendment 33 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 23—Variation, suspension, revocation and transfer
We come to group 8. Amendment 13, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 14, 15, 111, 34 and 35.
For the avoidance of doubt, I clarify that I am speaking in favour of my amendment 13.
The right of ministers to vary, suspend or revoke a licence is essential if we are to ensure that appropriate and timely responses can be made to changed circumstances, developments in our understanding of the marine environment or the advance of science. Nevertheless, that right cannot be exercised without safeguards, which my amendments in this group seek to underpin.
Amendments 13 and 14 would make it clear that licensees can and will only be held responsible for the information that they provide, and that there is a test of reasonableness in relation to that information.
Amendment 15 seeks to address what appears to be a rather open-ended approach to ministerial powers under the bill, whereby a licence can be suspended, revoked and so on
"for any other reason that appears to the Ministers to be relevant."
It is difficult to envisage what that might entail that could not be specified in the bill. The consequence is that the power introduces a considerable element of doubt, and therefore risk, for renewables developers.
Amendment 34, which is more detailed, attempts to make provision for a hearing to be requested by a developer within 28 days of a licence being varied, suspended or revoked. In essence, that opens up the possibility of addressing any concerns without the need for potentially lengthy and costly appeals procedures to be initiated. In recognition of concerns that I know might exist, amendment 34 would also give ministers the power to disapply a right to a hearing in cases in which urgent change was required to protect a feature.
I confess that amendment 35 is more of a probing amendment. The suspension, revocation or even variation of a licence can involve significant costs being incurred by a renewables developer who, in all likelihood, will not be in breach of their own licence conditions. I do not believe that the question of how, in such circumstances, agreement is reached on what compensation might be due is adequately addressed by the bill. It has been suggested that the Government might deal with that more appropriately under its section 144 order-making powers, but I would welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on the matter before I decide whether to move amendment 35.
I move amendment 13.
Amendment 111 seeks to ensure that, if there is a variation to a licence that is not material, Marine Scotland will have discretion to make the changes without going through a lengthy pre-application consultation process. Members will be well aware of my long-standing concerns over safety, particularly in the workplace. I do not believe that changes associated with minor maintenance or safety need to be or should be consulted on.
One of the biggest challenges facing those who develop new offshore renewables installations will be to ensure the highest standards of safety for those who are involved in the construction and operation of those installations. Lessons that we have learned from the tragedies that have taken place in the offshore oil and gas industries must be built on to ensure the safety of those who will be working in incredibly hostile environments, sometimes with completely new technologies. That demands flexibility to ensure that licences can quickly accommodate any changes that might be needed to prevent loss of life. I hope that the Parliament will support amendment 111.
I am happy to accept amendment 13, as it is appropriate that the powers in section 23 should be exercisable only where inaccurate or incomplete information has been provided by the applicant. I am also happy to accept amendment 14, which provides that the failure to supply information should refer only to information that the applicant might reasonably have been expected to supply in connection with the consideration of a licence.
I cannot accept amendment 15, as it could seriously affect the ability of the Scottish ministers to act in unforeseen or unusual circumstances. An example of a situation in which the provision in section 23(3)(d) could be used is when a new dredging operation might disturb or recover something of great archaeological interest. In such instances, the provision could allow for appropriate mitigation to be put in place, and the significance of any discovery to be properly evaluated. I therefore ask Liam McArthur to consider not moving amendment 15.
On amendment 111, there could be situations in which the licensee wishes to notify a change in the activity that would result in the licence requiring to be varied. An example might be a change to the name of the ship that is carrying out the activity listed in the licence. We are happy to accept that amendment.
On amendment 34, section 23 contains crucial provisions for the marine licensing regime that repeat much of what is already applied under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. As the decision to issue a marine licence will have been reached after a rigorous assessment, the circumstances in which Marine Scotland is required to vary, suspend or revoke a licence will be exceptional. Given that background, I am happy to accept amendment 34.
Amendment 35 would require the Government to pay compensation to the licensee for any costs incurred due to the variation, suspension or revocation of a licence due to the circumstances that are detailed in section 23(3), for example
"a change in circumstances relating to the environment or human health"
or
"increased scientific knowledge".
It would not appear to be appropriate for the Government to have to pay compensation for bringing to a halt an activity that might be causing environmental damage. There are always risks in business, and the Government should not be expected to be liable for those. Despite the vagaries of minority government, I will resist amendment 35, no matter what happens. I ask Liam McArthur to consider not moving it.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's acceptance of amendments 13 and 14. In light of what he has said, and in the generous spirit with which he opened the debate, I will not press amendment 15.
I congratulate Karen Gillon on the comments that she made about the importance of safety in the offshore environment, and I reassure her of our support for amendment 111.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's acceptance of the points behind amendment 34.
On amendment 35, I am not persuaded by what the cabinet secretary said in relation to the avenues for seeking a mechanism for compensation—whether or not that is included in the bill or achieved through order-making powers. On that basis, I will press amendment 35.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
Amendment 15 not moved.
Amendment 111 moved—[Karen Gillon]—and agreed to.
After section 23
Amendment 34 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
Amendment 35 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 104, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 35 disagreed to.
Section 24—Exemptions specified by order
Amendment 112 not moved.
Section 25—Activities below specified threshold of environmental impact
Group 9 is on marine licensing: exemptions specified by order. Amendment 16, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 17 to 19.
The amendments in this group relate to activities that are deemed to have a sufficiently low impact on the environment that they do not require to be licensed but will be registered instead.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that would have required ministers to make regulations for those activities that will be registered rather than licensed. That amendment was resisted by the cabinet secretary and rejected by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on the convener's casting vote, and I have not lodged the same amendment at this stage. I still believe, however, that if ministers make regulations providing for licensable marine activities that fall below a specified environmental threshold, there are certain matters that should be covered by those regulations.
Amendments 16 and 17 would require definitions of what being registered means, what the specific environmental threshold is and what falling below that threshold means. If the bill is to provide a mechanism by which licensable activities are not to require a licence, clarity about the criteria used to assess whether the activity should be registered is essential.
Amendment 19 would replace the requirement for the Scottish ministers to
"consult such persons as they consider appropriate"
with a requirement to consult persons who represent conservation and commercial interests. Scottish Natural Heritage would also have to be consulted, as would other persons that the Scottish ministers considered appropriate.
At stage 2, I lodged but did not move a similar amendment, which the cabinet secretary said was unnecessary because he would consult such groups anyway. That might be so, but there is no harm in making such a requirement clear in the bill, as other amendments that we have agreed to today will do.
The bill team expressed concern that amendments 16 to 18 would require the regulations to be rewritten every time a minor amendment was made. I do not think that that is a problem. If the definitions do not change, all that will be needed will be to cut and paste the appropriate part from one regulation to another. Committees consider many statutory instruments that involve minor variations to general text that does not change from one year to another. I do not think that there is an insurmountable problem in that regard.
I have been advised that consequential amendments might be required as a result of amendment 19. If the minister advises what should have been included I will decide whether to move the amendment.
I move amendment 16.
Amendments 16 to 18 would require all regulations made under section 25(1) to deal with all the matters in section 25(2). However, until we have developed a registration scheme under section 25, we cannot be certain that it would be sensible to make an absolute requirement of the sort that Elaine Murray proposes. For example, there might be no need to elaborate on the meaning of "fall below", but if the amendments were agreed to, regulations that failed to do that would be incompetent.
Moreover, the wording of the amendments is such that they would prevent amending regulations from being made after an initial set of regulations had dealt with the section 25(2) matters. Instead, the principal regulations would have to be remade on every occasion. I doubt that that is Elaine Murray's intention and I would be grateful if she would not press amendment 16 and not move amendments 17 and 18.
At stage 2, we debated a similar amendment to amendment 19, and our view remains the same. Amendment 19 is unnecessary and unhelpful. Section 25(4) already requires the Scottish ministers to consult
"such persons as they consider appropriate"
when they make regulations under section 25. I reassure Elaine Murray again that the groups that are mentioned in amendment 19 will be consulted. An absolute statutory requirement, worded in the way that she envisages, could give rise to disputes about whether the right people had been consulted and could make regulations challengeable by people who thought that they came into the stated categories.
The meaning of "fall below" is not necessarily obvious and will depend on the
"specified threshold of environmental impact",
which could be 1 per cent, 5 per cent or 10 per cent. The issue is not straightforward; it will depend on the criteria that are used. The issue is important because, as we discussed in committee, a number of small registrable activities could have a cumulative effect. We need to understand what is meant by the terms that are used in section 25.
Amendment 19 was not intended to be unhelpful. I heard what the cabinet secretary said, but surely the same argument could be made against the many provisions in the bill that require representatives of recreational, commercial or environmental protection and enhancement interests to be consulted or involved in partnership. The specification of such groups could lead to disputes between different representatives. I do not see why the argument that applies to amendment 19 should be different from the argument that applies to other provisions in the bill. I press amendment 16.
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 58, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Amendments 17 to 19 not moved.
Section 27—Special procedure for applications relating to certain electricity works
Group 10 is on marine licensing: electricity works. Amendment 113, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendment 44.
Amendment 113 would require the Scottish ministers, when—and only when—they sought to use the power in section 27 to require an application for a marine licence and an application under the Electricity Act 1989 to be treated jointly, to give any planning authority adjacent to the offshore site the right to object and thereby trigger a public inquiry.
As members know, a terrestrial planning application for energy generation of more than 50MW will be referred to the Scottish ministers for determination. The planning authority or authorities are statutory consultees and an objection from them will trigger a public inquiry. That happened in my constituency in the case of the Harestanes wind farm application, which was approved by ministers in 2007 after a public inquiry was triggered by the objections of Dumfries and Galloway Council.
Schedule 8 to the 1989 act, which deals with section 36 and section 37 applications, requires marine applications above 1MW to be referred to ministers. However, the definition of "relevant planning authority" under schedule 8 is more difficult in the marine area. Referral applies only if the marine area is within the area of jurisdiction of the authority rather than in relation to the area's geographical relevance to a local authority. In the case of the Robin Rigg development in the Solway Firth, Cumbria County Council and SNH objected to the application, but the application was determined without a public inquiry being held.
The 1989 act is United Kingdom legislation and cannot be amended by the Scottish Parliament. Hence amendment 113 would apply only when ministers had determined that a marine licensing application to them was being considered jointly with an application referred to them under the 1989 act. Amendment 113 would provide that in such cases the relevant planning authority to be consulted would be any local authority or national park authority
"whose area is adjacent to any part of the Scottish marine area where the generating station (or any part of it) is, or is proposed to be, situated".
Amendment 113 has the support of the Royal Town Planning Institute and I understand that it also has the support of local authorities.
I move amendment 113.
Amendment 113 would place an absolute requirement to apply a modified version of paragraph 2 of schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 in cases in which there is to be a single process for applications for a marine licence and consent under the 1989 act. However, we have not yet reached a final view on exactly which provisions of the 1989 act are to apply in the single process, nor how they should best be modified. Amendment 113 could restrict our ability to develop a sensible and flexible process under section 27. I ask Elaine Murray to seek leave to withdraw it, in light of my comments.
I seek assurance from the cabinet secretary that we can be updated on the progress of his discussions. On the basis of what he said I am content not to press amendment 113, but the issue is important and I would like to be kept informed as it evolves.
Amendment 113, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 29—Appeals against licensing decisions
Group 11 is on marine licensing: appeals against decisions and notices. Amendment 36 is grouped with amendments 37 to 40, 47 to 49 and 93 to 96.
The bill contains a number of appeal rights. For example, an unsuccessful marine licence applicant can appeal against the decision to refuse the licence. However, the bill does not say with whom the appeal would lie; that is left to be established through secondary legislation. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee both commented adversely on that approach, and I gave assurances to Karen Gillon and others during stage 2 that Government amendments would be lodged to specify in the bill what the appellate body should be.
We think that appeals under the bill would best be dealt with in the sheriff court. This group of amendments provides for that and makes consequential changes to reflect the choice of the sheriff court as the appropriate body.
I move amendment 36.
I welcome the amendments in this group. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee looked for them at stage 2 and the minister has responded positively to our suggestions, so I urge members to support them.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 38—Fixed monetary penalties: procedure
Amendment 39 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 40—Variable monetary penalties: procedure
Amendment 40 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 42—Delegation of functions relating to marine licensing
Group 12 is on marine licensing: fish farming. Amendment 41, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendment 22.
This area of the bill is a little contentious. I hope to be able to give an explanation of the intention behind amendments 41 and 22 and provide reassurance to the local authorities that have expressed concern about them.
The amendments were prompted by the majority conclusion of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee at stage 1 and the policy intention of the bill as expressed in the policy memorandum. The bill aims to provide a simplified and streamlined way of getting a licence for a marine activity and provides powers for ministers to deliver a single consent to each renewable energy project. However, unfortunately, marine fish farming is excluded from the bill. It alone among licensable activities remains under terrestrial planning legislation within the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.
The bill enables local authorities to transfer responsibility for granting and refusing marine fish farming consents to the Scottish ministers should they wish to do so. The majority view of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee—disagreed with only by Liam McArthur at stage 1—was that that was the wrong way round and that marine fish farming should be treated in the same way, and dealt with under the same legislative planning framework, as every other licensable marine activity.
Provisions already exist in section 42(1) for the delegation of marine licensing functions to public authorities and other partners. The subsection that amendment 41 would insert after subsection (1) makes it explicit that that would include the function of approving or refusing a licence for a licensable activity, such as fish farming if it were transferred under the bill, as would happen if amendment 22 was agreed to.
Amendment 22 would remove fish farming from the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended and thereby bring it under the bill. I am aware that the proposal has been opposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I have met COSLA representatives and spoken with officials from a number of councils that, historically, have had key roles in the determination of marine fish farming applications, such as Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council, Western Isles Council, Highland Council and Argyll and Bute Council. Those councils are concerned that a power will be removed from them but, with their long experience, they should and could apply to ministers to have the licensing function devolved to their marine licensing authorities.
Furthermore, under the amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that were made by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, decisions on marine fish farm applications are deemed to be local and, therefore, are made by planning officials, not a council's planning committee. Licensing authorities, which would assume responsibility for such decisions if these amendments were passed, would probably include councillors. Therefore, the arrangement under my amendments would be not only more logical but, potentially, more democratic.
The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation has also advised me that it is likely that combined renewable energy and marine fish farming proposals will be developed within the next five years. As the bill stands, such applications would have to be determined under two legislative regimes: the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for the fish farming side and the bill for the renewables side. Amendment 22 would enable such applications to be determined under one system and, potentially, by the local licensing authority.
Amendments 41 and 22 are supported by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the SSPO. I understand that Scottish Environment LINK is also in favour, although that has not been included in its briefing on today's amendments.
I move amendment 41.
I speak in support of amendments 41 and 22.
In its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee concluded that licensing should come under one regime and that, for consistency of approach, fish farming should be under the same licensing regime as other activities. With the notable exception of Liam McArthur, the committee also took the view that the function could be delegated to other authorities.
The key point is that ultimate responsibility for planning decisions on fish farming would rest with the Scottish ministers and Marine Scotland, not local authorities—in an undemocratic way, as Elaine Murray pointed out—as is the current position. Amendment 41 would allow the Government to delegate that responsibility if it chose to. Local authorities would still have a huge input into the process, but the current approach—with different local authorities taking different approaches to similar planning applications—is simply a mess. Professor Phil Thomas drew attention to that in his evidence to the committee.
Amendment 41, taken in conjunction with amendment 22, seeks to bring clarity to a confused situation and I hope that it will be supported at this late stage by members who agreed with the conclusion in the committee's report.
My concern in the committee was that, if we had several local authorities in a single marine region, we could end up with multiple licensing conditions within that region. I would be reassured if the minister assured us that he will issue guidance to ensure that multiple local authorities will co-ordinate to produce a single licensing regime within a marine region.
Bill Wilson should speak to the minister about that because, thus far, he has made no attempt to reassure us in that regard.
Amendment 22 would change the provisions of section 54 and ensure that the consenting of marine fish farms falls within the new licensing system. It would ensure that fish farming consents are treated in the same way as all other applications and are dealt with by the Scottish ministers. The benefit of that will be to provide a consistent approach towards fish farming applications, which is lacking at the moment. That is the key element, but the amendment will further allow the Government to set a strategic direction, should such be required to encourage food production over tourism, for example.
After some of the less generous comments about my antics on amendment 32, I am pleased to note that Elaine Murray and John Scott acknowledge my consistent rebellion on licensing arrangements for fish farming. The arguments against the approach that amendments 41 and 22 propose have not changed since I first articulated them at stage 1. I appreciate that those arguments have so far failed to convince Elaine Murray and her Labour and Tory colleagues, but I am heartened by the success that the cabinet secretary and I enjoyed in winning hearts and minds among SNP back-bench members at stage 2.
The changes that Elaine Murray proposes are unnecessary and unwelcome. They introduce a presumption in favour of centralisation in the interest of administrative neatness rather than in favour of the communities that have the greatest interest in the future of fish farming. As Elaine Murray indicated, COSLA has prepared an excellent briefing that highlights the risks that are inherent in the approach. Those include a loss of efficiency, local accountability and financial certainty in business planning.
Moreover, the proposal sends entirely the wrong signal about the confidence that the Parliament has in local councils, a number of which have invested a considerable amount of time and resources in developing the specific expertise that is necessary to deal effectively and efficiently with fish farming planning procedures. Elaine Murray acknowledged that point.
As the RTPI makes clear in its submission, the current planning system provides the integrated view that is essential for coastal communities. It does so with local and national accountability and with expert consultee input from scientists in Marine Scotland, SNH, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, district salmon fishery boards and other bodies. If it ain't broke, we should not attempt to fix it.
As the MSP for Shetland—an area where 200 jobs depend on salmon farming and 36 per cent of Scotland's farmed salmon is produced—I will make a brief contribution on amendments 41 and 22.
I take issue with Elaine Murray's point that the industry supports her proposal, as she said early on. The industry in my constituency absolutely does not support it.
I actually said that the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation supports the amendments, which it does.
It does, but it does not represent the entire industry. If she is to make a contention about the industry, I ask her please to be accurate about the industry's view.
The proposed measure is not good; it is centralising and anti-democratic. I am disappointed that good friends and colleagues of mine in Labour think that the measure is a way forward—I look particularly at Mr Peacock. I am sure that, as a Highlands and Islands representative, he will reflect on the amendments before he votes on them.
John Scott made a point that—
Will the member take an intervention?
In a minute—I will deal with Mr Scott's point.
John Scott suggested that different approaches throughout Scotland were a bad thing and that everything had to be done in the same way. I could not disagree more. He could and should ask the planning authorities that have dealt with salmon farming since the early 1980s to show him any problems that the existing regime has created, because they do not exist. Of course, procedures will always be refined, but John Scott and Elaine Murray contend that planning authorities—particularly those in Highland, Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles, which are the main authorities that deal with salmon farming—cannot do the task, which I do not believe is right. I hope that the cabinet secretary will hold to his position on how the matter is dealt with.
The idea that marine licensing is the only regime that applies to salmon farming is wholly wrong. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency and several other bodies deal with salmon farming day in, day out. In many ways, the consents that SEPA grants mean that it has more say than any other part of the system, so John Scott's suggestion that the matter is all down to planning again shows ignorance of the industry.
I hope that amendment 41 will be rejected. It is anti-democratic and would create more centralisation. We should not have it.
I am grateful to have the chance to respond to Tavish Scott and to support the amendments. I am in an unusual position. When I was Highland Council's leader, I argued strongly for fish farming powers to be removed from the Crown Estate and given to local authorities. If returning those powers to the Crown Estate had been proposed, I would argue against that, but that is not proposed.
The bill fundamentally shifts all permissions in the marine environment to Marine Scotland, with the sole exception of fish farming permissions. I was persuaded by the evidence that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee took—I thought that my role on the committee was to listen to such evidence. With the notable exception of Liam McArthur, the committee agreed overwhelmingly with the propositions that were put to us in evidence and agreed that fish farming should move to the marine planning system, to be consistent with everything else in Marine Scotland.
I know that local authorities are upset. I have had my ear severely chewed by Michael Foxley, Highland Council's leader. I have had representations from the Western Isles and I spoke to Shetland Islands Council's vice-convener the other day. I told them that they should be relaxed about the proposal and that they will have a big opportunity in the marine planning regional plan framework to lead the strategic planning process on where fish farms should be located—they will play a strong part in that.
As amendment 41 makes clear, the powers could be delegated straight back to local authorities, but in a consistent framework throughout Scotland of the Marine Scotland permissions system. For example, I know that Shetland Islands Council has an exemplary record in handling fish farming. I would fully expect that council to apply to be given the powers back and ministers to give them back. That would happen in a consistent framework that still allowed discretion for local councillors. On the basis of the evidence that we heard, that is a sensible way to move forward.
As we have just heard and as we all know, where the responsibility for marine fish farms should lie is controversial. The amendments have just generated some angst in the chamber.
The matter was well debated at stage 2 and the arguments remain the same. Amendment 22 would remove local authorities' controls over marine fish farming under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and would place responsibility for consents with Marine Scotland under the marine licensing system. Amendment 41 would make special mention of marine fish farming licensing decisions among those that can be delegated to bodies such as local authorities.
We acknowledge that requests have come from the aquaculture sector for greater streamlining of the consenting processes that apply to aquaculture and we are not unsympathetic to those pleas. Nonetheless, local authorities have a role in delivering local accountability, which cannot be dismissed lightly. The way through the problem is by involving local authorities in marine planning and by showing that local accountability can be safeguarded through the marine planning process.
My response to Bill Wilson's intervention is that we would of course be willing to speak to local authorities when more than one local authority is involved in one marine region, which would create the possibility of more than one licensing regime for aquaculture operators. Only once we have convinced local authorities and their stakeholders that local accountability can be safeguarded will we seek to ask them to consider what streamlining for aquaculture consents can be achieved.
The consenting regime for the aquaculture industry was significantly changed as recently as 2007 and further change now might not be a sensible way forward.
We appreciate the many pressures behind the amendments, but the issue is far too complicated for us simply to remove existing functions from local authorities. On that basis, we resist the amendments.
If what Bill Wilson said in his intervention on John Scott is the case, why on earth did he sign up to the committee's report? We are not talking about what was discussed thereafter.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, because we are short of time.
Tavish Scott's comments were impassioned but deeply uninformed. It is clear that he did not listen to me or John Scott and that he has not read the bill or the policy memorandum. The bill is about streamlining the licensing system, not centralising it. The bill also provides for delegation to regional planning partnerships and licensing authorities. If Tavish Scott checks the Official Report, he will find that I did not mention "the industry"—I talked about the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, from which the amendments originally came.
The amendments are not about centralisation. The bill allows the powers to be passed back to Shetland Islands Council, Western Isles Council and Highland Council, with additional powers for licensing activity elsewhere. The amendments would make the bill logical and would bring all marine licensing activity within the same legislative framework. Given that, I will press amendment 41.
The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 41 disagreed to.
Amendment 42 not moved.
Amendment 43 moved—[Elaine Murray].
The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 43 disagreed to.
Amendment 44 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 45—Register of licensing information
Group 13 is on marine licensing: registration of licensing information. Amendment 45, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendment 46.
I will be brief and will not repeat what I said about amendment 32, which was debated earlier, save to reiterate my regret at not having spotted earlier the shortcomings of amendments 45 and 46. I confirm that I will not press the amendments to a vote.
I move amendment 45.
Does the cabinet secretary want to respond?
No.
Amendment 45, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 46 not moved.
Section 52—Appeals against notices
Amendments 47 to 49 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 54—Power by order to provide marine fish farming is not "development"
Amendment 22 not moved.
Section 58—Marine protected areas
Group 14 is on marine protected areas: designation and review of achievement of objectives. Amendment 20, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 50 to 53, 3, 54 to 56, 114, 57, 4, 21, 115, 59, 60 and 90.
Presiding Officer, I hope that I can perhaps compensate for the brevity of my remarks in group 13. I will focus on amendments 20, 52, 60 and 90, which are in my name.
Amendment 20 is a reprise, as colleagues on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee will remember, of the sad, lonely islands preservation measure for which I sought support at stage 2. Committee colleagues will also recall my concern about the apparent uncertainty over the potential for the bill's provisions to encroach beyond stacks, crags and so on to include inhabited islands. I should perhaps declare an interest by making plain my opposition to, for example, Burray in Orkney being designated a marine protected area under the bill, no matter what historical artefacts my kids might in future disinter at the bottom of our garden. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for agreeing to consider the issue further and to his officials for liaising directly with Orkney Islands Council. I understand that a possible resolution may have been reached, so I will listen carefully to what the cabinet secretary has to say about amendment 20.
Amendment 60, too, returns to an issue that was debated at stage 2. I believe that the retention by SNH of a register of candidate sites would provide a degree of transparency about the likely extent of future designations and the reasons for those. Such a register would therefore limit the scope for mischief making by those who are intent on portraying the process somehow as a threat. I acknowledge the concerns that were raised by several members at stage 2 that such a provision might frustrate attempts to designate sites urgently or to adapt sites that have already been identified as candidates for designation, but I do not believe that that would be the case. Amendment 52 sets out a means whereby changes could be made to take account of, for example, new scientific evidence or other changed circumstances.
Finally, amendment 90 would allow Parliament oversight of the designation of nature conservation MPAs, demonstration and research MPAs and historic MPAs. Urgent designations would be specifically excluded, given the representations that were made at stage 2. I believe that amendment 90 would help to reinforce the perceived legitimacy and transparency of the process of designation.
I move amendment 20.
I will speak to all 17 amendments in group 14, so I apologise in advance for the length of this speech.
Amendment 20 would restrict the ability to include parts of small islands in MPAs. The amendment would replace the reference to "island" with the terms
"reef, skerry, stack or sandbar".
The existing drafting allows features that extend above high-water mark to be included in an MPA if they are connected to the features in the sea. Historic and marine biodiversity features are sometimes found above high water in places that would not be covered by the amendment. For example, historic artefacts above high water could be part of a submerged feature. The proposed provision would mean that unless the part above high water was on a reef or so on, we could not include it in an MPA even though it was very well connected. Therefore, two separate protected areas would need to be designated for a single feature. That would add to bureaucracy and cost and, as most members will accept, would be rather confusing to the public. In our opinion, the bill is best served by the term "island", which covers reefs, skerries, stacks and sandbars but is not restricted to those categories. I repeat that our intention is not to use the MPA powers to designate large islands or inhabited areas. I will be happy to write to Liam McArthur and to Orkney Islands Council to confirm that point if Liam McArthur will withdraw amendment 20.
Amendment 50 is a drafting amendment that will change the term "order" to "designation order" for the purpose of clarity in section 59.
Amendment 51 is connected to amendment 53. Together, amendments 51 and 53 will move text that was inserted by an amendment in the name of Elaine Murray at stage 2 that linked the designation of MPAs to the network of conservation sites. The text is much better moved to a more suitable place in section 59. In so doing, the amendments will retain the substance of Elaine Murray's stage 2 amendment.
Amendments 52 and 60, in the name of Liam McArthur, would introduce a new step in the MPA process by requiring SNH to maintain a register of candidate sites. Our intention has always been that Marine Scotland would lead on the identification of MPA proposals, with support from SNH. My aim has always been to move away from red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy where possible and, in doing so, to benefit the health of our seas and our marine industries. Amendments 52 and 60 risk creating confusion about, for example, what a candidate site is. Is a candidate site the same as an MPA, or is it a new category? Creating a new category of site would not be helpful to the process. We have to keep things simple if we can.
Amendments 52 and 60 would also add another layer of bureaucracy by in effect importing into the bill one of the more bureaucratic elements of the habitats directive. I wonder whether Liam McArthur really wishes us to go down that road. If greater transparency is the reason behind the amendments, I reassure him that we will work closely with stakeholders in identifying marine protected area proposals. For those reasons, and with the assurances that I have given, I urge Liam McArthur not to press amendment 52.
Amendment 3, in the name of Peter Peacock, is well intentioned and we are happy to support it.
Amendment 54, in the name of Robin Harper, seeks to reverse an amendment in the name of Karen Gillon that was agreed to at stage 2 that allowed for consideration of socioeconomics as part of the MPA designation process. We opposed Karen Gillon's amendment at the time, but she pressed the amendment and it was agreed to by the committee. Karen Gillon has subsequently written to the Government to clarify the intention behind her stage 2 amendment. We now understand that the text was amended to introduce a degree of flexibility into the MPA designation process that could be used only in exceptional circumstances. We have accepted Karen Gillon's clarification and we placed a letter in the Scottish Parliament information centre earlier this week to outline our thinking on the issue. As a result, I do not think that there is anything to be gained from amendment 54.
However, let me reaffirm that science should be the primary consideration, with provision to take account of socioeconomics in exceptional circumstances, for example when choosing between locations that make an equivalent contribution to the MPA network or when the network duty has already been met. Whether or not socioeconomic factors are considered for particular site proposals, the legal obligation will be to create a network of sites, as required by section 68A of the bill. We understand the good intentions behind amendment 54, but the committee has already voted on the issue at stage 2. For all the reasons that I have outlined, I ask Parliament to resist amendment 54 in the name of Robin Harper.
Amendment 55, in the name of Elaine Murray, is a good amendment, which we support. At stage 2, Elaine Murray lodged a similar amendment that was not pressed. At the time, we were opposed to the amendment not on principle but because it would have conflicted with the six-yearly reporting and monitoring requirements that are set out in section 91 of the bill. However, the revised amendment that Elaine Murray has lodged—amendment 55—has solved that problem and would allow the reporting and monitoring of MPAs to fit into the six-yearly reporting cycle that is required by section 91. We congratulate Elaine Murray on her revised amendment, which we urge Parliament to support.
Government amendment 56 is a consequential amendment to ensure consistency of drafting following acceptance at stage 2 of a Government amendment to tighten the test in section 61(1) for designating historic MPAs.
Amendment 114, in the name of Karen Gillon, would allow Scottish ministers to have regard to any social and economic consequences in considering whether it is desirable to designate an area as an historic MPA. As discussed at stage 2, our approach to heritage protection, whether on land or at sea, has always been that cultural significance should be the sole criterion for decisions to designate our most important heritage sites. We should take proper account of socioeconomics in how heritage sites are subsequently managed. We remain of that view on historic MPAs. The Parliament might be tempted by a drive for consistency with the position on nature conservation, but we should remember that each marine historic asset is a unique and finite resource that is non-renewable, vulnerable to man-made pressures and without capacity to recover if damaged.
For example, there is only one HMS Campania in the Firth of Forth. We cannot choose between two locations to minimise social or economic consequences. If we do not designate a nationally important historic asset where it is found because of the pressure to have regard to social or economic consequences that would come with amendment 114, we run the risk that the asset will be lost without our even having the right to ensure that it is properly investigated or recorded. I am sure that no one wants to go down that road.
There is also an issue that is specific to marine heritage. Some historic wrecks are directly targeted for commercial gain through the recovery and sale on the open market of valuable artefacts, which is a process that shows little regard for national heritage value. One of the unintended consequences of amendment 114 would be that treasure-hunting companies would argue that designations would have economic consequences on their pursuit of profit from Scotland's historic shipwrecks. We obviously want to avoid the risk of heritage value becoming sacrificed to narrow commercial interest. For those reasons, I ask Karen Gillon not to move amendment 114.
The Government's amendment 57 is a technical drafting amendment.
Peter Peacock's amendment 4 seems reasonable and would enhance the accountability and transparency of the MPA designation process for the general public, so we support it and urge Parliament to do likewise.
Elaine Murray's amendment 21 seeks to shorten the period for which an urgent MPA designation may stay in place. Designation is based on marine research, which can take a significant amount of planning and resourcing, and is entirely dependent on the weather. A period of 12 months would be too short to guarantee that proper research into a potential MPA could be carried out. Urgent MPAs will be used only in exceptional cases, when there is a clear need to act fast. They will not be used as a matter of course. I hope that that gives Elaine Murray some comfort.
Under the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Scottish ministers have powers to designate MPAs in the Scottish offshore zone. The UK act powers are now fixed and include a two-year period—the period that is currently set out in the Scottish bill. It is important that timescales inside and outside the 12 nautical mile zone are consistent, so that they can be understood by the marine industries and other stakeholders. We urge Parliament to resist amendment 21.
Robin Harper's amendment 115 seeks to require Scottish ministers to review any urgent MPA designation that extends beyond six months. In practice, I am not sure that it is necessary. When Scottish ministers designate an MPA using the urgent process, they will seek to review the situation as soon as possible, and normally within the period that is mentioned in amendment 115. The review will determine the case for the designation to be made permanent. However, it could well be that the data that are needed to make a full assessment of the site are not available within the six-month period, which could restrict the case for making the designation permanent. Nonetheless, we are content to accept amendment 115 because we are relaxed about the impact that it will have in practice.
Robin Harper's amendment 59 seeks to constrain use of the urgent MPA designation process for a second time in the same location. If an urgent designation order were made and Scottish ministers did not take steps to make the order final, any attempt to make a second urgent designation could, I believe, be challenged. I have said repeatedly that, if used at all, an urgent MPA would be used only in exceptional circumstances. For those reasons, we are doubtful that amendment 59 is necessary, but we are content to support it to make the position absolutely clear on the face of the bill.
Liam McArthur's amendment 90 was debated and defeated at stage 2, and our position on it has not changed. We see no particular reason for designation orders to be statutory instruments, and the Subordinate Legislation Committee was content with that position. If Liam McArthur is still intent on moving the amendment, I urge Parliament to vote against it for the reasons that I have outlined.
I am sorry for the length of my remarks, but there were 17 amendments to deal with.
I am grateful for the minister's indication of support for amendments 3 and 4; I am slightly surprised by his support for one of them, but I am nonetheless grateful.
I will not labour the point about the amendments, but I refer to the letter that the minister sent out following stage 2 and the change that was made to the bill with regard to socioeconomic considerations. That letter is extremely helpful, as is the fact that he has referred to it on the record. I take it that the spirit and the detail of that letter apply equally to climate change considerations—I believe that that should be the case.
I hope that the Parliament will support both amendments.
I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about amendment 54. The Scottish Green Party strongly believes that the designation of marine protected areas should be based on the best available scientific advice and on biodiversity needs alone. In the light of the assurances that the cabinet secretary gave, I am happy not to move amendment 54.
I intend to move amendments 115 and 59 because, in our opinion, there is a loophole. The amendments seek to tighten up the way in which an urgent designation order may be used. Given all the associated impacts that urgent designation of an MPA could have on a licensed activity, it is only fair that the Government should review the impact of the designation timeously.
A good deal of knowledge of a historic or environmental feature will be necessary to bring about an urgent designation in the first place. For example, if an archaeological feature is uncovered by a dredger and the dredging is stopped, it is far more appropriate to hold a review after six months than it is to wait until the end of the designation to assess the effect. Likewise, if the bold step of suspending a renewables licence is taken as a result of an urgent MPA designation, an assessment of the impact of the switch-off needs to be carried out sooner rather than later.
Amendment 115 would not prevent an order from remaining in place for the full designation period. It would simply require the situation to be reviewed after six months so that the impact of the designation could be better established.
Amendment 59 would ensure that if an urgent designation were put in place, the area could be considered for full MPA designation rather than face continued repeat urgent designations over time. At present, nothing would stop continued redesignation of a site under section 67 without any consultation. Amendment 59 would close that loophole by preventing the redesignation of the site on the expiry of the original order.
In relation to other concerns, it is important to make clear amendment 59's intention to prevent avoidance of the consultation provisions. It seeks to prevent an immediate repeat urgent designation of the same area; it is not intended to prevent the urgent designation of the area for any purpose ever again. It is quite clear from case law that that statement will clear up any future ambiguity. The authority for that is the case of Pepper v Hart, in case anyone wants to know.
As the cabinet secretary said, amendment 55 would require ministers to make periodic assessments of the success of a nature conservation MPA in achieving the objectives for which it was designated. As the cabinet secretary also said, I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2 but withdrew it because of an issue with conflicting timescales. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary confirmed that amendment 55 conforms with the provisions of section 91, which requires ministers to lay before Parliament a report that sets out
"the extent to which in the opinion of the Scottish Ministers the stated conservation objectives have been achieved".
I believe that it is important that there is a process of assessment.
Amendment 21 is another that had a forerunner at stage 2, which was one of a series of amendments that sought to alter the designation period for an urgent MPA. Since lodging the amendment, I have become aware that, like the bill, the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 includes a maximum period of two years for the designation of an urgent MPA. I think that it makes sense to maintain consistency between the bill and the UK act, so I will not move amendment 21.
I support the cabinet secretary's amendments 51 and 53. Amendment 51 seeks to move wording that was introduced in the bill by an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 slightly further up the section, and to reintroduce wording that was deleted by my amendment at stage 2. This is an example of the sort of problem that Liam McArthur encountered with amendment 32, whereby the sponsors of the amendment negotiate on behalf of the member who lodged it without communicating with them. Unfortunately, a phrase was missed out of the amendment, and I am glad that the minister has reintroduced it.
I was interested by the cabinet secretary's views on Robin Harper's amendments 115 and 59. We, too, wondered whether amendment 115 was necessary, but if the cabinet secretary is content to accept it, we should be content with that. We had some concerns about amendment 59 and whether it would mean that if the designation of an MPA that had been urgently designated ceased and the reasons for that urgent designation reappeared, urgent redesignation could not take place. If Robin Harper or Richard Lochhead could clarify that, it would give us some comfort.
As the cabinet secretary said, I moved an amendment at stage 2 to ensure that, in designating any nature conservation MPA, ministers would have regard to the social or economic consequences of designation. The fishing industry and the renewables industry welcomed that amendment and the committee's decision on it. The amendment gave the cabinet secretary the flexibility to have regard to socioeconomic issues in designation. He was correct. It was not my intention that the provision be used regularly; rather, it was to be used only in exceptional circumstances, particularly where a range of measures were coming together.
The policy intention of amendment 114 is to have consistency in relation to historic MPAs. Initially, I hoped that the helpful letter that the cabinet secretary sent would provide similar comfort on historic MPAs. However, I understand the points that he has made, particularly on unintended consequences for treasure hunters, who may seek to use the provision to plunder the historic assets of Scotland's coastline. For those reasons, I do not intend to move the amendment.
I support Elaine Murray's amendment 55, which allows for the assessment and evaluation from time to time of nature conservation MPAs. That is entirely reasonable.
Like Karen Gillon, I was going to support amendment 114, but, given what the cabinet secretary said and Karen Gillon's intention not to move it, I will not be required to support it.
Peter Peacock's amendment 4 would insert into section 65 the words:
"indicate where a plan or chart identifying the area's boundaries can be obtained or inspected."
That amendment is also sensible.
I had doubts about Robin Harper's amendments 115 and 59, too, but if the cabinet secretary is prepared to accept them, who are we not to?
That is a remarkable concession or confession from John Scott.
I acknowledge the helpful clarification that the cabinet secretary provided on my amendment 20 and his offer to write to me and to Orkney Islands Council. I welcome that commitment and confirm that I will not press the amendment. However, I am slightly disappointed that he felt unable to repeat that approach in relation to amendment 90, which I will move.
I noted what the cabinet secretary had to say about the lack of clarity and certainty that amendments 60 and 52 may introduce. Perhaps that is slightly contradicted by the comments and support from Scottish Renewables, which the amendments would have a direct impact on. It thinks that a register of candidate sites for nature conservation MPAs, including the reasons why they are good candidate sites, would provide transparency and certainty.
I support Peter Peacock's amendments in the group. Like him, I am a little surprised that they have been accepted, but that is to be welcomed. The cabinet secretary sent a helpful letter to the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, some of which he put on the record today. I noted the slightly disingenuous reference in that letter to the fact that
"the UK Government has now clarified that it plans to follow a similar policy in terms of the exercise of the equivalent power in section 117(7) of the UK Marine and Coastal Act."
My understanding was that the Scottish Government was being urged to follow precisely the approach that had been adopted by the UK Government, but perhaps that is splitting hairs.
On amendment 53, I share Elaine Murray's pain and welcome the fact that Richard Lochhead has sought to address the anomaly at stage 3.
I echo the comments that John Scott made in support of Elaine Murray's amendment 55. Our concerns at stage 2 have been addressed, and it is welcome that she has successfully brought back the matter at stage 3.
Karen Gillon is dashing from the chamber—I had a similar effect at the Burns supper I was at last night. Her comments on her amendment 114 are welcome. I echo the concerns that the cabinet secretary expressed about the potential unintended consequences of the amendment. It may have achieved some consistency, but it is inappropriate. I am grateful for Karen Gillon's confirmation that she will not move it.
I also echo the comments that John Scott made about Robin Harper's amendments 115 and 59. I was slightly surprised to hear that the cabinet secretary supports those amendments. We see no reason not to support them and, on that basis, I hope that they will be agreed to.
I welcome the debate on this group of amendments and confirm that I will not press amendment 20.
Amendment 20, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 59—Nature Conservation MPAs: additional requirements relating to designation
Amendments 50 and 51 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Amendment 52 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 52 disagreed to.
Amendment 53 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 54 not moved.
After section 60
Amendment 55 moved—[Elaine Murray]—and agreed to.
Section 63—Historic MPAs: additional requirements etc
Amendment 56 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Amendment 114 not moved.
Section 65—Publicity and consultation etc before designation
Amendment 57 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 67—Urgent designation
Amendment 21 not moved.
Amendment 115 moved—[Robin Harper].
The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 116, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 115 agreed to.
Amendment 59 moved—[Robin Harper]—and agreed to.
Section 69—Advice etc by Scottish Natural Heritage as regards Nature Conservation MPAs and Demonstration and Research MPAs
Amendment 60 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 60 disagreed to.
Section 71—Duties of public authorities in relation to marine protected areas etc
We move to group 15. Amendment 61, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 62 to 65.
Government amendments 61 and 63 relate to an amendment that Elaine Murray lodged at stage 2. Elaine Murray's amendment would have required public authorities to exercise their functions in ways best calculated to further the contribution of a nature conservation MPA to the MPA network. I accepted the principle at stage 2 but indicated that we would improve the text at stage 3. Amendment 61 removes Elaine Murray's original amendment and amendment 63 inserts the duty in a more suitable place, in section 71. The problem with its current position is that it splits paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 71(2), which are closely linked to each other.
Government amendments 62, 64 and 65 are minor drafting amendments that change incorrect references to "Scottish National Heritage" instead of Scottish Natural Heritage.
I move amendment 61.
I support the cabinet secretary's amendments 61 and 63, which, as he says, tidy up an amendment that was lodged at stage 2. It is always worth having the advice of the Government's draftspeople on such issues to ensure that provisions are placed appropriately in the bill.
I was amused to see amendments 62, 64 and 65, which replace "Scottish National Heritage" with Scottish Natural Heritage. I do not know what crossed the minds of the draftspeople when they were writing the bill, but it has been put right now.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
Amendments 62 to 64 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 72—Duties of public authorities in relation to certain decisions
Amendment 65 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 76—Procedure for marine conservation orders
We move to group 16. Amendment 66, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 67, 116, 117 and 68.
At stage 2, Liam McArthur lodged amendment 234, which required the Scottish ministers to provide a copy of the draft marine conservation order to the relevant planning authority if the order would apply to parts of land—for example, the intertidal area. That fine principle was agreed to by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, but the phrase "relevant planning authority" is not the accepted term in planning legislation. Amendment 66 remedies the situation by replacing that term with the phrase:
"planning authority in whose district the land is situated".
Amendment 67 better defines the term "planning authority" in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
I now speak to Karen Gillon's amendments 116 and 117. Marine conservation orders will be used only where necessary to support MPA objectives. They will be used mainly to manage otherwise uncontrolled activities that pose a threat to a protected feature or asset. The bill provides ministers with powers to give any person—I repeat, any person—the opportunity to make representations. In that context, amendments 116 and 117 are unnecessary—in fact, they amount to an extra step in the process and would probably add to costs. They would allow people to make further representations over and above those that had already been made, and there is no provision for ministers to judge whether the representations amount to a significant interest. The provision could be used vexatiously to prevent nationally important features from being protected on the grounds of minor impacts to existing activities.
We have tried to create a marine bill that balances economic, social and environmental interests for the purpose of sustainable economic growth. Amendments 116 and 117 affect that balance and go against those principles. The provision that they would insert could be used vexatiously, and the only thing that they add is an extra layer of bureaucracy with attendant costs. I therefore urge Parliament to resist them and ask the member not to move them.
We think that there are good intentions behind Liam McArthur's amendment 68, but we believe that it is unnecessary. It is very prescriptive and would be difficult to apply in practice. In practice, consideration would be given to the socioeconomic impacts arising from a marine conservation order, and I have already mentioned that those powers would be used only where necessary. We would also assess displacement effects, where possible, although in practice it can often be difficult to identify whether displacement is likely or where it is likely to take place. In our view, a requirement to do that in all instances before action is taken to protect the features of an MPA is not reasonable.
Amendment 68 could have several unintended consequences. First, it would remove the flexibility that Marine Scotland has to tailor its approach—including the allocation of resources—to the consideration of each individual MPA. Secondly, it could open the marine conservation order process to vexatious disputes. MCOs could be held up for years because of claims that Marine Scotland had not explored every possible effect that an MCO could have. Let us not make the process unworkable before it has even got under way.
Section 76 already includes a requirement on ministers to send a draft order to any persons who have an interest in, or who would be affected by, a marine conservation order. At that point, Marine Scotland, working with stakeholders, would assess the environmental, social and economic impacts and any displacement that could result. I provide a clear undertaking that those issues will be assessed where possible. For all those reasons, I urge Parliament to reject amendment 68.
I move amendment 66.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment similar to amendment 116 that sought to ensure that there would be an opportunity for those who could demonstrate that their economic interests had been adversely affected to have their representations heard. The cabinet secretary resisted that amendment for a variety of reasons. In the process leading up to stage 3, we sought a compromise that would be acceptable to the Government, but that has clearly not been achieved. Nevertheless, it is only reasonable that, if a person can demonstrate prima facie that his or her economic interests would be materially affected by the exercise of any of the powers in the bill, he or she has a right to be heard. That is particularly important when the loss of the interest would not be subject to the payment of any compensation or any form of appeal.
In trying to reach a compromise, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, in particular, did not go so far as to say that the minister must take such representations into account in reaching his decisions, only that he must listen to them. Amendment 116 aims to ensure, first, that the person who is making the representations has already made representations under section 76 and, secondly, that the procedure is not available in the case of an emergency MCO. We believed that amendment 116 was a compromise that would be accepted by the Government, and I intend to move both my amendments.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on amendments 66 and 67. As he said, they arise from concerns that I raised at stage 2, and I am delighted that he has been able to address them at stage 3.
Like Karen Gillon's amendment 116, my amendment 68 is similar to one that I lodged but did not press to a vote at stage 2. Since then, I have worked closely with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Scottish Renewables and Scottish Environment LINK to address concerns that were raised by the cabinet secretary and Scottish Environment LINK at stage 2. The amendment satisfies the three bodies; therefore, notwithstanding the cabinet secretary's concerns, I intend to move it.
Displacement of activity in the marine environment is, at times, an inevitable consequence of marine spatial planning. Indeed, there is growing evidence that such displacement need be seen not as a threat but as something that could deliver economic as well as social and environmental benefits. However, in the interests of building trust and confidence among communities and those directly affected, we need to be as clear as we can about the likely extent and consequences of any displacement, whether it be fishing, recreation or some other activity.
Although I acknowledge what the cabinet secretary says about the limitations of what can be done to assess the impact on one area of prohibiting or restricting activities in another area, there is a good case for requiring such issues to be properly considered. Amendment 68 seeks to achieve just that, and I am grateful to the bodies that I mentioned for their assistance in arriving at a form of wording that is acceptable to them all.
Karen Gillon has taken on board the concerns that some of us had at stage 2, and her amendments 116 and 117 are acceptable to us.
Amendment 66 agreed to.
Amendment 67 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 79—Representations and hearings in relation to proposed marine conservation orders etc
Amendment 116 moved—[Karen Gillon].
The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 58, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 116 disagreed to.
Amendment 117 moved—[Karen Gillon].
The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 117 disagreed to.
After section 79
Amendment 68 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 60, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Section 85—Exceptions to offences under section 82, 83 or 84
We move to group 17. Amendment 118 is in the name of Kenny Gibson.
It is important to have appropriate fines for people who cause damage in marine protected areas, regardless of who they are or what their occupation is. I am concerned about the exemption for commercial fishermen in section 85(2), as are the Community of Arran Seabed Trust in my constituency and Scottish Environment LINK.
The sea provides livelihoods for people in many industries, from ports to tourism and from aquaculture to the oil industry, and all sectors should be treated equally. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
I move amendment 118.
The bill provides an exemption from the offence of damaging an MPA where that happens as an unforeseen and incidental result of a lawful operation. In addition, there is a defence over and above that in respect of certain sea fisheries activities. The sea fishing defence has been thought necessary because of the requirements of the common fisheries policy. We do not wish to create an unequal playing field by creating offences that will apply to Scottish fishing boats but not to other European Union fishing boats. At stage 2, we lodged an amendment that would allow the defence of section 85(2) to be removed or restricted by order in future. Our intention is that the power will be used only where there is agreement at European level that would allow us to remove the fishermen's defence without discriminating against our fishermen as compared to those of other EU nations.
The bill's provisions on fishermen's defence are consistent with the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The UK act applies to the offshore waters adjacent to Scotland and the Scottish ministers have certain responsibilities for that area under the 2009 act. There is a strong argument for keeping the legislation covering MPAs in inshore and offshore waters around Scotland as consistent as possible, so I ask Kenneth Gibson to consider withdrawing amendment 118.
I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on lodging his amendment. There is an important philosophical point to be made here. The seas are a commons, which means either that they belong to nobody or that they belong to everybody. The attitude of people in general is beginning to change and fishermen, too, are enthusiastically, I hope, joining in efforts to conserve the fish stocks in our waters. I observe that it is perhaps the EU that should be changing its regulations rather than Scotland having to have regulations that do not protect our MPAs sufficiently. I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on raising the issue.
I oppose the amendment. The issue was fully debated by the committee during its consideration of the bill and it was clear to us that we did not want to put our fishermen at a disadvantage compared to those from other countries who could come and fish in our waters.
When they lodge amendments it is important that members have regard to the evidence that committees have received. On this issue, it is important that members have regard to the disadvantage at which the amendment would put our fishermen, at a time when they are already hard pressed by aspects of the common fisheries policy.
To give some comfort to Robin Harper, I say that he should bear it in mind that, with regard to the management schemes that are put in place following the conservation orders to help look after marine protected areas, there is always the option of using existing legislation, should certain activities need to be restricted in certain circumstances.
There is a delicate balance here. I listened to all the arguments that have been made, but I gave the most credence to Robin Harper's, because we need to think about the long-term health and safety of the seas if we are to have long-term sustainability. His argument is that, rather than moving towards what is being done in the EU, the EU should move towards a position in which it protects our seas a bit more.
The question is, that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP) Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con) Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP) Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP) Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP) Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP) Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab) Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab) Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP) Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD) Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con) Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP) Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP) Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP) Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD) McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD) McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP) McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con) McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP) McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP) Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD) Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP) Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP) Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP) Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD) Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP) Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP) Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD) Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP) Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP) White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab) Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP) Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 115, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 118 disagreed to.
Section 90—Directions as to making, amending or revocation of schemes
Amendment 69 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 91—Reports to Parliament
Group 18 is on reports to Parliament on marine protected area designation. Amendment 70, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendment 71.
The reward for our unexpectedly swift progress on the earlier groupings is that we get to the learning through doing provisions before lunch time. As the school pupils in the public gallery who have stuck with us throughout the votes this morning will certainly testify, there is much to be gained from the learning through doing process.
At stage 2, the cabinet secretary offered to consider how we might learn more from doing more than my amendments at that stage would have required him to do. I am grateful to him and his officials for assisting me in lodging amendments that will enable lessons to be learned by evaluating the management effectiveness of MPAs. Through constant revision and improvement, we can be more confident that the goals and objectives that underpin the MPAs are being met and will be met in the future. I urge Parliament to support amendments 70 and 71.
I move amendment 70.
In our opinion, the amendments that Liam McArthur has lodged as a result of his philosophy of learning through doing are very useful. They amend section 91 so that reports must include information on any amendments to marine conservation orders, urgent continuation orders or marine management schemes, including those that are brought about as a result of monitoring. We are happy to support the amendments.
Amendment 70 agreed to.
Amendment 71 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
The next group is particularly large, and there are many speakers and amendments to be moved. I suggest that we suspend until 11:40 and continue in the afternoon.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—