Scotland's Beaches: A National Resource
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1266, in the name of Allan Wilson, on Scotland's beaches, a national resource, and on three amendments to that motion.
Having opened the debate on bathing water quality last December, I am particularly pleased to move a related motion today on the importance of Scotland's beaches.
I am sure that everybody would agree that the debate should celebrate the success of the 40 Scottish beaches, including 14 first-time winners, that have recently secured Keep Scotland Beautiful seaside awards for quality and cleanliness. I am sure that all members will want to join me in congratulating all those involved who have worked in concert to win those awards. It would be remiss of me not to single out Montrose for a special mention as the most improved beach in Britain, not just in Scotland.
Although none of us would want to diminish that achievement, it would be wrong to say that all is right with the seaside world. It is clear that that is not the case; there is always room for improvement. We have been reminded of that recently with the publication of the Marine Conservation Society's "Beachwatch 2003" report last week. The report showed that litter on Scotland's beaches continues to be a problem. I would argue that we have a collective social responsibility to address in that respect. I want to say more about that a little later.
The debate should also send a clear signal about the national importance of Scotland's beaches as a natural attraction for visitors to our shores. Given that tourism accounts for around 9 per cent of Scottish employment, it plays a crucial role in the Scottish economy. In the latest VisitScotland tourism attitudes survey, three of the top five attributes that were attached to Scotland as a tourism destination were linked to our environment. The key factors were peace and quiet, fresh air and scenery. As all members know, Scottish beaches can provide all those attributes, so I make no apology for talking them up.
Although I will not go over the ground that we covered when we debated bathing water quality in December, it is difficult to draw a distinction between beaches and bathing water, so I will refer briefly to bathing water quality before I move on to address other matters. The debate last year drew attention to the best-ever Scottish bathing season in terms of water quality. It acknowledged that there is no room for complacency, however, and trailed a public consultation on our bathing waters designation policy. The consultation is now well under way and it will help to shape the way in which we review the designations, based on new data on bathing water usage. Some members might be tempted to use today's debate to press for the bathing waters in their area to be designated. I hope that they will be patient and allow us to go through due process before we come to a view.
Important though it is, the quality of bathing water is not the only determinant of the quality and standard of a beach. The majority of people who visit a beach are more likely to walk or sit on the sand than they are to enter the water. I will let members guess why that is the case. High standards of cleanliness on the beach must be provided and must continue to be a priority.
It is natural for central and local government to bear the brunt of regular criticism about unclean beaches. That is fair enough and I have no general problem with that, as it goes with the job. However, it overlooks a fundamental point, which is one that I hope we can collectively drive home in the debate. The point is a fairly obvious one, which is that it is not central and local government that is dropping the litter; it is the person in the street or on the beach who is doing so.
Does the minister agree that to a large extent the serious problem on our beaches is plastic waste, which is becoming a hazard to many marine life species both on the beaches and in our seas? I refer the minister to the recent death of a rare Cuvier's beaked whale in Loch Tuath on Mull. Its stomach was found to be full of black plastic. Does the minister agree that any measures that the Executive might take to address the problem with regard to plastic would be welcomed?
I agree entirely, which is one of the reasons why I will move on to address plastic waste. The new recycling targets that we are setting for plastic will mean that we will recover more plastic packaging than has been the case in the past.
Local authorities spend millions of pounds each year clearing rubbish and that is money that could be better spent elsewhere. It is a sad fact that many people in this country discard their plastic refuse or other litter carelessly. They have no pride in their surroundings, no respect for their environment and no consideration for the image of their country. That attitude has to change and that can happen only through education, raising awareness and effective deterrents. No one body or person can do all of that on its or their own. The only way to achieve those goals is by working together.
A review of litter and fly-tipping legislation that was carried out for the Executive in 2002 highlighted a lack of a strategy in many areas of Scotland. With support from us, Keep Scotland Beautiful has established the Scottish fly-tipping forum, which includes representatives from major stakeholders such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the local authorities, the police, Network Rail, NFU Scotland and landowners. Significant progress is being made by the forum to create local working partnerships that can tackle fly-tipping incidents in their areas. Members will no doubt have seen or heard the adverts highlighting the creation of the fly-tipping stop line as part of the forum's dumb dumpers campaign. The stop line has received 400 calls since its launch in March, which is a significant number. Co-operative action is also in hand to update the code of practice on litter and refuse, which includes beaches and sets minimum standards of cleanliness.
All of that helps to address the range of issues in the "Beachwatch 2003" report, but I would like to say something specifically about plastic waste, as it features so prominently in the report and is the subject of recommendations about packaging use and recycling. As I hinted, in 2004, for the first time, we are setting a specific target for the amount of plastic packaging that must be recycled; the target is 21.5 per cent and will increase to 23.5 per cent in 2008. As members know, we are already disbursing hundreds of millions of pounds through our strategic waste fund to meet our landfill reduction targets and our own target of recycling 25 per cent of waste by 2006.
There is much more that I could say, but I want to listen to what others have to say. We are doing and planning to do a lot. Those efforts should help to ensure that we have even more to celebrate at the seaside awards and that we have better results in the next Beachwatch report. Our beaches are a national resource that attract economic benefits to the country, and we should treat them with the respect that they deserve.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of Scottish beaches in attracting visitors to Scotland; welcomes the results of the recent Keep Scotland Beautiful survey of resort beaches with the granting of Seaside Awards to 40 Scottish beaches including 14 new recipients; acknowledges the impact of beach litter as highlighted in the recent Marine Conservation Society's Beachwatch 2003 Report; commends the partnership approach taken between the Scottish Executive and other bodies to help address the issues raised in Beachwatch 2003; endorses the continuation of that approach, and encourages the public to take more responsibility for its own litter to ensure that Scotland's beaches continue to be a valued and productive national resource.
Although beaches are an important aspect of what people see of Scotland, it surprises me that we are discussing them for the second time in my short time in the Parliament, given the large number of topics that I would have hoped the Executive would bring forward. Some members of the Executive parties are here who do not even have beaches in their constituencies, so welcome to "life is a beach" once again.
Scottish beaches should be a sustainable resource to attract visitors, but for that to happen the Scottish Executive will require to co-ordinate all marine laws. We will look at the marine environment in more detail, but beaches are part of that. We need to take full control of our coasts, because far too many of the powers over them are reserved, and they are not co-ordinated in any way.
Clearly, the bathing beaches of the Mediterranean are much cleaner than our own. Only 2 per cent of bathing beaches in Spain fail the quality measures, but 5 per cent of bathing beaches in Scotland fail. The debate has to get to the root of why that is so. We have no time to be self-congratulatory, but we can report some progress, as the minister has shown to some degree.
We all have to help to keep Scotland beautiful, so that we can address why our beaches are twice as likely to fail European Union requirements, despite many of them being less crowded than those of our neighbours down south. However, who among the public feels any personal responsibility for the care of our beaches? The minister mentioned that people need to be made to feel more responsibility. I think that there is a need for transparency and local ownership. The care of beaches will be maintained and improved only if people feel they have some say in how they are looked after.
I do not know whether Rob Gibson knows this, but on the island of Sardinia local traders are not allowed to sell items in plastic bags in case the bags end up in the sea. Those traders have to sell items in paper bags. Does he think that such a system would be a good one for Scotland?
It would be a good idea, but as much of the plastic that blows around and ends up in the sea is not dropped by traders, we would have to take the wider issue that plastic is a major problem, as Mike Pringle said. We should recognise that plastic is only one of a range of issues that has to be addressed to clean up our beaches. If he is given time to speak, my colleague Adam Ingram will give an excellent example of the local control of beaches in Ayrshire, which could be a great help.
The results of the Marine Conservation Society's "Beachwatch 2003" report show a huge increase in pollution on our beaches—a 99 per cent increase since 1994, 29 per cent of which has occurred since 2002. Of the litter that was removed from a sample of 23 Scottish beaches, 31 per cent—about a third—was from beach visitors, 10.8 per cent was from fishing and marine sources, and 12.7 per cent was from sewage sources. A breakdown of where the litter comes from might answer part of Mr McGrigor's query.
How damaging are nuclear elements, such as technetium-99, which is discharged by Sellafield? How dangerous are plastic bags? How dangerous are the radioactive particles that are exposed on Sandside beach in Caithness? Such matter is not litter that can easily be removed, so we must measure not only the amount of radioactive material on the beaches but how dangerous it is for the people who use those beaches. The health risks that are associated with bathing take on an added dimension in that context.
We must reduce the amount of material that is put into the sea. My leader, John Swinney, visited the Irish Minister for Environment and Local Government in July 2003 to discuss the Irish Government's international court case that aimed to close down Sellafield, which is known to contribute 87 per cent of the collective radiation dose to EU member states through its discharges. We receive the first such doses. We cannot be self-congratulatory about that.
Furthermore, Kimo, the local authorities international environmental association, which is an organisation with which I have been associated in the past, has shown that seabirds have a lot of plastic in their guts. Much of that must be stopped and I hope that the Parliament will give local authorities more powers to deal with such matters. I am delighted that local authorities are beginning to take the lead in trying to prevent plastic bags from being thrown about. Members can imagine how many of those end up in the sea when they are discarded on islands.
We applaud the slow progress in the area and we will support the Green and Tory amendments to the motion, but the Scottish National Party's amendment calls for measures that represent an integral part of the way ahead.
I move amendment S2M-1266.3, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Executive to step up pressure against illegal disposal of waste at sea including discharges by the nuclear industry."
I hope to call everyone, but the debate is as tight as a drum.
I agree with some of Rob Gibson's opening remarks, as it seems ironic that we are spending so much time talking about beaches. However, the debate offers a useful opportunity to focus on a number of elements that are linked and that are strong strands of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's work during the past year.
Scotland's beaches are indeed a wonderful resource. We have some of the most beautiful beaches in the world. We see pictures of Mediterranean or Pacific island beaches, but our beaches genuinely match those.
Not the water.
I was coming to that.
Is there not a bit of a contradiction in agreeing with the nationalists that we should not be talking about beaches, but then identifying that some of the most iconic images of Scotland that we could hope to see are images of our beautiful beaches?
Please let me get started.
When we talk about the quality of our beaches, we must remember that our climate is such that we have difficulties in exploiting them. Our beaches would be far more valuable to us if the water were a few degrees warmer and the odd palm tree grew behind them. For that reason, we must consider our beaches and the resource that they provide in terms of the damage that we are doing to them and the way in which they can be exploited in time.
The motion and the amendments that have been lodged are all acceptable to the Conservatives and we will support them. The Conservative amendment was lodged because we have considerable concerns about the progress that is being made on improving bathing water quality, as we have said in the past. We acknowledge that the Executive has made enormous progress, but if we are to achieve further success against ever-tightening criteria, we must put in place a planning system that allows the development of the necessary resources in order further to improve the quality of the water that we eventually allow into the sea.
During the Environment and Rural Development Committee's inquiry into the national waste plan, accountability was considered in relation to landfill. We must take that into account when we deal with the issue of the rubbish that appears on beaches. The minister raised the issue of fly-tipping. I hope that in his summing up he says more about the extent to which fly-tipping contributes towards the rubbish that we find lying on many of our beaches and particularly whether the issue arises mainly because of fly-tipping of rubbish on beaches or because of rubbish that is washed up on beaches as a result of fly-tipping.
I hope that Adam Ingram has a chance to speak later in the debate. A couple of months ago, I visited Ayrshire to speak to a Conservative association. When it was discovered that I was my party's environment spokesman, I was dragged out to see Irvine beach, which had quite a bit of rubbish on it at the time, and I was told about similar problems at Prestwick.
I support the other amendments, but I must pay particular attention to the one that Rob Gibson lodged on behalf of the SNP. He mentioned contamination from nuclear particles. I should clarify comments that I and other members of my party have made about nuclear power. The Conservative party supports the extension of nuclear power in the longer term and will continue to do so because of this country's need for cheap, clean and effective energy sources. However, the issue that he raises about discharges from Sellafield and Dounreay is an on-going concern that we must deal with. In that respect, he has my full support.
I move amendment S2M-1266.1, to insert at end:
"but notes the importance of continuing improvement in bathing water quality in Scotland to the quality of our beaches and believes that further progress is now dependent on addressing the limitations of Scottish Water and the planning system."
I welcome the attention that the Executive has devoted to beaches recently, although I only wish that it would devote half as much time to climate change, which is a problem that could have a bearing on the location, as well as the condition, of beaches in Scotland.
Slightly fewer than 3 million people visited beaches in Scotland in 2002, spending a little over £500 million. Fifty-six per cent of people in Scotland make at least one beach visit per year and the figure rises to 80 per cent among communities that live close to a beach. That boils down to the fact that beaches are an important part of everyday life in Scotland.
I join the Executive in welcoming the results of the recent Keep Scotland Beautiful survey. It is a major achievement that beaches such as Burntisland and St Andrews west in my region achieved high scores in the survey. However, we are not without difficulties. The first newsletter of the tourism and the environment forum opened with an article on cleaning Scotland's beaches, which stated:
"The recurring theme, however, is that any action to combat the growing problem of beach litter has to be taken at all levels—global, national, regional and local—and that it needs to be taken immediately."
That statement was made in the autumn of 1995; since then, beach litter has nearly doubled.
I welcome the Executive's acknowledgement of the impacts of beach litter, but the motion falls slightly short of the mark—it is not enough to encourage the public to take more responsibility for their litter. Litter from beach visitors is the single largest source of litter on beaches and the fact that it has increased by 20 per cent since 2002 is a sad reflection on some beach users' attitudes. However, litter from that source still accounted for less than half of the litter on any beach surveyed. Sewage-related debris was the second most common source of litter in Scotland, with levels almost double that of any other area in the UK. The Executive needs to take a firmer stance on the issue of sewage-related debris.
I know that Mark Ruskell is a fair man, so I hope that he appreciates that the Scottish figures were distorted by the incidence of cotton buds on the Saltings to Bowling beach—56 per cent of the entire UK haul of cotton buds appeared on that one beach. Even the Marine Conservation Society is clear that that was an anomaly that distorted the overall figure. That is the one reason why I am not supportive of Mr Ruskell's amendment.
I am sure that that was an unwelcome peak on that beach on that day. However, even given that aspect, Scotland's record is still not better than that of other areas in the UK.
The European Commission urban waste water treatment directive will require sewage discharges that serve more than 2,000 people to receive secondary treatment by 2005. As a result, the only areas in which raw sewage may still be discharged from coastal and estuarine outfalls will be those that have populations of fewer than 2,000 people. Unfortunately, that creates a problem, because it means that many of Scotland's finest coastal areas will slip through the net.
I have some concerns about the Executive's proposal, which was contained in its recently released consultation paper on the EC bathing water directive, to introduce a threshold of 200 users as a cut-off figure for formal designation of a bathing area. Although I welcome the move to include in that figure all beach users rather than just the 10 per cent or so who go into the water, I fear that the Executive's suggestion means that an area's intrinsic merits could be overlooked simply on the basis of a low user number, even though for many of the people who use Scotland's beaches, one of their most attractive features is their relative remoteness from crowds.
We cannot talk about beaches in isolation. We need to link the issue to agricultural reform, to dealing with pollution and to zero waste—in particular, to Mike Pringle's proposed tax on polythene bags, which would be a simple measure to introduce. I urge the Executive to take a strong lead on developing a strategy for the protection and enhancement of Scotland's coastline and to consider a single marine act.
I move amendment S2M-1266.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:
", while welcoming the results of the recent Keep Scotland Beautiful survey of resort beaches with the granting of Seaside Awards to 40 Scottish beaches including 14 new recipients, acknowledges the impact of beach litter as highlighted in the recent Marine Conservation Society's Beachwatch 2003 Report; notes that the report's findings include a net increase in beach litter and that sewage-related debris accounts for a higher proportion of beach litter in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom; further notes that, while encouraging the public to take more responsibility for its own litter, the report also states that determined efforts are required to reduce pollution at source and that local authorities, water authorities and Her Majesty's Government must play their part in reducing and cleaning up litter; further notes that the environmental quality of beaches encompasses much more than litter alone, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to display a strong lead following the consultation on the best strategy for protecting and enhancing all of Scotland's coastline as pledged in A Partnership for a Better Scotland, including consideration of an integrated Marine Act."
Beaches have always been special places. By definition, they are where earth and sea meet, and boundaries always have significance. The rise and fall of the tide over beaches has continued for millennia; it is one of the few things that we accept as truly inevitable. The bounty of the seas that is accessed from them has fed us since the days of our earliest ancestors. We can stand on a beach and look out at the vastness of the ocean and feel ourselves put in our place as mere specks on the face of the earth. That far horizon has beckoned to the curious and the courageous and drawn them to explore the furthest reaches of their world. I do not think that anyone can go to a beach and not be excited by the experience, in some measure at least.
Beaches are special places that we should treasure. However, it is sad that many of the people who visit our beaches show, by carelessly, irresponsibly and selfishly leaving behind their litter when they go, how little they value them. The beachwatch annual litter survey and clean-up has demonstrated that beach visitors are consistently the predominant source of litter on beaches—they contribute between just over a third and just under a half of the total amount of litter that is recorded. The 2003 survey reported that the density of litter that is attributed to beach visitors had increased by 21.2 per cent compared with 2002 and was at the highest level that had ever been recorded in a beachwatch survey. If every individual took away for responsible disposal his or her crisp bags, sandwich wrappings, drinks cans and bottles, collectively they would move us halfway towards having pristine beaches. Is that too much to expect?
The seaborne litter that is deposited includes debris from the fishing industry, which makes up 14.6 per cent of the total, and general shipping litter, which makes up 2 per cent of the total. The third of the main sources of beach litter is sewage outfalls. Sewage-related debris, which includes cotton bud sticks, tampons, condoms and panty liners, accounts for 7.8 per cent of the total.
In dealing with the problem of sewage-related debris, we again depend on individuals—this time in their own homes—heeding the bag it and bin it message and not flushing inappropriate items down the loo. From the evidence that cotton bud sticks make up 83 per cent of the sewage-related debris, I deduce that the bag it and bin it campaign has had an impact, but that people perhaps did not relate it to cotton buds. Therefore, the message needs to be reinforced.
On bathing water quality, the story in Scotland is one of steady progress. In 1998, we had 23 designated bathing waters, of which only nine met the basic mandatory standard and only three met the higher guideline standard. In 2003, we had 60 designated bathing waters, 18 of which met the mandatory standard and 39 of which met the higher guideline standard. Three beaches failed to meet the standard. In two cases, it is believed that that was because of agricultural pollution and, in the third case, SEPA is investigating whether local sewage treatment facilities were the cause of the failure.
Scottish Water's investment, as it is rolled out, in replacing, renewing and extending its facilities will be to the benefit of water quality. As standards rise and as major sources of pollution are identified and eliminated, it is becoming clearer that the extent to which many small sources of pollution and land-use practices can affect water quality has probably been underestimated in the past. That means that a wide range of people, organisations, businesses and other interests will all have to contribute to achieving higher water quality. I believe that, through the implementation of the water framework directive, we are beginning to develop the infrastructure that will enable that to happen. In a speech last night, Jim Hunter, the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, attributed success to the collective effect of thousands of choices made by thousands of individuals. Protecting the natural resource of our beaches demands some big answers. Many of those answers are in train, but the many thousands of little answers can be made only by individuals.
The minister will be pleased to know that I do not intend to make a bid for any beach, as I represent one of the biggest land-locked constituencies in Scotland. With two under-fives in the family, however, I am now a regular visitor to the seaside at various times of the year. It is surprising how under-fives do not notice the weather in the way that older family members do.
We have some beautiful beaches in Scotland, but some are frankly grotty and we must continue to work on improving them. There are numerous reasons for the grottiness of some of our beaches. One reason is that we take them for granted—we assume that somebody else will tidy up after us and think that it does not matter anyway, because we only go to the beach on that one day in July when the sun is shining. Often, we do not realise the importance of beaches. People who live in and around coastal communities have to live with the impact of those of us who come from other parts of Scotland and who visit at various times of the year.
The question why people do not go into the sea is interesting and we have heard an interesting debate about it, but I think that the answer is pretty damn obvious: the sea is freezing. People do not go into the sea because of the cold. We are not going to change that—the sea will always be cold—but we need to improve the cleanliness of the sea for those of us who are brave enough to go into it at the odd point in the year.
The litter issue continues to cause considerable concern, especially with respect to beaches. Will the minister outline in his closing speech what action is being taken to re-educate people from all parts of Scotland to ensure that they take their rubbish home with them? What action is being taken on the litter that is dropped into the sea by the fishing community?
The member makes an interesting point about the fishing industry and fishing litter on our beaches. She might welcome the many initiatives that have been undertaken by the fishing industry in Scotland to reduce the problem. Does she accept that much of the fishing litter on our beaches comes from other fleets that fish the same parts of the North sea as our fleet?
Absolutely. The education programme that needs to be undertaken among the Scottish fishing community should extend to our European partners, so that they are aware of the impact on our communities if they drop litter.
We must continue to address the issue of sewage, which has an effect on people. The point that was made about cotton buds fascinated me. I would never dream of flushing cotton buds down the toilet, but it is obvious that lots of other people do. That is a simple message that we could start to get across to people. If we go to a beach and see a sewage outfall pipe, we might have issues about whether to go in the water. We must continue to consider how the situation can be improved, and we should deal with the matter more quickly than we are doing at the moment.
I would like to hear the minister's comments on how we can encourage young people who live in coastal areas to get more involved in them. What education work might be done to ensure that young people see their beach as a resource that they can be proud of and in which they might want to invest, both for themselves and for future generations?
I take as my text "sweet Molly Malone"—I would like to talk about cockles and mussels. I am sure that Rob Gibson will be familiar with a situation that arose when I was a councillor in Easter Ross some years ago. In the small village of Inver, there was a fine cockle beach. One night, however, some gentlemen—from the Wirral, I think—arrived with tractors and mechanical lifters and, in essence, stripped out the entire cockle fishery in a matter of days. I was practically down on my knees trying to get the council to issue an order to stop the work. At the end of the day, Scottish Natural Heritage was helpful but, by the time we moved, it was too late. I sometimes wonder, all these years later, whether that fishery has recovered.
Earlier today, Ross Finnie told me of a similar situation in the Solway firth involving people from the south working with mechanical diggers. As Allan Wilson knows, the minister had to impose a stop order, which was pretty unpopular with the manual cockle pickers who work with rakes and buckets. I do not expect Allan Wilson to comment on the matter in detail, if at all, at this stage but, according to Mr Finnie, the present legislative framework that we have in Scotland is not much different from what it was a few years ago and we still have a gap in the law that allows such situations to arise.
Those guys came into my council ward with the sole motive of simply taking the whole damn lot and maximising their profit. Neither the locals nor I, the local councillor, could do anything to stop them. When we talk about our beaches, we should think of the ecosystems.
It will be no surprise to Rob Gibson to hear me talk about mussels. I am glad that Dornoch beach is as high up the list of Scotland's best beaches as it is. It has that position because the water quality of the Dornoch firth has improved. I pay tribute to Scottish Water for its investment in the area and to the Scottish Executive for its policies in that regard. The fact that the water quality has improved means that our native mussel industry—I stress that mussels grow naturally in the area and are not seeded—remains buoyant and is well placed to thrive in the future.
As an advert for my home town of Tain, I inform members that King James VI and I gave to the royal burgh of Tain the mussel fishery in the Dornoch firth as far as the eye shall see—that is what it says in the royal charter. The serious point, however, is that the market for such a naturally grown product—one that occurs as an act of God—is a good one. Given that people are becoming more discerning about quality food products as they become more organically aware, such a product is one of our strengths.
I agree that the quality of beaches is about all the things that have been mentioned by other members—particularly with regard to sewage and litter—but it is also about the beaches' ecosystems. I wonder what the removal of the cockles from Inver beach did to the beach's ecosystem. What happened to those organisms—perhaps eider ducks, I know not what—that feed on the cockles? Further, I repeat that, in safeguarding our beaches and the associated waters, it is possible to do something to help marketable products, be they cockles or mussels—alive, alive-o.
I cannot promise that there will be any songs in my speech. I will focus instead on the importance of Ayrshire's beaches to the local communities.
As members will know, many of Ayrshire's coastal communities, from Largs in the north to Girvan in the south, grew and thrived as holiday resorts for the Scottish people for the best part of 100 years before the advent of cheap flights and foreign package holidays. Our beaches, then as now, were important attractions for day visitors as well, particularly for families with children. The economic activities that are associated with the leisure and recreational infrastructure built up at the seaside still provide vital sustenance to coastal communities.
In recent times, the major concern that we have had regarding our beaches has been over bathing water quality, as the minister mentioned. Thankfully, the disgusting practice of discharging raw or untreated sewage into the Clyde has ceased with Scottish Water's belated but welcome investment in its sewerage and waste water systems. I trust that Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will continue to work together to eradicate continuing problems such as wrong connections or foul drainage into surface water systems in the coastal urban areas. Similarly, the work that SEPA is doing with the agriculture community to stop diffuse pollution from run-off from fields into the rivers needs to be followed through. Although the quality of bathing water has undoubtedly improved, it is still not up to the most stringent European Union standards, and we cannot afford to take a foot off the pedal on the issue.
The Executive would do well to take note that the Ayrshire public put the state of the beaches and bathing water quality right at the top of their agenda for environmental action. No fewer than 54 per cent of respondents to South Ayrshire Council's recent environmental issues survey demanded cleaner beaches, rivers and coastlines. What is more, communities such as Troon are being stung into action by what they see as neglect by local councils. As you will no doubt remember, Presiding Officer, Troon south beach held a national clean beach award for six years until 1999, when South Ayrshire withdrew financial support for beach wardens. However, the beach has subsequently deteriorated. The council pleads poverty and says that the Executive does not allocate it enough funds to spend on beaches. It claims that it can afford beach maintenance work only during the summer season.
By contrast, the local community has taken responsibility into its own hands. The Troon sand dunes restoration group, which was set up as a charity, gained landfill tax grants and enlisted council help to use discarded Christmas trees to stabilise the sand dunes, which were eroding. That erosion was threatening the old course at Troon, where the open golf championship will be held this summer. Local volunteers regularly stage clean-up campaigns to keep the beach free of litter, and many of our much-maligned young people are active in that work. Following on from that success, a separate group of volunteers is taking on the refurbishment of the north shore to develop it into a multipurpose recreational area.
Does the minister recognise the value of the work that is undertaken by such groups and will he consider direct Executive support for their work? If he has not already done so, I suggest that the minister should make a short journey doon the watter from his constituency to meet the good folk of Troon, who, rather than sitting around moaning about their problems, are getting up and doing something about them.
The beaches at Troon were indeed in an excellent condition at the end of my period on Kyle and Carrick District Council.
We have had a wide-ranging debate. One of the many points that Rob Gibson made was on the involvement of communities, and I draw the Executive's attention to the excellent work that is done by the Forth Estuary Forum and the Scottish Coastal Forum. Under the Forth Estuary Forum's strategy of involving local schools and communities, 70 schools have been involved and 28 beaches on both sides of the Forth have been adopted. As Adam Ingram said, it is crucial to involve people in taking responsibility for Scotland's beaches—that will help to address the most serious problem, in terms of tourism, which is the visual problem that is created by the huge quantities of litter that people drop.
Jamie McGrigor's point about plastic bags is not a bad idea. When people visit the Meadows in Edinburgh, they take plastic bags, fill them with their rubbish and dump them in the bins. At our most-used beaches, perhaps paper bags could be provided—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have a lot to cover.
Paper bags should be given to people before they go on to the beach, and we should say, "Please put your rubbish in this."
I welcome Alex Johnstone's comments on radioactive pollution in our waters. Now that the Conservatives have taken that step, perhaps the Executive could express the same level of concern about the problem.
I agree with Karen Gillon that the water is freezing, but it is very good for the health. In response to Jamie Stone's remarks on cockles, I will suggest one way of solving that problem when I sum up briefly on a couple of the points that Mark Ruskell made.
Marine pollution of our beaches by fisheries and dumped nets is bad, so thank goodness that oil pollution, which is one of the worst things, happens only occasionally. However, I refer the minister to the Donaldson report on the Braer disaster. I hope that it has been brought to the minister's attention—Jonathan Wills e-mailed me recently about this—that a tanker recently approached Shetland far too close and in contravention of the provisions that keep tankers away from Scottish coasts. I hope that the Executive will do something about that. The last thing that we need is further pollution of Scotland's beaches from oil spills.
Let me pick up on what Mark Ruskell said. The most important idea is that we need a marine act for Scotland. That would address at least some of the problems that we have discussed, including marine pollution and the exploitation of our shores by visitors who use machinery to strip our beaches of cockles and anything else that they care to take away from us.
Mark Ruskell made a point about smaller communities that put their sewage straight into the sea. I visited Tore on the Black Isle, where 12 houses discharge into a reedbed. I stood in the middle of that reedbed and I can assure the minister that there was not a whiff of anything other than fresh air. There were no obnoxious gurglings. The only sound was of the birds in the trees, tweeting away. Quite seriously, I urge the Executive to give as much support as it can to the development of reedbed technology where that is appropriate.
I support the Green Party amendment in the name of Mark Ruskell.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the importance of Scotland's beaches as a natural resource. I am a great lover of our beaches. Like Karen Gillon, I am not such a great lover of our seas, which tend to be a bit chilly, but my love of our beaches goes back to my days of holidaying around the coast in a caravan. Often, those holidays were up at the silver sands at Lossiemouth—in the constituency of Margaret Ewing, who is just leaving the chamber—which is an excellent beach area.
As the member for North East Fife, I represent a constituency that has one of the largest coastlines of any constituency in Scotland. My constituency is surrounded on three sides by sea and has land on only one side. Beaches are an important part of Fife's tourism industry. North East Fife has six of the 60 designated bathing beaches in Scotland—the west and east sands in St Andrews, Kingsbarns, Crail, Elie, and Shell bay. We also have a further five beaches, including Tentsmuir, that are on the list of those that are regularly monitored.
Many of our beaches are excellent. St Andrews west sands was one of the first beaches in Scotland, if not the United Kingdom, to be designated with a European Union blue flag. That was thanks to North East Fife District Council's work, which was continued by Fife Council, on improving the environment and facilities that are available at the beach. The council ensured that, wherever possible, the cleanliness of the beach was maintained. It is important that we improve the quality of the facilities at our beaches. Many of our beaches now have excellent facilities available for the people who wish to use them.
Rob Gibson mentioned the economic value of our beaches for the tourism industry, but they are also important in drawing internal tourists. People who might not otherwise visit our communities go to our beaches, so beaches play an important role.
Beaches provide a multipurpose recreational facility. Paddling and swimming are among the least important things that people can do at our beaches. Beaches are heavily used for multiple recreational purposes, including walking, playing with balls or Frisbees and, these days, exciting things such as kite surfing, which I often see people doing on St Andrews west sands. Surfing and other water sports are important for our general health as well as for the entertainment that they give to those who participate in them. Beaches are important recreational and health facilities.
We must act to deal with the problems of litter and suchlike on our beaches. It is extremely irresponsible of people to take things to a beach and leave their litter behind. There is no need for that. They can take the litter home or, in most places, they can use the bins that are provided in the beach car parks. Sometimes litter can be very dangerous. Mike Pringle was right to raise the issue of plastic waste, but the dangers of broken glass are also important. People need to be responsible in their use of our beaches, as they should be with all our public open spaces.
Sewage is an important issue on which a great deal has been done. Throughout Europe, and particularly in Scotland and the United Kingdom, the European Union has been a great driver of improvements in the quality of our bathing waters. It is important that that work should continue. There have been significant improvements in water quality in places such as St Andrews east sands. In Kingsbarns, new sewage treatment works will be opened this year to ensure that quality is maintained. However, there are other areas in which things remain to be done. The Conservative Government failed to provide the resources to fund the Levenmouth sewage treatment works, which should have been built 15 years ago. It is to be hoped that that will open in the near future and improve significantly the quality of waters in the area.
I welcome the motion. The minister was right to say that our beaches are an important national resource and that they should be available for us all to enjoy.
It was lovely to listen to Jamie Stone—Scotland's answer to Molly Malone.
I declare an interest, in that I have been swimming off Scotland's beautiful beaches, from North Berwick to Luskentyre in Harris, since I was a child. My favourite memories are of wonderful Hebridean beaches on islands such as Coll, Tiree and the Uists. Every year I return to those places with my children, who run riot and run free through the surf, as I did long ago, without fear of shark attack. It seems to me that the Scottish sea has got warmer, but I do not know whether that is the result of global warming or of my having more rubber rings around my middle. One of Scotland's best-kept secrets is the Hebridean weather. Tiree has more sun hours than any other place in Britain.
To be classified as a bathing beach, a beach must be used by a high number of people at peak times—the suggested figure is 200. Surely we should make more of the availability of our first-class less-visited and therefore less-spoiled beaches. Although the water temperature may restrict the amount of time that is spent swimming, the other facets of Scottish beach life, such as wind surfing, sand surfing, the famous surfing breakers of Tiree, the variety of seashells and the multiple flora and fauna of the rock pools enable people of all ages to have healthy fun in beautiful surroundings.
The real beauty is in the remoter places. The discerning and careful watcher can see seals, otters, basking sharks, whales, dolphins and a huge variety of sea birds and shore birds. I hope that VisitScotland will approve of my advertisement on its behalf, which is delivered with all sincerity. I truly believe that Scotland is a paradise for the beachcomber and his or her family, especially in our Highlands and Islands.
It is imperative that we protect our beaches and our reputation for clean water, which is also very important for our shellfish trade. The Executive is now claiming that large-scale investment by Scottish Water has caused an improvement, but I doubt that the people of Campbeltown in Argyll would agree. Those people, who live near the exquisite beaches of Southend and Machrihanish, have to put up with raw sewage flooding their streets and pouring into their harbour basin every time there is a rainstorm. Banana beach in Dalintober, which was painstakingly created by Mrs Stewart and her volunteers to improve Campbeltown, is affected by this disgraceful discharge of sewage. Campbeltown has recently received big investment from Scottish Water, but Scottish Water has got things badly wrong. The Executive must ensure that something is done soon to get things right for the people of Campbeltown.
I was deeply concerned by the figures that were published by the Marine Conservation Society that showed that in Scotland volunteers picked up an average of one item for every 25 inches of coastline surveyed and that those items included more than 10,000 cotton wool buds that ended up on one beach between Saltings and Bowling on the River Clyde. More bins must be provided for public rubbish.
It is difficult to compare Scottish beaches with beaches abroad. Beaches in our country vary greatly. We Conservatives support the existing thresholds for good and excellent water status, but we believe that amendments that have been passed in Europe—supported by the Socialists, the Liberals and the Greens—that add a large number of new criteria relating to the chemical composition of water, do not have a direct bearing on public health, will add extra monitoring costs and will confuse the public, who seek only reassurance about the safety of water for bathing.
Other new microbiological parameters may mean that up to 200 of the 800 monitored UK beaches could be deemed to be non-compliant with the new European bathing water directive. The Conservatives will support an amendment that has been tabled by Labour MEPs on an issue that is of particular importance to Scotland. The amendment would allow more flexibility when diffuse pollution is caused by heavy rainfall being washed into the sea. Let us hope that that unusual coalition brings results.
A further hindrance to cleaner water is Scotland's antiquated planning system, which has not been changed since 1947. It is regrettable that the Executive's review of strategic planning did nothing to tackle the real issues. A total review of planning legislation is required to simplify and speed up the process.
Robin Harper made an important point about the danger of oil spills; I take up the point because it is especially relevant to the Minches. The double-hulled ships that are now required to carry oil cargos require bigger piers. Will the Executive do something about building such piers?
No one can question Allan Wilson's commitment to the environment, given that—no doubt in a bid to conserve mental energy and resources—he recycled much of his speech from the previous debate on Scotland's beaches, which took place a mere five months ago.
It is unfortunate—I share concerns that were expressed by Rob Gibson and Mark Ruskell—that within five months we are debating the same subject again. The debate would have been 45 minutes longer had not there been a ministerial statement. Furthermore, we will debate Scotland's marine environment at the next plenary meeting of the Scottish Parliament, when we are up at the Hub, when many of the issues that we have discussed today will be touched on again.
I am having difficulty following the thrust of Richard Lochhead's argument because he will, no doubt, tell us how important Scotland's beaches are. Is the SNP's position that we should not be debating Scotland's beaches and that it does not accept that they constitute a valuable national resource that is worthy of debate in Scotland's national Parliament?
I will explain my position to the minister. Every member of the Parliament should take a few moments to remember that this is the fifth anniversary of Scotland's going to the polls to elect Scotland's Parliament. When I was a candidate five years ago—this might also apply to other MSPs—I did not expect to come to Parliament to ignore some of the real pressing issues in Scotland, and instead debate Scotland's beaches. Of course Scotland's beaches are worthy and important: they are very special places, as Nora Radcliffe told us twice in her speech. However, we have debated them twice in five months; many other pressing issues—that we were elected five years ago and again last year to debate—are not being chosen for debate by the Executive, which controls 80 per cent of debating time in the chamber.
Mark Ruskell mentioned climate change. That is a huge issue and the Executive should, of course, initiate debates on it. Climate change would have been a better subject for debate than Scotland's beaches. It took the European and External Relations Committee to initiate a debate on European enlargement, which is one of the biggest issues that currently faces Scotland. The SNP had to initiate a debate on the EU constitution—another huge issue.
Given the importance of the debate and the need to have debates that are relevant to Scotland, why has the SNP used much of its chamber time to debate issues that have nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament?
The SNP picks subjects that are relevant to the people of Scotland and which the people of Scotland see as being priorities. I remind members that at the last Scottish Parliament elections less than 50 per cent of the people turned out to vote. If we want to engage the people of Scotland, perhaps we should pick subjects that are much more relevant to their priorities.
Of course, the subject that we are debating is important. I am not arguing with that; rather, I am arguing with the fact that we are discussing the issue for the second time in five months. The Executive has been slammed the length and breadth of Scotland for debating subjects that do not necessarily reflect the priorities of the people of Scotland.
One comment that the minister made with which I agree was about Montrose, which is in my region of North East Scotland. I welcome the progress that has been made on Montrose. I also welcome the fact that a new bathing water directive will come from Europe, because Europe is a main driver in trying to improve our environment, our beaches and our water quality, through the urban waste water directive, the bathing water directive and measures to reduce packaging and so on. Those are important pieces of legislation.
We agree that we must change people's behaviour and members made valuable points about how we must do that. Many members have mentioned marine litter. The fishing industry is tackling the issue; it is trying to reduce the litter that it causes on our beaches. We know that much litter comes from shipping, but I remind Parliament that much of the litter that comes to our beaches is not necessarily from Scottish fishing vessels or Scottish ships, so there must be international co-operation. Perhaps when the minister is concluding the debate he could address that point interestingly and tell us what international co-operation exists in that regard.
Adam Ingram made an important point—which one of the local councils in my area brought to my attention—on the impact that local government funding has on councils' ability to tackle the amount of rubbish on their beaches. Aberdeenshire Council in my region—apparently I am not allowed to call it my constituency, given the Presiding Officer's earlier comments—has just reinstated its programme for cleaning up beaches in the north-east of Scotland, after having had to abandon it in recent years because of local government funding cuts that were imposed by the Lib-Lab coalition that runs Scotland. The Executive has to take such matters into account when it is cutting councils' funding.
Finally, two or three members have mentioned the fact that many of the powers that would help us to improve the quality of our beaches and Scotland's seas are reserved. We do not have control over nuclear power and the non-biological particles that arrive on our beaches as a result of it; that matter is reserved. If we had control over it, we could perhaps do more to improve the quality of our beaches.
Of course many shipping regulations are decided at Westminster, not by the Scottish Parliament. Robin Harper mentioned the prospect of oil pollution—a fear that the SNP shares—but we do not have control over shipping routes, which are also reserved to Westminster. If we are to have a single marine act—which we should have, given that 77 acts currently govern the marine environment—some of the reserved powers must be passed from London to Edinburgh so that we can have a comprehensive act that governs and improves the marine environment. I hope that it will be a few years before we have to debate the quality of Scotland's beaches again. We look forward to the debate in the next week or two on the marine environment, which will allow us to address some of the issues in a wider context.
The fact that the debate is timely has been illustrated by the excellent speeches that we heard from everybody, with the notable exception of Richard Lochhead. We have put before Parliament a—dare I say it—current issue. I make no apology for doing so. Recently, we have had excellent news, which I know does not sit well with the nationalists in our midst, but we should all be able to celebrate the record number of seaside awards for Scotland—they represent a national achievement. Call me old fashioned, but I think that we should all be able to celebrate that, irrespective of our party affiliation.
Last week we also had the report from the Marine Conservation Society, to which Mark Ruskell and others referred, which showed that there is still too much litter on our beaches from a variety of sources. I included that in the motion in order that we were not seen to be self-congratulatory, although there is much to be pleased about. The European Commission's quality of bathing waters report for 2002, which was published in May last year, showed that for 2002 the United Kingdom had 97.8 per cent compliance with the mandatory standard of the bathing water directive for our coastal waters and 100 per cent compliance for freshwater sites. That compares favourably with the European Union average of 95.8 per cent compliance with the mandatory standard for coastal waters and 91.1 per cent compliance for freshwater sites. It is not simply that we in Scotland or the wider UK are doing well; we are doing well in comparison with the rest of Europe.
We bandy about statistics in this place, rightly or wrongly, and figures can be misleading or distorted. The reason why I could not support the Greens' amendment was that I thought that there was an unfair reference to the increase in sewage pollution that was identified in the Marine Conservation Society's report, which I think distorted the overall picture. The overall picture in the areas that were surveyed in Scotland is that 1,535 litter items per kilometre were recorded. I readily accept that that is far too many, but in England the figure was 2,655 items per kilometre, in Wales it was 2,455 items per kilometre and in the Channel Islands it was 1,125 items per kilometre. Scotland therefore compares favourably with the rest of the UK.
However, we are not complacent. How could I be?
Given the importance to Scotland of the open championship coming to Troon, does the minister agree that it is vital that Troon beach, to which Adam Ingram referred, and Prestwick beach, where there is an even greater problem, are cleared up? Will he assure me that South Ayrshire Council has enough funds from the Executive to do that?
I assume that John Scott will be voting for the order-making power that we will introduce in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which will give ministers the power to direct local authorities and others who have responsibility for clearing up litter from all our beaches, not just in Troon. I look forward to going to Troon in July, along with many other members.
I was struck by Adam Ingram's speech, which was not party political. He accentuated the importance of involving communities. Others, including Karen Gillon, spoke about the importance of involving school kids in the process. I could not agree more. It is fundamental that communities take charge of their natural resources—that is what conservation is all about. I have said a million times in the chamber that conservation cannot be imposed from on high but must be built from below. That involves engaging with communities, whether as a Scottish parliamentarian or as a local authority councillor, which Murray Tosh mentioned. It is about engaging with communities and empowering them to protect their natural resources.
I wonder whether the minister will comment on the Scottish outdoor access code as being one means that we might use to encourage people to think more about beaches. In my view, the document is not very prominent, although it is one that many people use.
I imagine that the access code will be used constructively by all those who are involved in local access forums to see how we can open up our national beach resource to greater use by local people and international visitors. Members will know that we are consulting on the code, and I expect the outcome of that consultation and the code to be approved by Parliament. The code will be a valuable tool in the process.
I was a wee bit disappointed by Rob Gibson's speech, which concentrated on the historical dumping of nuclear waste at sea. As members will know, the dumping of waste at sea is prohibited by international conventions to which the UK is party. Radioactive material has not been dumped at sea since 1982 and cannot be dumped under any circumstances. Action has been taken and we will continue to ensure that that is enforced through our independent regulators.
Will the minister give way?
I have only six or seven minutes.
Keeping our beaches clean, safe and inviting for locals, visitors and wildlife requires a change in our behaviour. We must become more careful about what we discard, whether we are on a picnic on the beach or, as Karen Gillon said, in the bathroom. That needs a two-pronged approach, and the best route is through education and promotion. Most folk recognise the value of our beaches and want to do their bit. Educational campaigns have an improving effect on people's behaviour. The Marine Conservation Society notes in its report the value of public education. The society also usefully points out that education not only on littering, but on waste awareness in general, can help to change people's throwaway attitudes. The MCS mentions the "do a little—change a lot" and Waste Aware Scotland campaigns, which were also mentioned by Nora Radcliffe and others. There is now a national search tool called "sort it", which tells people about the availability of recycling facilities both locally and nationally.
I heartily endorse any community effort, whether in Troon, Seamill, Saltcoats or anywhere else on the nation's coastline. However, when an appeal to common sense or community spirit fails, we must have an enforceable legal framework that penalises the kind of behaviour that spoils our beaches.
The minister says that we must take small actions to reduce the problems that are connected with waste. Will he therefore support Mike Pringle's proposed bill on a polythene bag tax?
That is a non sequitur. What I have said is that the recycling of plastic bag waste—plastic recycling in general—is important to us and that we will study carefully the results of Mike Pringle's consultations.
We support measures to enhance the environment, but we have to establish that those measures are within devolved competence, that they can be enforced by local authorities and that they would not lead to unreasonable burdens on business, and I also do not want unreasonable imposition of charges on people in our community who are less able to pay. I was supported in that by the Scottish Socialist Party but I notice that they are absent from the chamber, which probably means that the revolution will not include the storming of any beaches.
Will the minister accept that the absence of the SSP members today might indicate that the revolution is taking place as we speak?
In which case, we had better get to the beaches to fight them.
I agree fundamentally with what Iain Smith and Nora Radcliffe said. As a child, I went on holiday every year to St Andrews to enjoy the beautiful beaches there. Who can forget the image of the British Olympic team training on the west sands in the opening sequence of Puttnam's classic film "Chariots of Fire"? What better image could we project internationally? Nora Radcliffe is right; visiting our beaches is an exciting experience.
I have another abiding memory. I well remember my first visit to the west coast of Lewis about 18 years ago when my first son had just been born. I was enthralled by the beauty of the beaches and the machair in that part of the world.
What about Saltcoats?
Saltcoats is another classic example that I could mention. It is much closer to home. No doubt Dennis Canavan has spent many a happy hour paddling in the Clyde.
I put the question back to the nationalists, who have been as grudging as usual in recognising that we can and should talk up Scotland in this chamber. I argue that we can display internationally no better icon of Scotland than our beautiful beaches and, in doing so, promote Scotland and its environment to the wider world. I tell the nationalists to lift their horizons. Let us release and realise the potential of our beaches and, in so doing, release and realise the potential of Scotland.