Marine Bill Consultation
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3528, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the marine bill consultation.
Scotland has a world-class marine environment and an enviable maritime heritage. We have 10 per cent of Europe's coastline, 20 per cent of Europe's seas and well over half of Great Britain's coast. Our seas are among the most biologically productive in the world. They contain more than 40,000 species and internationally important populations of marine mammals and seabirds. Some of the finest marine habitats in Europe can be found in Scottish waters.
Our seas are therefore a major asset. They are essential to the economic wellbeing of Scotland and our coastal communities. We are proud of our unique coastal and marine environment and of the many communities, jobs and industries that it sustains, but I wonder whether we are always aware of just how special it is. David Attenborough has said that the Bass Rock, with its extraordinary gannet population, which is on our doorstep, is one of the 12 wildlife wonders of the world. Some 20 per cent of the world's gannets are in Scotland. Yesterday, the Parliament debated the challenges that seabirds face.
Scotland's seas face a range of growing and competing demands from the energy, shipping, fisheries, tourism and conservation sectors. The Government is committed to resource use and resource protection. We are committed to delivering enhanced economic growth while ensuring that an iconic asset is looked after for future generations. We cannot forget that our activities on shore impact on our seas and oceans. That underlines the need for ambition in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill if we are to tackle global warming.
The Scottish Government gave a commitment to introduce dedicated legislation on Scotland's seas. This debate provides an opportunity to seek and discuss the Parliament's views on our legislative proposals before a bill is introduced. The marine bill will be a special bill for Scotland that will create a framework for sustainable growth. Stakeholder involvement has been at the heart of the process from the beginning.
After our most recent debate on marine issues, which took place on 20 March last year, the Parliament supported our bid to gain additional responsibilities for the waters around Scotland, to ensure that there was better integration and a coherent framework for planning and nature conservation. I am sure that the Parliament will be pleased to record that the Scottish Government secured additional responsibilities for Scotland. The cross-party support that we received in the Parliament was invaluable in achieving that. After the First Minister successfully pressed for the resurrection of the joint ministerial committee, we were delighted to announce on 27 November that agreement had been reached on a framework to devolve executive responsibility for marine planning and nature conservation to Scotland.
The agreement is complex and we admit that it does not go as far as we wanted it to go. We would have liked the Scottish Parliament to be able to legislate fully for the area out to 200 nautical miles. However, we have taken a significant step forward. In future, we will be able to integrate fishing policies with nature conservation and planning, which is a considerable advance. However, we must operate within two sets of laws from two Parliaments, which will be challenging.
The agreement provides a framework for the Scottish ministers to work co-operatively with the United Kingdom Government on marine management, and it provides a mechanism to meet our European and international obligations. I know that many members who take an interest in the sea support a clear framework that covers the seas that are administered by all parts of the UK. The deal that we arrived at reflects the complex sets of interests that we and the other Administrations have in the seas around us. It is a reasonable compromise that works for all sides. Above all, the deal allows us to join up with other parts of the UK to manage the seas. We have strong support for that way forward from environmental organisations and industry interests.
We hope shortly to bring forward our legislative proposals. We may soon be in a position in which two marine bills have been introduced in two Parliaments, north and south of the border—that illustrates how the marine environment has risen up the agenda on both sides of the border.
Responses to the consultation showed widespread support for more integrated, simpler, more effective and more efficient marine management arrangements. Ninety-one per cent of respondents agreed on the need for a new integrated structure to deliver sustainable seas for all.
On 9 February, I announced the creation of marine Scotland, which will begin operating on 1 April. It represents a groundbreaking approach to the integrated management of Scotland's seas that will combine core marine functions and integrate science, policy and delivery. Marine Scotland will play a leadership role; it will combine and co-ordinate the efforts of existing bodies and will have the essential role of joining up with marine management organisations in the rest of the UK. It will be the champion of our marine environment. It will also be part of the Scottish Government, which will provide transparency and direct accountability to the Scottish Parliament on devolved Scottish marine matters through the Scottish ministers.
Kara Brydson, marine policy officer with RSPB Scotland, welcomed our announcement on 9 February, when she said:
"It's great news for Scotland's delicate marine wildlife"
and that RSPB Scotland looks forward
"to working with the new organisation to ensure that the environment is at the heart of Scottish marine management."
Our consultation on the Scottish marine bill proposed a new legislative and management framework for sustainable development in the marine environment. It contained proposals on a new system of marine planning, reducing the regulatory burden, enhanced nature conservation and improving our understanding of the seas.
Since the consultation was launched last July, we have been extremely busy. Approximately 750 people attended the 21 consultation events that took place around Scotland's coasts and islands—from Orkney and Shetland to Dumfries, and from Eyemouth to Stornoway. We also held meetings with representatives of specific sectors, such as aquaculture, renewables, fisheries and leisure.
We received 280 consultation responses from individuals and organisations. Most of the respondents agreed that we should put in place a new legislative and management framework to deliver a new planning system for the sustainable use of Scotland's seas; improvements to marine nature conservation to safeguard and protect Scotland's marine assets; a streamlined and modernised marine licensing and consents system; and better stewardship, which should be backed up by robust science and data. Those responses are broadly in line with the outcome of the work of the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy—AGMACS—which advised the previous Administration, and the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report on the marine environment in the previous parliamentary session.
"Sustainable Seas for All: a consultation on Scotland's first marine bill" proposed a new power on marine protected areas that would be used for the purposes of conservation and to complement existing powers. I propose that it should also be available to demonstrate and research new methods of managing our marine environment and, in certain circumstances, to protect areas that communities propose. As stakeholders have made clear, designation based on science must be an important underpinning principle of the new conservation powers. I am sure that all members agree that science—rather than crude targets, for instance—must guide designations.
There were also more than 8,000 responses from three principle campaigns. Nearly 5,000 people took part in the Scottish Environment LINK campaign that called for greater environmental protection, a system of marine planning and a marine management organisation, which is in line with our proposals. Although the overall response was positive, it is clear that there is also a need for simplification and reduced bureaucracy. We envisage that our bill will ensure that that is delivered for our marine industries.
There is still some work to be done before we can introduce the bill to the Parliament, but we will introduce it shortly. The scale of the response to the consultation clearly illustrates that there is keen interest in our unique coastal and marine environment.
Stakeholders expressed views on a number of issues. Advocates for Animals and the Save Our Seals Fund called for a ban on killing seals, whereas our proposals were for increased protection for seals. Other responses contrasted with that call. However, we want to achieve an improved balance between seal conservation and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. We are minded to tighten up on seals legislation but we do not believe that an outright ban is the best way forward. Nonetheless, we are keen to hear the Parliament's views on the subject if any member wants to raise it.
Scottish marine regions will provide a way for local interests in Scotland to have a say over their local seas. It is clear from the consultation that there is strong support for that proposal but, in delivering marine regions, we must ensure that we do not create an additional layer of bureaucracy. We are committed to consulting on the characteristics that should be used to construct the regions. I want to think about that carefully so that we can build consensus.
Simplifying rather than complicating the delivery landscape for Scotland's seas is the first key step towards developing an integrated package that joins together the environment, fishing, leisure and recreation, and other interests at the local level. That will clearly take some time, and the time taken is likely to vary around Scotland. Nonetheless, I would rather take time to implement robust arrangements and ensure that they are effective over the longer term than rush to deliver them and potentially create more problems. l look forward to hearing members' views on Scottish marine regions.
A sustainable approach to marine management that balances improvements to marine conservation with the growth of marine industries will be at the heart of the bill. Along with the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill, the Scottish bill will provide the basis for a coherent system of marine management for the seas around Scotland and provide an integrated framework to achieve a good outcome for Scotland's seas. That is good news for our marine industries, our communities and our precious marine environment.
In the times ahead, we must ensure that our seas continue to sustain species and habitats that make Scotland special and our planet richer, and that they sustain thousands of jobs in Scotland. In the future, our seas will continue to power our nation through wind and wave and to oil our economy. They must also continue to put food on our tables. In short, our seas help to make Scotland, and we need good, clean and productive seas to sustain us all. The challenge for all who care about the sea is to work with us to deliver the best system that we can to make that happen. I ask Parliament to support the Government motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Scottish Government's commitment to deliver a Scottish Marine Bill to drive sustainable economic growth and improve the stewardship of the seas around Scotland; acknowledges the positive response to the consultation, Sustainable Seas for All, and the widespread support for the proposals, and further notes the recent agreement with the UK Government to secure executive responsibility for marine nature conservation and planning in the offshore zone.
Nowadays, we regularly have debates in the chamber in advance of a stage 1 debate. In some ways, that is good, because it lets us focus on issues for proper discussion, and we on the Labour benches are very much in favour of extra discussion, particularly about a major bill such as the marine bill. Given the arithmetic in Parliament, it is important for us to tease out the issues, particularly in such a complex and substantial bill, which has been a long time in gestation and is incredibly important for our fishing industry and communities, for the development of the renewables industry, for nature conservation and for biodiversity in our seas.
I know that the minister would rather that we all agreed on exactly what we will end up with at the end of the day, but we on the Labour benches do not see the point in pretending that everyone agrees on everything at the outset, or that we always have a cosy consensus when one does not exist. We are absolutely not going to pick fights where that is not appropriate—and that is not what we are doing today—but it is daft to pretend that everyone is happy with everything that the minister has proposed. In a way, it would have been better if the motion simply acknowledged that and focused on some of the issues that Richard Lochhead mentioned and some that he has not.
It is not just me who thinks that we need robust debate. I quote Roseanna Cunningham:
"We know how to do robust argument and debate in Scotland. It's important so that we know what comes out at the end is in Scotland's interest."
She said that to us at the Scottish Environment LINK reception last night. I welcomed her then to her new ministerial position and I do so again today. I very much look forward to debating with her in the months and years to come.
There is truth in what she said last night. It is worth taking the time to tease things out. It is not just those of us on opposite sides of the chamber who do not always agree with each other; some of the external representations that have been received need to be teased out. Today is a good chance to do that before we get into the detail of the bill at stage 2.
The Scottish National Party's motion classically accentuates the positive and ignores anything that does not agree with the Government. We agree with a three-tier marine planning framework and with Richard Lochhead's point about streamlining the decision process. That is not to say that there is unanimity on all the key details, and we will focus on that today. Given that we have a minority Government, the point of a parliamentary debate before the bill has been published—presumably it is not yet completely drafted—is to enable the SNP Government to test the water on some of the issues.
I will take this opportunity to quote three organisations on the issue of marine Scotland. The Labour amendment expresses our disappointment at the fact that the Scottish Government has already decided the body's status. That would have been more properly addressed in the bill.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation says:
"the Federation has fundamental objections to the status, role and responsibilities of Marine Scotland."
I was intrigued by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's submission. I assure the member that I spoke to the organisation yesterday to clarify its position. It told me that it is comfortable with marine Scotland as we announced it. The proposal covers all the SFF's concerns and the organisation is quite happy with it.
I have read the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's submission and the key points in it, and it does not seem to me that the cabinet secretary has dealt in detail with everything that it raised. I am happy to talk to the federation's representatives about that afterwards, but we are proceeding on the basis of the submission that it gave to us and to everybody else. Its points were about the management process and the clear intention, as the federation saw it,
"that Marine Scotland will champion the interests of Scottish Ministers. If those interests coincide with any wider interests, that will only be a happy coincidence."
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has not written to us to say that it has withdrawn those comments.
I will now quote two other organisations. The minister might wish to intervene on me with regard to both, and to tell me that they, too, have now withdrawn their submissions to the consultation. However, we can only go on the submissions that have been received. Scottish Environment LINK stated that it
"strongly favours the status of Marine Scotland as a Non Departmental Public Body, thereby increasing the independence of Marine Scotland from Government."
I do not know whether the minister would like to intervene to tell me that Scottish Environment LINK has now clarified that point and withdrawn its objection to the proposed status of the new organisation.
I simply ask the member to note the quote from RSPB Scotland that I read out in my opening speech. It is a major player in Scottish Environment LINK.
I was just coming to RSPB Scotland. The quote that I am going to use was also given in response to the consultation. Again, RSPB Scotland's points about the status of the new body do not seem to have been addressed. There is absolute agreement about the need for a marine Scotland organisation—we all agree on that—but the issue is its status. RSPB Scotland said:
"given that Marine Scotland will also take responsibility for marine nature conservation, this would appear to be a clear conflict of interest"
in the context of increased economic growth. RSPB Scotland strongly recommended that
"Marine Scotland should have a duty to have regard to … advice from SNH"
in all its decision making. The cabinet secretary did not mention that in his speech.
If organisations write in with their comments in good faith, we as the Opposition will pick up on them. The cabinet secretary does not seem to have addressed the strong concerns that organisations have raised about the operation of marine Scotland. The cabinet secretary is not listening—he is whispering to the Liberal Democrats. The status of marine Scotland is fundamental—
Will the member give way?
No. I have taken a couple of responses from the cabinet secretary already.
Marine Scotland's status is important. We are being denied the opportunity to debate it in the proper way—we should be able to do that at stage 1, following the introduction of the marine (Scotland) bill. I will issue a series of questions to the cabinet secretary after this debate raising the objections of a whole range of organisations on the status of marine Scotland that I do not believe were addressed in the cabinet secretary's speech.
We need to start from a set of principles that involve the Scottish Government laying down the policy and marine Scotland implementing it and delivering on it. That framework needs to be clearly set out by the Scottish Government, which is accountable to us and to the Scottish people. There are issues around how marine Scotland will relate to the new marine management organisation that the UK Government is setting up. That was not addressed in the cabinet secretary's speech. Issues clearly need to be addressed. There needs to be a transparent and fair framework. That is why we have a problem with the proposals.
The Scottish Government is to centralise decision making and implementation in-house. What opportunity will local communities have to get involved in the process of marine planning? How will interested parties such as local communities, fishing interests, economic interests such as renewables companies, environmental organisations and animal welfare groups be able to take part in the planning and decision-making process?
There are understandable concerns about how marine Scotland will work with the Crown Estate, which has hugely ambitious plans for marine and coastal renewable energy across Scotland. How will the licensing regime actually work? That is a crucial issue for the many organisations that are involved in marine activities.
The cabinet secretary argues that we need to get on and establish marine Scotland to enable decisions to be made, but a whole raft of questions remain unanswered. It was not possible, in his brief speech, for the cabinet secretary to go through all the issues in the way that might be possible in committee.
What sort of appeals process will the Scottish Government develop? It cannot be judge and jury on all the issues. I would like to have heard the cabinet secretary's thinking on appeals, especially as they are a core concern of many organisations.
It is not fair for the cabinet secretary to say that all the issues have been resolved, because clearly they have not. We need to consider how marine Scotland will be organised and exactly how all the detailed questions that many stakeholders have put to the cabinet secretary will be addressed.
This debate is about teasing out those issues. We do not see why the cabinet secretary has to be precious about it and say that everybody agrees with everything. It would be unbelievable if everybody agreed with everything that the cabinet secretary is proposing at this stage. He is suggesting that when we come to the debate in committee, no one will have any concerns about anything in the bill. That is not sustainable—detailed questions need to be examined.
We will not have moved far today unless we get to the nub of some of the issues—we do not need to shy away from them. We have not taken a final view on all the issues—that is the point of not only today's debate but the detailed discussions that we will have in committee. We look forward to that debate and to hearing what other parties have to say on these crucial issues.
I move amendment S3M-3528.3, to leave out from "to drive" to end and insert:
"; acknowledges the positive response to the consultation, Sustainable Seas for All, but expresses its disappointment that the Scottish Government acted in advance of the Marine Bill to establish Marine Scotland; notes the concerns that have been expressed regarding its lack of independence and the lack of clarity regarding its status among stakeholders and other agencies; notes the importance of healthy marine ecosystems and the need for a coherent sustainable development marine policy framework to support economic development, nature conservation and decision making; further notes the recent agreement with the UK Government to secure executive responsibility for marine nature conservation and planning in the offshore zone, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with other legislatures to ensure a joined-up approach to marine management of our shared seas."
I welcome the debate on the Scottish marine bill, which comes at an appropriate time, following the introduction of the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill at Westminster. As noted in another context, we live in changing times, none more so than in relation to our marine and offshore environment, where much is happening and the potential for change has never been greater.
Key drivers for change are the growing world population, climate change and the increasing and perhaps unsustainable demands that are being made of our precious onshore land resources. In the future, our coasts and seas will have to deliver, and they will have to complement some of our land-based industries. For example, our seas will have to be a source of renewable energy production through offshore wind farming, tidal energy and wave energy harvesting. The sea beds may, when appropriate, have to be used to produce biomass, such as seaweed and sea grass, to provide both fuel and protein to meet society's needs for those precious resources.
This new updating legislation will provide an opportunity to implement marine spatial planning, which is essential in reconciling all the competing sea-level and subsea demands—such as fishing, oil and gas extraction, and defence interests—notwithstanding some of the problems to which Sarah Boyack alluded. The Scottish Conservatives accept that the three-tier approach to marine planning and coastal zone management is reasonable and will build on and extend the already established concept of integrated coastal zone management.
Scottish marine regions will deliver local accountability and develop a role for local authorities and local interest groups, which they will welcome, provided that funding is made available to them—particularly to local authorities—for their new role.
The new licensing structure, administered by marine Scotland, must reduce the bureaucracy and eliminate inconsistencies in the licensing process. The creation of marine Scotland appears to be widely welcomed by the consultees—we certainly welcome it—and I believe that the Government was right to make an early start on it. In truth, I am surprised by the Labour Party's antipathy towards setting up marine Scotland and getting on with the job.
I clarify that we have no antipathy towards marine Scotland. Our query is whether it should be an arm of Government or should be independent of Government. That is the point that we make in our amendment.
Forgive me for misunderstanding Labour's amendment, but it seems to me that it expresses antipathy towards marine Scotland and making an early start on it. That is how I interpret the amendment, but I am sorry if I have misunderstood it.
It is essential that Scottish licensing is consistent with licensing in other parts of the UK and that a co-ordinated and coherent approach is developed. In particular, the proposals to license dredging are long overdue. I was surprised to learn that that activity is not regulated, given the devastating consequences of its misuse.
Turning to our marine ecosystems, we welcome the three-pillar approach to marine nature conservation, involving the contribution of wider sea measures, species conservation and site protection.
As well as protecting the very legitimate rights of commercial fishermen and ensuring the future of their livelihoods, we want more attention to be paid to the interests of recreational sea anglers.
Some of our seabird population, such as kittiwakes, Arctic skuas and Arctic terns, are under enormous threat, as my colleague Nanette Milne eloquently outlined yesterday in her members' business debate. We must use the bill in any way we can to do more to protect all threatened species. In that regard, I share Scottish Environment LINK's concern that the UK bill currently includes no provisions to improve species protection. That gap should be addressed in the UK legislation. In the Scottish bill, the adoption of marine ecosystem objectives and marine protected areas seems entirely reasonable, but that must be compatible with and not exclude economic development—in particular the economic development of fisheries—for the reasons that I outlined earlier.
Onshore, economic activities and growth can be achieved in conjunction with environmental enhancement in a sustainable way. We must try to reproduce that arrangement offshore, while accommodating all reasonable points of view. Marine Scotland will have a difficult role in striking a balance in its decisions on what economic activity is acceptable and what is required for marine nature conservation. However, the organisation's success or failure will, in large part, depend on the political and financial support that it receives and on the legislation that will be—and, indeed, has been—passed in this Parliament and elsewhere.
We welcome the progress that has been made so far in developing a Scottish marine bill. The evidence from the consultation suggests that there is not a moment to lose. The Scottish Conservatives believe that the sooner we get started the better.
I move amendment S3M-3528.1, to insert at end:
"and considers that the forthcoming marine legislation must fully take into account the interests of commercial fisheries and recreational sea anglers and could provide an appropriate vehicle for tackling the severe decline in breeding sea bird populations."
Like Sarah Boyack, I welcome Roseanna Cunningham to her new role, but I am disappointed that the Government's gain is the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's loss.
On occasions such as today, tradition is that we welcome the fact that Parliament is being given an opportunity to debate an important subject, which in this case is the Government's putative marine bill proposals. However, although there is no argument about the bill's importance within the Government's legislative agenda, there are questions about the way in which ministers have chosen to engage with Parliament. We are now in a position to consider the responses that were submitted to the consultation that the Government launched in July but, despite the fact that the consultation closed in October, we still await sight of the Government's conclusions. I do not suggest that no progress has been made in the interim, nor do I suggest that the issues and competing interests involved do not present real challenges for ministers, but the issues will not become any more straightforward. As our amendment suggests, continued delay in the Government declaring its hand risks Scotland falling behind the rest of the UK.
The absence of certainty also allows concerns to develop in sections of our communities about how competing interests will be managed. John Scott's amendment highlights that issue in respect of fisheries, about which I know that concerns exist, but there are also concerns about other areas. No single interest will have a veto, but, without clarity, suspicions and fears grow.
All of that is disappointing, as the cabinet secretary is aware of the cross-party consensus on the bill. The proposals in the consultation paper enjoyed broad support. That is not surprising, perhaps, given the extent to which the proposals—as the cabinet secretary acknowledged—drew on the work of the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy, which was set up and chaired by my colleague Ross Finnie. The proposals on the establishment of a dedicated marine management organisation, the co-ordination of marine planning, an increased local focus, a three-tiered planning structure and the approach to marine conservation were all inherited from the work of AGMACS. To his credit, Mr Lochhead has decided to take those proposals forward.
Of course, AGMACS also called for the extension of certain responsibilities out to 200 nautical miles. My colleague Mike Rumbles was successful in securing the Parliament's agreement to an amendment that he moved to that effect last March. We welcome the agreement between the UK Government and Scottish Government that essentially will give effect to that demand through executive devolution. Some of the Scottish ministers' claims at the time were a little inflated, but that should not detract from the valuable progress that the agreement represents.
Of course, another inflated claim was the cabinet secretary's commitment in June 2007 that he planned
"to announce plans for a new single piece of streamlined legislation to protect marine and coastal environments soon".
He produced a consultation paper a year later, but we still have no draft bill 18 months down the road, notwithstanding the volume of responses that were received. That does not square with the cabinet secretary's commitment. In addition, that explains why the Government has found itself under pressure to announce the establishment of marine Scotland ahead of the bill, which is not ideal. However, we cannot go as far as supporting Labour's amendment.
I welcome that final sentence of the member's comments, but let me pick up on what he said about the timescale for the bill. Does he not recall that his party was in power for eight years? To expect us to publish the final bill within 18 months is asking quite a lot, given the complexity of the legislation.
The previous Administration had been in place for eight years when Mr Lochhead made his statement in June 2007—I am confused about the commitment that he gave at that stage.
Although I appreciate some of the arguments that the cabinet secretary used to justify his decision, he must accept that there are risks in detaching the establishment of marine Scotland from the publication of the bill. I contrast the approach to the marine bill with ministers' approach to the flood risk management proposals. The collaborative approach with the Parliament and stakeholders on flooding has rightly drawn praise and, I believe, will deliver results in the final legislation. In contrast, the more piecemeal approach to the marine bill does not augur well. There is a risk that the assurances and commitments that ministers give now are effectively second guessing the evidence that will be taken and the conclusions that the Parliament and its committees will reach, although time will tell.
However, the case for a single management organisation is widely accepted. One of the attractions—certainly for many of my constituents—is the prospect of a more streamlined licensing system. The consultation was unclear on whether marine Scotland will act as a single gateway for those who apply for a license or whether it will undertake the licensing work in-house. There are pros and cons with both approaches, and although ministers seem to be clear that responsibility for licence monitoring and enforcement should rest with the new body, there is less clarity about which approach they favour in handling applications.
I note the intention in the consultation to include dredging within the licensing system. From my discussions with Orkney Harbours, there is confusion about how that might operate alongside the existing responsibility to maintain navigable channels. Perhaps the minister will address that in his winding-up speech. Ministers have emphasised their desire for increased consultation, to enable consistency of approach and local involvement, but until we know the detail, it is hard not to see potential conflicts with the streamlining objective.
We believe that the proposed three-tiered approach to marine planning is appropriate. It should enable Scotland to meet its international obligations while setting its own national marine plan and objectives, and allow more local planning and management to take place through Scottish marine regions. We also support the proposals for a marine science strategy to focus on marine scientific effort. In that regard, I make a passing plea for sea bed mapping and submerged architecture. Members will have to wait a little longer for my discourse on differential crustal rebound, but there is already ample evidence that there was a time when my Orkney constituents would have taken a more active interest in ministers' ill-conceived plans for forestry. Although our submerged heritage is now recognised, we are still some way from understanding—let alone being able to protect—our submerged architecture, be it wreck or tomb.
Progress has been made, and the debate among stakeholders has steadily improved, but tensions remain in relation to the detail. That is why the continued delays in the process are highly regrettable. Liberal Democrats urge the Government to come forward with a dedicated marine bill without further delay. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S3M-3528.4, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Scottish Government to publish its conclusions on the consultation and bring forward a dedicated Scottish Marine Bill as soon as possible to ensure that Scotland does not fall behind the rest of the United Kingdom in the sustainable management of its seas and coast."
My contribution will be short, but very sweet. My amendment is motivated by the growing perception that the present world crisis offers an opportunity for us to move away from discussions that are fixed on economic growth and to focus on environmentally sustainable economic development. The difference between those two terms is critical.
I agree with the sentiments that Sarah Boyack expressed: the debate starts now, and we are really beginning to discuss the issue. There are many concerns, and what concerns me in particular about the tone of the Scottish National Party's motion is that it seems just a tad complacent.
The argument for including the environment at the core of things was forcefully and repeatedly made to the Government in many of the consultation responses. For example, the Marine Conservation Society wrote to say that it is
"very concerned that the new planning system is proposed to ‘ensure sustainable economic growth in the seas around Scotland'"
before the environment is mentioned.
As the Greens have often pointed out, successive Governments do not appear to understand what we mean by sustainability. Ministers seem to think that any economic activity becomes sustainable if it is sustained, as long as the cost to the environment is not terminal. They call it their "central purpose"; I call it a central misunderstanding. It is a particularly dangerous misunderstanding when it is applied to Scotland's seas, which are a vulnerable and fragile environment. Our amendment is intended to clarify the aims of the bill and to keep us on track by placing that all-important word "environmentally" in front of the words "sustainable development".
Concern about the issue was also highlighted by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in relation to national marine objectives. Although it supports a national marine plan that articulates marine objectives, it criticises the failure to commit absolutely to biodiversity in the development of objectives.
Scottish Environment LINK is
"extremely concerned that marine ecosystem objectives appear to be ‘balanced' by social and economic objectives."
The objectives should be central, not balanced.
The term "presumption of use" is of concern to many and is in conflict with the principles of sustainable development. The Scottish Wildlife Trust wrote:
"a presumption of use is unfair and unsustainable … The aim of Marine Planning should be to achieve a functional and biodiverse marine environment supported by Sustainable Development principles and the Ecosystem-based Approach",
which is a rather long way of saying "environmentally sustainable development". It continues:
"Presumption of use appears to undermine Sustainable Development principles."
Further, if marine biodiversity is to be respected, will the Government confirm that it will adopt a science-based approach to the selection of marine protected areas—I got a hint of that in the minister's speech—as set out in the consultation paper, and that it will not introduce a ministerial veto, as the UK Government has in the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill? I would also like confirmation that there will be a duty, and not simply a power, to create an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. Again, mention has been made of that. Concerns have been raised by the RSPB and others around the use of the word "proportionately" with regard to how new site protection powers will be used. What exactly does "proportionately" mean in relation to those new powers?
Scotland's seas are a simply stunning natural asset with an intrinsic value all their own, as the minister said. That demands that we give them more respect and better protection from here on. Scots do not look out at those waters and their wildlife and see only a price tag, and it would be a mistake for ministers to continue to do so. Any economic benefit that we are to gain from the sea, as we must, depends on the health of the ecosystem, which means that we must work within the system and respect the environmental limits of our seas.
Protection of the marine environment must be at the forefront of the legislation; it must not simply be an afterthought or a supportive measure, thus ensuring continued unsustainable economic growth. We must acknowledge the many concerns that remain, which were highlighted in the consultation responses, and ensure that we produce a bill that will respect the limits of the marine environment and its natural resources and biodiversity.
I move amendment S3M-3528.2, to leave out from "to drive" to "proposals" and insert:
"to accommodate environmentally sustainable economic development and improve the stewardship of the marine environment; acknowledges the positive response to the consultation, Sustainable Seas for All, the widespread support for the proposals and the concerns that remain".
The debate is fully subscribed so I will stop members as soon as their time limit is reached.
Our coasts and seas provide food from fisheries, energy and mineral resources, routes and harbours for shipping, tourism and recreation opportunities and sites of cultural and historic interest, meeting many economic and social needs, particularly in rural and island areas. At the same time, they contain distinctive and important habitats and support diverse species that we need to protect, conserve and enhance.
The sea is suffering. Human intervention in that vast ecosystem has led to devastating effects on the environment, and evidence of pollution and overexploitation abound. Fish that once seemed an inexhaustible resource are now in decline almost everywhere. Globally, 90 per cent of large predatory fish, such as tuna, swordfish and shark, have gone. In estuaries and coastal waters, 85 per cent of large whales and 60 per cent of small whales have disappeared. Many smaller fish species are also in decline. Indeed, most familiar sea creatures, from albatrosses to walruses and from seals to oysters, have suffered huge losses.
All those losses happened fairly recently. Cod was caught off Nova Scotia for centuries, but its systematic slaughter began only after 1852, and its biomass is now 96 per cent depleted. The killing of turtles in the Caribbean started in the 1700s, and their numbers are down by 99 per cent. Shark hunting in the Gulf of Mexico, which began only in the 1950s, has depleted the number of sharks by 45 to 99 per cent, depending on variety.
The marine bill will contain a section to reform the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, which is generally agreed to be ineffective and unenforceable. The shameful act of Jimmy Stewart, who clubbed 21 grey seal pups on Shetland, merely shows a blatant disregard for marine wildlife and maintaining the ecosystems of Scotland's oceans. Seals should have the same status as other piscivorous marine mammals such as otters, dolphins and porpoises.
The UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill provides the tools that are needed to designate and protect a network of marine conservation zones. It places a duty on the UK to exercise powers to establish a network of sites to assist in the conservation or improvement of the marine environment. The Scottish equivalent is the marine protected area. The co-ordination of MCZs and MPAs between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government will form an ecologically coherent network of protected sites.
MPAs will enable better protection of the marine environment. They can be established for a multitude of reasons—for example, to protect a certain species, to benefit fisheries management or to protect full ecosystems, rare habitats or nursing grounds for fish. They can even protect historical sites such as shipwrecks. In other countries, MPAs can be very large, such as the Great Barrier Reef, or very small, such as the Dry Tortugas in the Florida Keys. They can help to conserve the diversity of rare or threatened representative species and habitats, such as the rare fanshell and the ocean quahog clam and seagrass and maerl beds.
No-take zones are MPAs with specific restrictions. In them, fishing is banned to allow ecosystem regeneration. NTZs enable the local ecosystem to recover from the effects of overfishing and other damaging activities such as scallop dredging. Scotland's first no-take zone was created in Lamlash Bay, on the Isle of Arran, in my constituency. There, scientists will investigate biodiversity and the benefits of leaving the seabed to regenerate naturally without disturbance.
The Community of Arran Seabed Trust—COAST—worked for 13 years to build bridges between islanders, fishermen, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Government's marine directorate. COAST was formed to redress the dramatic collapse of marine life around Arran's shores and in the Firth of Clyde, drawing on positive examples of similar schemes from around the world, including those in the Isle of Man, Lundy island and New Zealand. The NTZ seemed a final step in that endeavour, and the cabinet secretary played a fundamental part in its delivery. However, there remain concerns that management of the NTZ and the MPAs will be in the hands of inshore fisheries groups, with conservation no longer at centre stage. I seek assurances from the minister that erosion of the conservation imperative will not happen.
The Arran NTZ will have long-term benefits for marine wildlife, research and the tourism economy. Protected populations of commercial species such as lobsters and scallops will also help to replenish the stocks in surrounding areas, thus benefiting fishing communities. The inhabitants of small rural and island communities often depend on several sources of income to survive, and the level of income is generally much lower than in the cities. Few towns and villages depend wholly on fishing, but small, often single-handed, fishing businesses are part of the fabric of local communities. Although not exclusively, those businesses tend to be the creel boats and divers who collectively offer the most sustainable and environmentally friendly methods of fishing. With the strategic siting of no-take zones taking into account local knowledge, those fisheries will benefit from zoning.
Most of our understanding of the oceans and seas has been gathered during the past 50 years, and it is vital to include that knowledge and understanding in marine planning. In order to bring our systems up to date, the plans and frameworks should consider the welfare of both wild and farmed animals. The plans must also include no-take zones, highly protected marine areas and fishery protection zones, which include no-take zones. With 130,000 square miles of sea soon to be under Scottish control, there is room for a strong fishing industry and a number of strongly protected marine areas.
I have spoken many times about the importance of the seas to our basic existence as human beings. Indeed, the seas provide the basis for life on our planet and largely determine the global climate and, in particular, local coastal environments. They also support a hugely economically valuable industry as well as a wide range of species from whales and dolphins to fish, birds and the humble plankton.
The seas are under enormous pressure from a huge range of competing uses, both inshore and offshore, to which the minister has alluded. There is growing pressure for offshore wind energy generation and for tidal energy generation. There is the extraction of oil, the fishing industry, which Kenny Gibson touched on, and sea angling in inshore waters. There are also recreational pursuits such as sailing, kayaking, the dreaded jet-skiing, and bird watching. Those are enormous competing pressures on our resource.
There are also pressures from pollution, following years of our dumping things in the sea and expecting the sea to take care of them. We know that there are limits. We also know that the sea is subject to climate change, with coastal erosion taking place partly because of greater tidal surges than we have seen before. On top of that, rising sea levels and temperatures are changing the existing ecosystems.
In addition, the seas are covered by a range of agencies that seek to govern what happens in them. The Crown Estate and local authorities have a role, as do SNH, the fisheries organisations and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I could name a whole range of organisations with a vital interest in the seas.
We have a resource that is vital and complex but also pressured. The proposed marine bill will give us a chance to address many issues. We have to reconcile the competing interests and seek management solutions. We have to develop the concept of spatial planning, which I hope will provide a basis for agreement on the use of our seas.
The bill will have to be founded on a firm principle, and I would like to pick up on some of Robin Harper's themes. The principle that the bill is based on will, itself, have to be based on sustainability and biodiversity. On those bases, we will be able to build sustainable economic growth. However, if sustainability and biodiversity do not come first, it will not be possible to sustain economic growth in the long term. The bill will have to build on those foundations. I hope that the bill will place a clear duty on Scottish ministers to promote biodiversity and to seek to secure the health of our seas in future. That duty should underpin all ministerial actions that flow from the bill.
In future, good pollution controls will be necessary, as will the sustainable exploitation of our fishing resource. We will have to protect the different species, and we will have to consider protected areas, as Kenny Gibson suggested. This is not just about halting the current decline in the condition of our seas; it is about recovering from damage that has been done for generations.
Sea anglers and others can tell us about the huge damage that has been done to our inshore waters. Whole species have disappeared, the seabed has been destroyed in parts, and corals have vanished. In that context, there must be a case for having protected areas. That is a controversial point. People need only visit the Sound of Barra to hear the reaction of local communities on what might happen if there is the imposition—as the communities might see it—of protected areas. I do not believe that we should force protected areas on communities; we have to try to take communities with us. However, in so doing, we must take the time and make the effort to spell out the conservation value of such measures and the potential for economic growth and activity that would result from effective conservation. Marine protected areas are one part of the strategy for the future.
In all our work, today's ministers and future ministers need to be bound and guided by the science that helps us to understand what is happening in the seas. I welcome the minister's recognition of the need for a marine science strategy and the like, but I say again that I would like the bill to put ministers under a duty not only to secure the scientific research that is required to understand what is happening in the marine environment but to—
I am sorry, but the member's time is up.
I am pleased to be involved in this debate on the proposed marine bill. If the bill is eventually passed, it will impact on the lives and wellbeing of many of our coastal communities. I would like to be convinced—absolutely assured—that any new legislation will not create more bureaucracy for those who wish to promote innovative businesses and developments in protected areas.
Members will appreciate that large areas of the Highlands and Islands are already covered by various designations and protections. That is causing difficulty for developments in those areas, especially for local fishermen and people involved in the cultivation of shellfish and in other forms of aquaculture. So many different agencies control marine activities that it is almost impossible to secure clear and unambiguous consent for even the most minor of developments. Any change to procedures and overall management is certainly to be welcomed. The Executive has suggested that a single agency, such as marine Scotland, would be the ultimate governing body. I am sure that that is welcome news for all potential developers.
There is provision under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that would allow for marine nature reserves, but we already have a proliferation of sites of special scientific interest, national nature reserves, local nature reserves, areas of special protection, national scenic areas and marine consultation areas. Those are just a few of the numerous designations.
Members will know that most of the foreshore and seabed around our coasts is under the control of the Crown Estate, which traditionally levies fees and rental charges for the privilege of attaching to the foreshore or seabed. Who is going to curb its activities? Use of the seabed below the high tide mark for any purpose remains the sole preserve of the Crown Estate.
I welcome the Government's main aims for marine Scotland, but I remain sceptical about how the organisation will work. I fear that it will be just another layer of bureaucracy that will make life even more difficult for those who make their living from the marine environment or who live next to the sea. I would like an agency to be set up to take a balanced view of marine regulation and protection.
I live at the head of Loch Duich in Wester Ross, which, like Loch Alsh and Loch Long, is already a heavily designated marine environment. In spite of that, for six months of the year, dredgers and trawlers are allowed to desecrate the seabed and fish farms are allowed to pour tonnes of waste fish food and sewage into those sea lochs every day. Meanwhile, in the name of environmental protection, local businesses and individuals have to suffer endless bureaucracy and costs even to build a small structure or put in a sewage outfall for domestic dwellings.
Planning approvals, whether on land or sea, should remain under the control of the local authority, particularly as the elected members of each authority live and work in their areas and have a clear understanding and knowledge of local issues. They are in the best position to determine sensible and practical solutions to promote and protect sustainable developments around our coastal waters.
I cautiously welcome the proposed bill and the establishment of marine Scotland, but I hope that the bill will properly balance the need for conservation and the need for development without creating more bureaucrats and bureaucracy in the process.
It will come as little surprise to hear the member for the Western Isles speak in favour of a marine bill. The sea has represented life and, often, death for generations of my constituents. The sea gives my constituency its outstanding beauty and distinctive way of life, and it represents a powerful argument to boundary commissions. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to deliver a marine bill and the bill's likely impact on Scotland's seas and marine habitats.
The Scottish Government's intention to introduce a marine bill follows its success in reaching an agreement with the United Kingdom Government to devolve to Scotland responsibility for all planning and marine conservation issues in Scottish seas to a distance of 200 nautical miles. That agreement, which was announced on 27 November 2008, has been welcomed by interests as varied as Oil and Gas UK, the RSPB and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Any proposed legislation that appeals to all three of those at once surely deserves a prize.
As we heard, the current situation is confusing. Scotland is defined in the Scotland Act 1998 as the land and territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles, but Scottish ministers are responsible for regulating some industries, such as fisheries and renewable energy, beyond those limits to 200 nautical miles. Even within the 12 nautical miles, some activities are reserved to the UK Government, such as shipping, navigation and safety at sea. The situation is arbitrary and makes little sense to those who use our seas for a living or who seek to preserve their environment.
There are a number of specific differences between Scotland's seas and those of the rest of the UK, which explains why a distinctive approach is needed. The environmental status of most seas around Scotland differs from that of the seas around the rest of the UK, with most Scottish seas being classed as good or excellent environmentally, whereas the environmental status of most seas around the rest of the UK is compromised or severely degraded. In addition, most of the exceptionally long coast around Scotland is underdeveloped, inaccessible and sparsely populated. Scotland has an incredible 11,000km of coastline, which is 10 per cent of the coastline of Europe.
There are many good economic reasons for the bill. Scotland's fisheries zone—that is, the waters that are within 200 miles of the coast—covers 127,000 square miles of sea, which, amazingly, is nearly a quarter of total European Union waters.
Scotland accounts for 90 per cent of the UK's farmed fish. There are a significant number of fish farms in the Western Isles and elsewhere. I am sorry to say, of course, that we do not currently have the number of local fish processing jobs that we used to have, or could yet have. The seas around Scotland are some of the most productive in the world and support around 16,000 fishing and aquaculture-related jobs, with more than 60 per cent of the UK's total catch coming from Scottish vessels.
Scotland's seas are, obviously, essential to fishing communities around Scotland, which is a point that I made recently to the European Commission in Brussels, which seems determined to press Scotland into designating a deeply controversial marine special area of conservation around Mingulay and Barra.
Perhaps the most immediate and practical argument for the bill is that it will overhaul and consolidate the complete mess of around 80 acts that regulate Scotland's seas at the moment.
It has often been said, rightly, that this Parliament's land reform legislation is an example of something that Westminster never had—and never would have—the parliamentary time or political inclination to do. What goes for Scotland's land probably also goes for its seas. Consolidating all the legislation into one bill should bring cohesion to an area that is vital to the economy and environment of Scotland.
The complexity of the proposed bill is undeniable. However, that is only because of the complexity of the mess that it seeks to clear up. Scotland's seas deserve a single bill and a single agency. Unfortunately, we might have to leave to another day discussion of the really interesting questions, such as the role of the Crown, what the rights to mineral exploitation should be or what the definition is of where the border in the Solway Firth really lies on any given day and at any given level of the tide. The proposed bill will give Scotland's seas the legislative protection and definition that they surely deserve.
I join other members in wishing Roseanna Cunningham well in her new post.
I agree with other speakers about the need for a robust and overarching marine policy that is drawn up in collaboration with the rest of the UK and, indeed, Europe, and is informed by the reform of the common fisheries policy. At a Scottish level, our policy direction must be informed by the wider EU and UK strategies. However, we must devolve as far as possible the management of the seas to the communities that are dependent on them for their survival.
The consultation is not clear about the interaction and relationship between marine Scotland and the Scottish marine regions. Organisations that responded to the consultation seemed unsure about the area that the marine regions would cover. Will they be big enough to allow strategic planning, or will that power be held by local government or marine Scotland? Are they small enough to ensure that all stakeholders and communities that are dependent on the seas for their livelihoods are involved?
The bill is also about structural planning for renewable energy and so on. It also has to be about managing the seas, which means that the involvement of our fisheries sector is imperative. When local communities are involved in the management of the seas, we see benefits with regard to sustainability, as fishermen sign up to conservation initiatives. They need a strong voice in any management system.
How are the Scottish marine regions to be devised? What geographical area will they cover? Who is involved in their structure? How do communities become involved? How does the industry become involved? What is the role for non-governmental organisations and industrial developers? Those questions need to be answered if people are to be able to respond more fully. I heard the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment say that he will listen to people's thoughts on those matters before coming to a final decision, but I also ask that that final decision be consulted on.
Colleagues have talked about the proposed structure of marine Scotland in detail. It is unfortunate that a decision has been made before any parliamentary scrutiny. Will the structure of marine Scotland be set out in the bill and will it be possible to amend it at that stage? I hope so. The approach is more about political expediency than it is about what is good for our marine environment. For years, work has taken place between Fisheries Research Services and fishermen. Bringing them together has been a long and tortuous process, but it is bearing fruit. However, the new structure will tear apart that fragile relationship and undo the good practice that has been developed.
Placing Fisheries Research Services and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency together in one organisation will immediately breed concern, because of the enforcement aspects of the protection agency. I am not an apologist for anyone who has anything to hide from the agency, but I am realistic. Good research is based on an open and transparent flow of information. Putting the organisations together will ensure that the relationship between fishermen and scientists is no longer open and transparent. Which one of us, when driving along observing the highway code, does not feel uncomfortable when a police car draws up behind us and follows us down the road? Every fishing crew that works with fishery researchers on board will feel the same discomfort, because those researchers will be part of the enforcement agency.
We will lose the joint working that has had a real impact on our fisheries science and research. The proposals are unnecessary and damaging, and they bring nothing to the table but political dogma. In Prospect's response to the consultation, it states:
"the merger of regulation and research could impact upon FRS's ability to collect fisheries data."
Prospect goes further and states that the loss of FRS's independence will be damaging, pointing out that it is a respected international centre for independent marine science and advice and that
"There is a real danger that FRS will lose its reputation for independent scientific advice if it becomes too close to its customer the Marine Directorate."
This week, the cabinet secretary has set up a quota management system that is more about constitutional wrangling than it is about the industry's needs. It is centralising rather than devolving, and it is creating a bureaucracy that will wrap our fishing communities in red tape rather than supporting the industry.
Will the member take an intervention?
Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
I suspect not.
Okay. I am sorry, Mr Lochhead.
In the proposed bill, political ideology again comes ahead of the needs of the communities that we serve. The minister must change the balance and put our communities before that dogma.
The debate has been interesting and I welcome much of what has been said. There is a growing consensus around the fact that, through a combination of no-take zones, marine protected areas and marine conservation areas, we can give ourselves the opportunity to grow the stock and biodiversity in Scotland's seas. We must accept that the primary aim of conservation is to increase biomass, not just to keep things as they are, and to increase biodiversity, not simply to conserve the few species that might remain in a particular area of the sea. The aim is also to conserve ecosystems. The most important point is that we have an ecosystem approach. Because the ecosystem off Nova Scotia has broken down and changed so much, the cod are unlikely ever to return, as there is nothing left to support them. We are talking not about individual stocks but about entire ecosystems.
If the proposed bill simply consolidates 80 acts, simplifies the legislation and makes things easier for people, it will have failed. The bill must have a central aim, and I believe that such an aim is developing in the conversations. It is part of the Government's aim to conserve and maintain the seas around Scotland.
I was very disappointed by Rhoda Grant's rather gloomy view of the idea of co-working and fishermen's likely reaction to having people from the fisheries protection service on their boats, who will be there to protect the stocks; to work with the fishermen to increase stock sizes; to observe the effects of fishing; and to work out ways to fish in our waters at the same time as growing stocks.
Robin Harper misses my point. The problem is that scientists are different from fishery protection. The scientists should have full and free access to fishing data and should work closely with fishermen, but if fishermen feel that they are being policed at the same time, they might not be as open.
I thank Rhoda Grant for that clarification. We certainly must have scientists working with the fishermen. I was glad to hear references to the science from the Government.
In my opening speech I neglected to congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on her promotion to ministerial rank and I look forward to having some pretty robust discussions during consideration of the bill.
I am afraid that I have a difficulty with the Labour amendment. My supporters have lobbied me quite intensely on that, so I will not be able to support the amendment.
I was delighted to see the references in the Tory amendment to seabirds, but the straightforward reference to commercial development was unqualified by the words "environmentally sustainable". That is in opposition to a motion that I lost, so I will not be able to support the amendment.
Will Robin Harper tell us what is so problematic about our amendment? It has been lodged for only a few hours, so I am wondering why it has generated such huge opposition from the Green Party.
I would love to be able to explain that in detail but, as Sarah Boyack will well know, getting full clarity on that will come subsequent to the debate. I have only 15 seconds left, anyway.
I would welcome from the Government—
I am afraid that the member's time is up. I am sorry.
I warmly welcome Roseanna Cunningham to her new post and I look forward to shadowing her as closely as I shadowed Mr Russell.
The debate has highlighted our marine and coastal environment, which contains many special and unique landscapes of national and international renown. We have distinctive habitats such as sea lochs and maerl beds, which are as synonymous with Scotland as tulips are with Amsterdam. Scottish waters are among the most diverse in the world, as they support 8,000 complex and more than 36,000 single-cell species. Two examples that come to mind are leatherback turtles and basking sharks.
My South of Scotland region includes a large part of the Scottish coastline—the mild Solway and Ayrshire coast in the west and the East Lothian and Berwickshire coast in the east. I estimate that it has more than 600 km of coastline. The Bass Rock in the east and Ailsa Craig in the far west, which were mentioned by the cabinet secretary—unfortunately, he is now absent—are both in my region and both have gannet populations. The Solway Firth was one of the five contenders for the national park location. I hope that that will come in the future. I seek an assurance from the Government that those plans have not been put on the back burner.
As John Scott and John Farquhar Munro said, the coastline is important economically as it supports communities, whether through fishing, aquaculture or tourism. It has been well noted that 16,000 jobs in fishing and aquaculture generate a landing value of £300 million from Scottish boats and a farm-gate value of £340 million. Alasdair Allan said that Scotland produces about 90 per cent of UK farmed fish and shellfish. People visiting Historic Scotland's staffed coastal and island properties generate £2.5 million of income per annum and recreational diving opportunities attract many thousands of divers every year. St Abbs has flora wrecks that include U-boats, and businesses such as Eyemouth-based Marine Quest have grasped such opportunities following the decommissioning of their fishing boats. John Scott mentioned that the oil and gas industry supports 164,000 jobs.
There is cross-party agreement that Scotland's seas should be managed coherently and in a manner that addresses social, economic and environmental factors. Of course, the difficulty is working out how to achieve that in practice. I emphasise that a sensible balance must be struck between economic activity and other uses of our seas, given their economic importance to Scotland.
I welcome the prospect of a Scottish marine bill, which must complement UK legislation—the reference to the UK is an important part of our amendment—although the process might be complex. However, I share my colleagues' disappointment that, well over a year since the previous debate on the subject, and despite the cabinet secretary's upbeat words back in June 2007, proposals have still not been produced.
Key issues should be addressed in producing a Scottish bill. Scotland will have responsibility for planning and conservation measures out to 200 nautical miles, as the Scottish Liberal Democrats originally suggested. An integrated system of marine spatial planning is needed. It is crucial that those two aspects build on current powers over sea fisheries and offshore renewable energy. The Government must therefore continue positive dialogue with UK ministers to achieve the benefits that we all want from the use of the sea.
Without a streamlined framework for coastal zone management, evidence of environmental degradation has increased. A more integrated approach would reduce uncertainty and bring benefits to all users of the marine and coastal environments. It is therefore vital that the Westminster and Holyrood bills complement each other, to achieve consistency in planning our uses of the sea and in protecting sites for rare wildlife.
I welcome the consultation document. I am pleased that many of the proposals in it were recommended by AGMACS, which Liam McArthur mentioned. The previous Administration founded that group, which Ross Finnie chaired. Those recommendations included the creation of a dedicated marine management organisation; the co-ordination of marine planning; an increased local focus; a three-tiered planning structure; the extension of some responsibilities up to 200 nautical miles; and a three-pillared approach to marine conservation.
I ask the minister to assure us that licensing arrangements will be aligned with proposals to protect the marine environment under the bill. Concern has been expressed that gas and oil have been removed from the marine management organisation's remit under the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill and that it is not guaranteed to be given responsibility for carbon capture and storage. That suggests that protection of the marine environment is not being sufficiently considered. Will marine Scotland play a part in such matters?
Full account of environmental risks needs to be taken in licensing for offshore storage of natural gas and carbon dioxide. I ask the Government to provide assurances that that is being considered.
Liberal Democrats welcome a better and more streamlined approach to marine conservation and management. We have called repeatedly for the introduction of a marine bill, which should be introduced sooner rather than later. Liam McArthur and I hope that, a year from now, we will not have the same debate. The Scottish Government should not delay the delivery of better marine management. I sincerely hope that the cabinet secretary or the minister will offer a timescale for introducing the bill and I look for support from throughout the chamber for our amendment.
The debate has highlighted the crucial importance of the Government's proposed marine bill to the future of Scotland's marine environment and the need to get that right. As my colleague John Scott said, Scottish Conservatives welcome the Government's commitment to deliver a Scottish marine bill that aims to protect Scotland's marine environment and to drive growth sustainably.
Our marine environment is world class. It contains a wealth of biodiversity that supplies commercial and recreational fishing interests, supports our renowned seabird colonies and underpins a significant tourism industry, particularly in more remote parts of the country. That environment is increasingly threatened by overexploitation, climate change and development, such as the now-mature offshore oil industry and the growing renewable energy sector, which plans to harness wind, wave and tidal power. Of course, such activity is important for our current and future energy needs and our economic wellbeing.
The many activities that take place around our shores and a growing awareness that we need to manage our seas in a sustained, integrated way have led to demand for the marine bill that is now promised by the Scottish Government and which was welcomed by most respondees to the recent consultation. Current legislation has developed in a piecemeal, fragmented manner and has become overly complex and bureaucratic; there is clearly a desire to simplify that. The analysis of responses to the consultation showed that the need for simplification and a reduction in bureaucracy were the chief reason given for welcoming legislative change. That must be put at the heart of the bill.
We see an overarching strategic spatial plan as essential for the marine environment. We agree with the proposal for a three-tier marine planning framework. We have long been supportive of a devolved marine management organisation for Scottish waters, so we strongly support the Government's creation of marine Scotland, with responsibility for marine science, planning and policy development. The body will bring together under one umbrella the work of the Fisheries Research Services, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and the Government's marine directorate. Provided that an associated appeals process is set up, we see that as the best means of enabling the provisions that are planned for the bill to be implemented. We think that the sooner marine Scotland is up and running, the better, so we are unwilling to support Labour's amendment, despite the explanation that Elaine Murray gave to John Scott.
We welcome the Liberal Democrats' positive approach and will vote for their amendment. We will also support the Green amendment, although I must respond to Robin Harper. As John Scott and Jim Hume said, there need not be incompatibility between sustainable development and economic development—surely they can progress together.
John Scott explained our amendment, which I hope will have the support of the Parliament. Our commercial fishermen, who have weathered significant problems in recent years, need to be involved in all plans for marine conservation measures, to ensure that they benefit from the sustainable management of fish stocks. Likewise, recreational sea-angling interests should have a strong voice in marine Scotland, as a healthy marine environment is crucial to the continuing future of an activity that makes a major financial contribution to the many coastal communities that depend on the business that visiting sea anglers create. We are concerned about the European Commission's article 47 proposals to regulate sea angling and ask the Government to consider whether it can use the marine bill as a means of safeguarding recreational angling off the Scottish coastline from the Commission's potentially damaging plans.
Following yesterday's members' business debate on seabirds, at which there was general agreement that action is needed to protect our iconic seabirds from the impact of climate change and depletion of their food sources, we look forward to the forthcoming marine bill containing measures that are designed to tackle the severe decline in our breeding seabird colonies.
We welcome the general thrust of the proposals for the marine bill, which have received the support of many of those who responded to the consultation. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail, and many diverse interests will plead their case during consideration of the bill. However, I hope that the Government will remain true to its intentions, so that we end up with simplified legislation that will ensure the future protection of our marine biodiversity and a sustainable economic future for our diverse marine industries.
This is an important topic for debate. It has come to Parliament early in the process; both Liam McArthur and Jim Hume made the point that members have not yet seen the Government's response to its consultation, still less the draft bill. However, this being environment week, it is appropriate for us to discuss a subject as important as the conservation and enhancement of the marine environment around Scotland.
Labour is broadly supportive of the Scottish Government's proposals. Indeed, the UK counterpart of those proposals, the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, was a Labour Party commitment in the 2005 elections. The bill commenced its committee stage last month. Both the UK bill and the Scottish bill will transpose the EU marine directive into international law, a process that must be completed by 15 July next year.
However, we have some concerns about the Scottish Government's proposals, which we have highlighted in our amendment and today's debate. We have no wish to delay the proposed marine bill, which is important, and we support the establishment of marine Scotland, but the decision to establish it as a Government directorate runs counter to some of the representations that were made during the consultation. I have no knowledge of telephone conversations between the cabinet secretary and organisations; we are basing our response on what is in the public domain.
The proposed approach raises subsidiary issues that require to be resolved. Scottish Environment LINK, the umbrella group that represents more than 30 environmental organisations, obtained independent legal advice that marine Scotland ought to be a non-departmental public body, to ensure its independence from Government. The proposed UK marine management organisation will be an NDPB, and Scottish Environment LINK said in its submission to the consultation that it is
"desirable that both bodies operate in the same way."
However, the decision has been made and a number of questions require answers. Will advice to ministers be published? How will transparency be ensured? How will appeals be dealt with? Scottish Environment LINK suggested that if marine Scotland is not to be an NDPB, an environmental court should be established. Will there be a conflict if marine Scotland is responsible for economic growth and environmental protection? Will marine Scotland be responsible for the control of aquaculture? Why is it proposed that the research functions of the Fisheries Research Services will be absorbed into marine Scotland, given that there is a strong case for retaining those functions in an independent advisory body?
Rhoda Grant talked about the tensions that might arise in relation to the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency's enforcement role. I reassure Robin Harper that we support scientists working with fishermen. However, the subsuming of organisations into a Government directorate will potentially cause problems.
I am sorry that Robin Harper cannot support Labour's amendment, because we support the amendment in his name. I am concerned that too much emphasis has been placed on economic growth and not enough on the five principles of sustainable development. Scottish Environment LINK pointed out in its response to the consultation:
"the five guiding principles of sustainable development … are not hierarchical but mutually supporting and do not include economic growth as a maxim."
The Scottish Council for National Parks said in its submission:
"we should not approach this issue by trying to balance conservation objectives with socio-economic objectives. In this case it is not just a matter of applying the Sandford Principle to deal with conflicts between conservation and socio-economic objectives, it is a matter of ensuring that we regain a fully functioning marine ecosystem which then can be cropped at a sustainable level."
Like those respondents and others, we think that the purpose of the marine bill must be to ensure the recovery of the marine ecosystem. The purpose is not simply to conserve the ecosystem's current state of health and prevent it from getting worse, or indeed to ensure that we can continue to exploit the seas as we have become accustomed to doing.
In the consultation document, the Scottish Government claimed:
"The seas are generally healthy and biologically diverse".
The Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network responded to that claim:
"This of course is untrue when one considers the state of our inshore waters. Fish stocks around our coasts have collapsed … Sustainable exploitation is NOT the answer, we need to REGENERATE the biodiversity of our inshore waters".
Peter Peacock referred to the pressure on our seas. In its submission, Greenpeace said:
"the busy seas around highly-populated areas like the UK are among the most under pressure."
The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society said:
"We are not operating in a healthy environment from which we can move forward. There are considerable efforts to be made to reverse declines of populations of marine species".
Under the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill, sea fisheries committees will be replaced by inshore fisheries and conservation authorities for coastal waters out to 3 nautical miles. If the inshore fisheries group's membership in Scotland is restricted to commercial interests and the group has no input from organisations that have an interest in conservation and recreation, such as the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network, we will not address the local depletion of many species that has happened during the past 20 years to the extent that there is local extinction in some places. Kenny Gibson and Peter Peacock made that point.
Many respondents to the consultation stressed the importance of taking an approach that is coherent with that of other legislatures. In a joint letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on 1 October 2008, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, RSPB Scotland and WWF Scotland argued strongly for "clear, overarching arrangements". The organisations referred to the Irish Sea pilot and said:
"a duty of coordination should be placed on both Marine Scotland and the UK MMO."
Alasdair Allan mentioned the Solway. Of course, I have a particular interest in it. I noticed the response from Dumfries and Galloway Council, which states:
"There needs to be an integrated cross-border approach for the Solway as a single Marine Region with links to both the Scottish and UK Marine Plans."
The Solway Firth Partnership stressed the need to ensure
"a truly integrated management approach in and between Scottish waters, Manx waters, UK waters, ‘regional seas' such as the Irish Sea and the wider oceans such as the Atlantic."
The UK bill, as its title implies, proposes a coastal protection zone and the development of an English coastal path. In a members' business debate just before the February recess, we discussed a motion by the Deputy Presiding Officer, Alasdair Morgan, on the desirability of developing a Scottish coastal path. During that debate, I pointed out that, in addition to the UK proposals, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Latvia, Norway, Spain and Sweden were among some of our European neighbours that had introduced some form of coastal protection zone. I repeat my request that the Scottish Government give serious consideration to introducing something similar in its forthcoming marine bill. I understand that the new minister is an enthusiastic walker and I am sure that she will have some sympathy for that position. I would be interested to hear her thoughts on the matter.
We support all the other amendments. The proposed bill is important, but it is extremely important that we strike the right balance between economic growth and the need for not only conservation but regeneration of our marine environment. That must be the focus of the bill.
I have a lot of scribbled notes, because members have raised a great many points. I will deal with as many of them as I can.
First, it is worth recapping the reality of Scotland's seas and why they are vital. They hold 40,000 species and internationally important populations of marine mammals and seabirds. Scotland has renowned seabird populations, some of which are in serious decline, as we debated last night, and the largest seabird colony in Great Britain and Ireland, which has more than 1 million breeding seabirds—a number that it is virtually impossible to conceive of. We also have around 30 per cent of the world population of grey seals and 45 per cent of the European Community population of common seals. Scottish waters also contain 22 species of porpoise, dolphin and whales, as well as some of the finest marine habitats in Europe.
That is all important in and of itself, and it is important that we cherish what we have. It is also important because it is part and parcel of Scotland's economic wellbeing. I do not consider the two to be mutually exclusive. The Scottish fishing zone is one of the largest of any EU nation and sea fishing has always been a way of life in Scotland. It is a fundamental part of our food production. Scotland's seas provide £2.2 billion-worth of economic activity to the country. We cannot ignore that, but our aim is to create a framework for faster economic growth in a greener way. That is achievable.
The truth is that there is agreement with Westminster on marine management that is already delivering some of the Government's goals. The executive devolution of marine planning and nature conservation to Scotland is a significant achievement. We must build on that.
The creation and role of marine Scotland took up a substantial part of the debate. Getting marine Scotland up and running as soon as possible is essential if we are to deliver our vision and to do so as quickly as possible. The word "deliver" is important, because marine Scotland is the delivery mechanism for what we are trying to achieve through the bill. I am sorry that the Labour Party has taken the approach that it has taken in its amendment, which seems a little bit like saying "Hurry up and wait." Marine Scotland will be our champion for the marine environment. As part of the Scottish Government, it will provide direct accountability by Scottish ministers to the Parliament.
Does the minister accept that our amendment concerns a point of principle about how we debate in the Parliament? A major consultation has been held, with many responses that we welcome. However, not seeing the Government's response to those responses has made the debate difficult, because we have been unable to focus on how we move forward and we are stuck having the same debate as we had a year ago.
That is not necessarily the case. If Sarah Boyack thinks about it, she will see that marine Scotland is reconfiguring what already exists within Government, bringing it together, and providing it in a more focused and sensible way. The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and the Fisheries Research Services are already accountable to the Scottish Government marine directorate. They will all be part of marine Scotland.
We need to give the staff of those bodies certainty and not simply wait yet another year or two to get it going. It is right to make the decision now on the status of marine Scotland before we introduce the bill in the next few months. That will avoid a year of delay and missed opportunities—a year that we cannot afford to lose. Marine Scotland will be taking on its new responsibilities as soon as the marine bill is enacted. We are getting ahead of the game by doing it this way. Of course, we are listening to what stakeholders say about marine Scotland operating transparently, efficiently and fairly, but we have to get moving.
Order. There are too many conversations going on.
I will try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. Stakeholder input was enormous, and many of the proposals—such as the new planning system, streamlined licensing, the improved conservation power, greater protection for seals and, yes, the creation of marine Scotland—received a favourable response.
Today's debate brought up a number of useful points, and this is the final opportunity for them to be raised. John Scott talked about the UK bill, which does not give us the wider powers that we might want. However, we are discussing further devolution of wider nature conservation powers and we hope to get moving on that.
Kenneth Gibson rightly raised the concerns of his constituents on Arran, with whom we are in constant dialogue.
Liam McArthur wanted to raise the issue of dredging. We are aware of the harbour authorities' statutory duties, and we are considering how we can better achieve a balance between necessary controls while avoiding additional burdens. I hope to hear more from Liam McArthur on that.
Robin Harper and Peter Peacock talked about the need for good science in what we are doing. There will be a scientific board in marine Scotland, so we are talking about delivering on the science already.
Alasdair Allan raised a specific constituency interest of which I am well aware. No decisions have been made yet.
I want to ensure that I do not run out of time, so I will try to get to those whom I have missed later.
The important point is that today's debate was about the consultation on the bill. We owe it to everyone to ensure that we achieve the maximum economic growth that we can achieve, but that must be tempered by the realisation that the environment in which growth takes place—[Interruption.]
Order. Far too many conversations are taking place around the chamber. I am sorry, minister; please continue.
That environment cannot be an afterthought. The truth is that if we approach environmental collapse, there will be no economic growth; the two things are bound together. It cannot be an afterthought; it must become part of the equation of growth, enhancing growth and, in turn, being enhanced by growth. That is what we are about, and I ask members to support the motion.
I am sorry that Sarah Boyack's tone was the way it was, but we will not accept the Labour amendment. Being accused of being too positive is quite astonishing—the Labour Party should reflect on that. We are happy to accept all the other amendments. Some points were well made; we listened to them and we still have time to bring some of the issues on board. I hope to get back to all members on points that I have not been able to deal with in my closing speech.
I ask members to support the motion.