Marine Scotland Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4969, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on stage 1 of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. I call Richard Lochhead to speak to and move the motion.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was not sure whether it was the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee who was going to open the debate, but I am happy to follow your instructions.
Today is a momentous day for the Scottish Parliament. We have the opportunity to support the Marine (Scotland) Bill, which will, for the first time, provide a framework to safeguard our marine environment and to manage our seas properly to ensure that they continue to deliver economic benefits for future generations, within environmental limits.
I thank the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for its diligent scrutiny of the bill, which is reflected in the detailed stage 1 report that Parliament will be discussing today, and for its support for the general principles of the bill.
I am sure that everyone agrees that our seas help to define Scotland as a nation. They have been vital to our people since time immemorial. We have a long and proud history as a maritime nation. Throughout history, we have impacted on the marine environment, and not always with the sensitivity that that important resource demands. With that in mind, we must look to the challenges ahead, such as energy security, food security and climate change, and, when tackling those issues, to how we balance conservation with development and growth.
We have a big task ahead, but it is a challenge that we can and must meet, because 21st century Scotland still relies on its seas in many ways. Our seas are among the most biologically productive in the world and we must ensure that they remain that way. Every year, they generate billions of pounds for the Scottish economy. We must balance extracting opportunities for the more traditional sectors in our seas, such as sea fisheries, aquaculture, and oil and gas, with the demands of our new sectors, such as renewable energy and wildlife tourism. At the same time, though, we must safeguard our precious and world-famous marine habitats.
For the first time, we will have a marine planning system to help us to strike a balance between the competing demands for our valuable marine resources. The bill will simplify the current complicated licensing regime and allow us to make important changes to how we protect and conserve our marine habitats and species. For instance, the historic marine protected area provision will enable us to improve our management of our marine cultural heritage. That is an important new aspect of the debate. The bill will also put Scotland at the forefront of improving seal protection by creating a new offence of killing or injuring a seal at any time, unless under licence.
The framework that we are outlining today has been developed over many years, through a series of reports and advisory groups. More than 8,000 stakeholders engaged in the consultation process last year, which perhaps speaks volumes about the level of public interest in the issue. Stakeholders' responses showed widespread support for more integrated, simpler and more effective and efficient marine management arrangements. That is one of the reasons why, from 1 April this year, we established Marine Scotland as part of the Scottish Government. Marine Scotland will champion Scotland's seas.
I am grateful for the work that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has undertaken during the five months of scrutiny. It has worked hard to get to grips with the diversity of marine interests and the complicated management issues. Many of the committee's recommendations are in line with the Government's thinking. I will touch on key points in the committee's report.
First, the committee is keen that a duty should be placed on Scottish ministers and all relevant public bodies to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of Scotland's marine area. I have some sympathy for the principle behind the committee's recommendation, although we need to think carefully about the precise language to avoid confusion about competing objectives. For instance, the committee refers specifically to the marine strategy framework directive. Under the directive, we will be required to work towards achieving good environmental status in all Scotland's waters by 2020. I believe that the commitment is already there. In the next few days, together with other United Kingdom Administrations, we will be launching a consultation on the transposition of the directive.
Today, I announce to Parliament that Scotland will be the competent authority for all Scottish waters right out to 200 nautical miles, with allowances built in for reserved interests. We are agreeing a concordat with the UK Government on how those arrangements will work.
Marine planning will be an essential tool to deliver the marine strategy framework directive. Marine planning is intended to balance the competing uses of marine resources, reduce uncertainty about where activities can take place, and allow for decisions to be made in agreement with a variety of stakeholders working together. I am grateful for the committee's acceptance of the need for a flexible approach towards the drawing up of a national plan.
The committee recommended the inclusion of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the list of objectives that a national marine plan may set out, and I would be pleased to consider an amendment on that. That is a sensible idea, given the challenges facing Scotland in that regard, and the recent passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Under the bill, the Scottish Parliament will be able to consider and have input to a draft national plan before it is formally adopted. I am happy to explore whether a minimum period for parliamentary consideration would be appropriate. That was another issue raised in the consultation.
Marine planning partnerships are new, and I am pleased that the committee supports the Government's flexible approach to their membership and governance. In some cases, there will be more than one local authority within a marine region, so a partnership arrangement will be the most appropriate. Even where there is only one lead authority in the Scottish marine region, we would all still envisage a strong focus on partnership working in each area of Scotland. Marine Scotland is considering how the partnerships will work and will produce guidance in due course.
There is further work to do to identify marine region boundaries and I am grateful for the work of the Scottish coastal forum in establishing the views of stakeholders on how Scottish marine region boundaries could be defined. I will send a copy of its report on marine regions to the committee.
I appreciate that the Solway Firth is a rather sensitive issue and I have written to the UK Government to indicate that this Government would be pleased to work with our UK partners in treating the Solway as an integrated planning area. The UK Government has its own views on the issue, but we have agreed to work on a concordat, which will be drawn up to address arrangements for cross-border working.
The key aspect of the planning sections of the bill is the requirement that licensing decisions be taken in accordance with the marine plan. I think that members will all agree that the current licensing system is more complicated than it needs to be. One of the most complicated areas is aquaculture licences. I note that the committee was unable to reach a unanimous view on that issue. In my view, the bill provides the best practical solution to the situation that we find ourselves in regarding aquaculture consents. Overall, the bill will simplify the licensing regime.
In its stage 1 report, the committee expressed concern that there are no substantial provisions in the bill to govern the mechanisms for appealing against licensing decisions and notices. That is important. I want to get the appeals process right. I assure Parliament that we will introduce proposals for an independent appeals process. Our preference is for appeals to go to the sheriff courts. We will make provision in secondary legislation to allow for full consultation with interested parties to ensure that that process is as effective as possible.
On activities requiring a licence, as recommended by the committee I am happy to amend sections 17 and 24 to specify more clearly the criteria used to determine whether activities should be added or removed from the list, and to specify criteria for not requiring a licence. I also intend to introduce an amendment to section 35 to allow for the restoration of a damaged site.
I can also provide reassurance that the licensing provisions are designed to avoid overlap with other legal processes and to work seamlessly with other aspects of the bill, including the powers to deliver marine protected areas.
The committee would like the bill to impose a duty to create a network of marine protected areas. We are already committed to establishing an ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine protected areas and Marine Scotland is developing draft guidelines on how the proposed powers will be used to establish a network. Nonetheless, I am happy to consider further amendment in this area.
Also, I welcome the committee's agreement that the designation of nature conservation marine protected areas be science driven. The bill does not exclude the consideration of social and economic factors and the desirability of mitigating climate change in the management of marine protected areas, which is an issue that the committee raised in its report.
Another key aspect of the bill's conservation credentials is the proposals on seal conservation. I recognise the often polarised views of interested parties, but I remain confident that better protection for seals and the introduction of a new licensing system are the best means of managing those conflicts. Of course, a modern approach to seal management and protection must not be overly restrictive. I am therefore somewhat cautious about the suggestion that we should include a harassment offence in the bill. I appreciate the intent behind the recommendation, but I ask the Parliament to recognise the difficulties of achieving that without many unintended consequences for very legitimate activities. It is helpful that the committee has referred to those challenges in its report. I assure Parliament that the development of policy on seals, the deployment of renewables and the development of non-lethal deterrents will depend on a lot of scientific monitoring and reporting.
I have given a rapid account of the main features of the marine bill and the main changes that we intend to introduce at stage 2. We recognise that legislation alone will not achieve all the improvements. Effective implementation is essential. We are already developing policy on the orders and regulations that are needed under the bill. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that our seas are protected and managed sustainably for future generations. We are working to deliver enhanced economic growth while ensuring that our seas are looked after in the decades and years ahead.
Striking the right balance between the long-term viability and growth of our economy and the enhanced protection of our special marine environment is at the heart of the bill. There is huge interest in Scotland's marine environment. I know that the bill is welcomed as a significant improvement on the way in which we manage our seas.
I commend the committee's report, the debate and our motion to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Marine (Scotland) Bill.
I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.
This is a big bill on an important subject: the custodianship of Scotland's coastal waters out to the 12-mile limit. Scrutinising it at stage 1 meant some hard work for the committee, but I think that I speak for all members when I say that it was also an enjoyable experience. It was particularly rewarding to make fact-finding visits earlier in the year, when the days were longer and the weather just a little warmer, to three beautiful stretches of the Scottish coastline: at Buchan, on the Firth of Lorne and on the Solway Firth. There, we heard first hand from people who live by the sea or make their living from it about the effect that they think the bill will have on them, and what changes they would propose to make it better.
On behalf of the committee, I express my thanks to the people who gave generously of their time on those visits, one of which also involved a full committee meeting in Kirkcudbright. I also pass on our thanks to the many people, including two petitioners, who provided evidence to us in writing or in person at our five stage 1 meetings. I thank the entire membership of the committee. I also thank its clerking team, past and present, and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre—Wendy Kenyon in particular—for their unstinting work. Finally, I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for the hard work that they have put into getting the bill this far along the road—if that is the right metaphor for a marine bill. It is only fair to note at the outset that the bill builds on work that was undertaken by the previous Administration and on an important report that the former Environment and Rural Development Committee produced in 2007.
Scotland's inshore waters are among our most precious resources, as a source not only of food but, increasingly, of renewable energy. They are a resource for boat cruises, recreational angling, activity holidays and so on and they are also simply where we go to relax and enjoy the beauty and sea air. Our seas are also—or certainly should be—a haven for a diversity of animals, plants and birds. It is therefore vital that they enjoy adequate protection.
That said, anyone making a living from our seas might be forgiven for thinking, "Oh, no, more laws about marine management are on their way!" Fishermen, in particular, complain with some justification that, at times, they are practically drowning in a sea of rules and regulations. I want to make it clear that the committee would not have supported the bill at stage 1 if we had thought that it was likely to add to the administrative burden. On balance, we do not, which is why we recommend in our report that the general principles of the bill be approved.
Indeed, we are hopeful that the bill has the potential to make things less rather than more complicated and that it will improve channels of communication between the many diverse users of the sea. In particular, we are cautiously optimistic that the introduction of statutory marine planning will enable more rational and well-informed decisions about the use of the sea to be made and allow misunderstandings about controversial matters such as inshore dredging or the siting of fish farms to be sorted out sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, the creation of a national marine plan should provide an opportunity for the Scottish Government to demonstrate leadership in identifying national priorities, including in emerging industries such as offshore wind and tidal energy production.
Another key aim of the bill that we broadly welcome is the new rules on the marine protected areas, which will increase the opportunity to designate appropriate sites.
A further key area of the bill that the committee supports is the provision to modernise our laws on seal conservation. We agree that that is overdue and that the provisions that are set out in the bill are a step in the right direction.
Presiding Officer, you would not expect any lead committee convener to conclude a speech at stage 1 without expressing at least some reservations, and I do not propose to disappoint you. In the remainder of my speech, I will refer to some of the matters in our stage 1 report on which we said that we would welcome movement or clarification from the cabinet secretary. I expect other committee members may wish to focus on matters of particular concern to them.
First, as our evidence gathering made clear, there are serious concerns about the state of Scotland's seas and the loss of biodiversity within some marine ecosystems. There is on-going debate about the causes: are they the result of overfishing in some areas, natural or man-made environmental changes or some sort of complex interplay of factors? Whatever the causes, the evidence gives rise to concern. The committee is under no illusion that domestic legislation will, of itself, turn things round; we simply query whether the bill in its current form has grasped every opportunity to try to put things right. We make a number of recommendations, two of which I will highlight.
First, we suggest that the bill should set out an overarching duty on all public bodies in Scotland, including the Scottish ministers, to have regard to the need to safeguard the health of the sea when exercising any relevant function. Secondly, we propose that the bill should make it mandatory rather than discretionary for the Scottish ministers to create a coherent network of marine protected areas. The committee considers that the two proposals, if taken together, would help to strengthen the conservation element of the bill.
Another concern relates to the proposals for the regulation of fish farming. In the main, the bill proposes the retention of the status quo, with licensing decisions being made at local authority level rather than becoming subject to a centralised licensing system. It is important that, as convener, I make it clear that the committee was divided on whether the approach that is set out in the bill is the right one. This was the only matter on which we formally split.
I respect individual members' right to agree to disagree. Nonetheless, a clear majority of the committee is not satisfied that the approach that is set out in the bill is the right one. We think that it goes against the entire philosophy that the bill seeks to champion of making the marine licensing system more streamlined and consistent. Our report tentatively suggests that there might be room for some compromise whereby Marine Scotland sets the licensing rules for aquaculture but they are administered at the local level.
Finally, I draw the Parliament's attention to the provisions on seals. The committee is satisfied that the overall direction of travel under the provisions is towards improved conservation and animal welfare, which we welcome. However, we make a number of suggestions about how the provisions could be strengthened. For example, we suggest that the licensing conditions relating to the skill or training of the marksman or the type of weapon that is used should be mandatory. On the basis that prevention is always better than cure, we think that implementation of the bill affords an opportunity to ensure that the aquaculture industry takes all reasonable steps to apply preventive measures against seal incursions, such as the installation of anti-predator netting, to ensure that shooting a seal is truly a last resort.
Those reservations aside, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is happy to support the general principles of the bill and to wish it a safe journey as it negotiates the remaining shoals and narrows of the parliamentary process.
Scottish Labour supports the principles of the Marine (Scotland) Bill and welcomes many of its provisions. However, in our view, the bill could be improved and strengthened in parts by amendment at stage 2. As Maureen Watt said, that is also the view of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.
I was slightly disappointed that we did not receive the Scottish Government's response to the committee's report until last night, but I appreciate that this morning the cabinet secretary has gone through much of it in detail. He and Maureen Watt mentioned the competing interests of stakeholders in the marine area. There is a huge marine area in Scotland, which has an estimated coastline of 16,500km and a territorial sea of around 88,600km2.
A report published at the beginning of this month for Scottish Environment LINK by David Hughes and Thom Nickell of the Scottish Association for Marine Science advises that
"Scotland's marine environment is in a far from pristine state and is in real need of recovery."
It goes on to say that the
"Marine Bill as it stands will only manage the status quo. It will not bring about any improvement in the wider seas outside marine protected areas".
The report cites evidence of declining stocks of a number of species in the North Sea.
During stage 1 consideration of the bill, we heard similar evidence from the Community of Arran Seabed Trust and the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network. Ian Burrett told the committee:
"on the west coast of Scotland, 20 species either have disappeared or are now found only as juveniles."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 10 June 2009; c 1753.]
Howard Wood of the Community of Arran Seabed Trust said of the Clyde:
"Having dived in it for 36 years, my experience is that it is in a dire state. The fish that I saw as a teenager diving in the Clyde no longer exist. They are ecologically extinct."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 9 September 2009; c 1869.]
The committee recommended unanimously that a duty be placed on ministers and all public bodies to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area in the exercise of their functions. I am sorry that the Scottish Government's response to the recommendation is a bit lukewarm, but I am sure that the matter will be discussed further at stage 2. Improving the health of the marine environment is in the interests of all stakeholders and should be a key objective of the bill.
We support the committee's recommendation that climate change mitigation and adaptation be included in the list of objectives of the national marine plan under section 3(3). We agree that, because the plan is of considerable significance, the draft plan needs to be properly scrutinised by Parliament; a minimum period for consideration of 40 days should be stipulated.
Other members have mentioned the boundaries of the marine planning regions, which will vary from one marine area to another but should encompass single ecosystems. It makes sense for the firths to be single marine planning areas. As other members have said, that is a little more tricky when the firth spans the border, as the Solway does. The Solway Firth Partnership pointed out to the committee that the Marine (Scotland) Bill enables ministers to delegate planning responsibility to a third party but that that provision does not exist in the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill. The SFP had proposed an amendment to the UK bill but, after a meeting a couple of weeks ago with Huw Irranca-Davies, organised by my colleague Russell Brown MP, it is satisfied that appropriate memorandums of understanding can be put in place to allow a single planning process for the Solway, resulting in the production of a single plan document that will be agreed by both ministers. Legally, there will be two plans, but they will be identical. I am pleased that there has been a resolution of some of the concerns that have been aired.
Inshore fisheries groups are being set up in Scotland; two have already been established, and others are planned. However, the groups include only commercial fishing interests. The committee questioned the need for such groups to be established, given that they may be overtaken by the proposals in the bill. If they remain, there is a strong case for other fishing interests, such as sea anglers, to be members, as their industry is also dependent on the condition of the marine environment. Like commercial fishing, sea angling contributes significantly to the economy, especially in rural areas. That was demonstrated in the Scottish Government's recent report "Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland", which stated that recreational sea angling contributed almost £141 million annually to the economy and sustained 3,148 jobs.
The bill does not require ministers to create any marine protected areas, but the committee received advice indicating that the European Union marine directive does. Scottish Labour supported the committee's recommendation that the bill impose a duty on ministers to create a network of MPAs, which should be regularly monitored and reviewed.
Other members have mentioned the repeal of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, which is probably the most contentious part of the bill. More than half of the more than 8,000 replies to the bill to which the cabinet secretary referred were on that topic. Despite the contentious nature of the provisions, the oral evidence session on them was positive and suggested that a compromise could be reached. Such a compromise might not be ideal for the different sides of the argument, but it would provide a reasonably satisfactory way forward.
During a previous debate, I said that I understand that there are circumstances in which seals must be shot; the sea mammal research unit agrees. However, lethal methods of seal control should be used only as a last resort. Statutory conditions should be placed on the issue of licences, covering, for example, the skills requirements of the marksman, the weapons that can be used and the distance from which a seal can be shot. Applicants should be required to demonstrate that other, non-lethal methods of control have been tried and have failed. The number of seals that are shot should be reported, perhaps not on an individual basis, but certainly regularly.
Labour is pleased to support the general principles of the bill. However, as was the case with the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill and the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, we believe that cross-party work by the committee and ministers at stage 2 will result in improvements to it. I am sure that by the time we reach the end of stage 3 we will have a bill of which we can all be proud.
I begin by thanking our clerks and SPICe for their help. I also thank those who gave evidence in oral and written form and those who hosted the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee as we visited various parts of Scotland.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill, which we hope will dovetail with the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill that is currently being produced at Westminster. I sound a note of regret about the unfortunate coincidence of timing that means that the bills are being considered simultaneously. Notwithstanding that, the Scottish Conservatives welcome the proposed new legislative and management framework for our seas out to 12 nautical miles and acknowledge that the Government has genuinely tried to balance the competing demands of the users of our seas with the need to protect our marine environment better in future.
For too long, the sea has been regarded purely as an exploitable asset. An absolute need now exists to look after our seas more carefully than we have done in the past. In our view, that should be done, wherever possible, using a connected and integrated ecosystem approach. Marine ecosystem objectives should be part of both national and regional marine plans.
Hear, hear.
Thank you.
Local, broadly based and appropriately sized marine planning partnerships must develop integrated plans to achieve the responsible management and improvement of their designated areas, as well as to deliver national policy and objectives. In my view, the Clyde Scottish sustainable marine environment initiative, which was developed after much hard work, is an excellent model to follow. I note the cabinet secretary's intention to be flexible in that regard.
Wherever possible, marine region boundaries should match up and tie in with inshore fisheries group boundaries as well as river basin management plans, to provide an intelligent and coherent unified approach to terrestrial and marine environmental improvement in the designated areas, using Scotland's well-known firths as the starting point. As the minister has said, the Solway Firth will require special attention, including some adaptations to the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I welcome his determination to address that by drawing up a concordat, as well as the remarks that Hilary Benn made in that regard in Westminster on Tuesday 27 October.
In overseeing the development of a national marine plan and several regional plans, Marine Scotland and Scottish ministers will need to do all that they can to address and simplify the current complexity of legislation governing marine areas. Of course we accept that there will, of necessity, be limitations in what can be achieved, but determination must be shown to streamline and simplify the proposals, perhaps by consolidation or by the codification of legal rights and duties.
As the minister will be aware, concerns remain that part 3 of the bill will not lead to the much-needed simplification of the marine licensing system. Although the minister's brochure "Scotland's First Marine Bill" diagrammatically and dramatically shows the creation of a one-stop-shop approach, industry stakeholders are having difficulty seeing how that will work in practice. The most likely effect could be a huge expansion of the function of Marine Scotland and in the tasks that it will be expected to undertake. The question must be asked whether that expansion will be either sensible or affordable. The threshold between the licensing and registering of marine activities also needs to be made clearer in the bill, as does the development of an appeals procedure. I welcome the Government's response on the establishment of an independent appeals process.
The committee believes that the bill should impose a duty to create a network of MPAs, and I welcome the Government's intention to lodge an amendment on that at stage 2, but it is vital to recognise that, however desirable MPAs may be in environmental terms, they could threaten people's existing and traditional livelihoods. Such designations must of course be achieved by the appliance of science, must integrate with the national marine plan, and should wherever possible seek to mitigate the effects of climate change, which is a growing daily threat. I am pleased that the minister proposes to lodge a stage 2 amendment on that, too. It appears that, unless climate change is addressed, we will, for instance, lose many of our native corals in the next 100 years as sea acidification rises. The concern is that, notwithstanding our best intentions, dramatic and irreversible change could be about to take place in our seas and oceans because of climate change. The report from Scottish Environment LINK highlights the challenges that face us.
Conservatives believe that a balance must be struck between encouraging fish farming and the preservation of grey and, in particular, common seals, both of which are protected species. I appreciate the unwelcome cost to fish farmers of installing and maintaining anti-predator nets or other deterrents. There is a danger of rendering fish farming uneconomic internationally; getting the balance wrong between protecting seals from their own instincts and protecting fish farms from predatory attack could mean exporting the industry and jobs to other parts of the world. For that reason, more research must be done to find out why common seal numbers are declining, and also to develop better and cheaper methods of protecting fish farms from seal attack. Conservatives believe that seals should be destroyed only when "no satisfactory alternative" exists, but a clearer definition of that term is needed.
Conservatives welcome the advent of the bill. We will work constructively with the Government, other parties and stakeholders to improve it further at stage 2. The bill represents Scotland's best opportunity in recent times—and for the foreseeable future—to improve the health of our seas, and we must seize it with both hands for the sake of future generations as well as our own.
I am delighted to open the debate on the Marine (Scotland) Bill on behalf of my party. Scottish Liberal Democrats have been long-standing supporters of such legislation, not just here but at Westminster. I am proud of the role that my party has played both north and south of the border, especially with the efforts of my colleague Ross Finnie, who did so much to help establish the platform and principles underpinning the bill. There is much work to do in the coming weeks to ensure that we have a piece of legislation of which we can be proud. Like other members, I believe that we have made a very good start.
We have been well served by all those who have provided evidence to date. It has been detailed, insightful and, in the main, remarkably consensual. I look forward to working with many of those same individuals and organisations as we begin our stage 2 scrutiny. I, too, thank the committee clerks and SPICe for all their hard work to date.
As Orkney's MSP, my interest in the bill is more than academic. Economically, socially, culturally and environmentally—in every way imaginable—Orkney's past, present and future are forged in the seas all around our archipelago. However, this is not a virility test as to which community can lay greatest claim to having a reliance on the marine environment. As the cabinet secretary reflected, Scotland and the UK as a whole depend hugely on our marine resources, so ensuring that they are properly understood and protected, and indeed exploited, is critically important to all of us.
Like the committee convener, although I support the general principles of the bill I wish to make a number of points looking ahead to the task in front of us at stage 2 and beyond. For the proposed legislation to be effective, it needs to be properly resourced. That recommendation from the committee might appear self-evident, but it enjoys strong support across the board from witnesses who are concerned that ministers might be willing the ends without necessarily willing the means.
I encourage the cabinet secretary to rethink his present unwillingness to accept duties rather than powers in the bill. It is hard to imagine Mr Lochhead piloting the bill through Parliament only then to stubbornly refuse to put in place a national marine plan, yet that point simply lends weight to the case for the Government to accept such a plan as a duty on ministers rather than as something that they are empowered to produce.
Similarly, the committee unanimously supported calls for the bill to
"place a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies … to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area."
That would be backed by indicators that make it clear what constitutes a healthy marine environment. I accept that that might not be straightforward, but I am sure that the committee will be happy to work with the minister and his officials to find a workable solution.
The committee supports a flexible approach to the membership and governance of marine planning partnerships. That is surely the only way of reflecting the diversity of our marine environment, and that of the communities and interests that are reliant upon it. It is not inconsistent to argue, however, that Marine Scotland has an important role in guiding and supporting those partnerships, particularly in the early stages. Likewise, we should consider whether it is helpful to establish a framework to consider what local plans might look like. That need be no more than a requirement for each plan to set objectives and indicate the policies and programmes to achieve them, but it could avoid partnerships wasting time in putting together plans that are subsequently rejected.
As for the national plan, I am pleased that the Government accepts the need for climate change mitigation and adaptation to be included in the list of objectives in section 3(3). With there being the potential to deliver more than 30GW of power from offshore wind, wave and tidal sources over the next decade, the contribution that marine renewables can make to cutting harmful emissions as well as meeting our energy needs is a matter of record, and they can also play a major role in conserving our seas and helping to address issues such as acidification.
Marine region designations should be based on an ecosystem approach. Nevertheless, as the committee suggests, the case
"for the major firths and for the seas surrounding Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to be considered discrete marine regions"
is
"reasonably clear-cut".
I encourage the cabinet secretary to be a little less coy in supporting that proposition.
I spoke earlier about the consensus that exists with regard to many aspects of the bill. Sadly, however, I must, like others, report an act of rebellion within the committee on one particular issue. Steps were taken by the previous Administration to give local councils responsibility for licensing fish farms. The system is bedding in well, and it commands strong support among the councils and communities that are most directly affected. I do not accept that it creates undue burdens or confusion for the aquaculture sector, and I cannot agree that administrative neatness should override the right of local councils to take important decisions in that regard if they wish. Indeed, any decisions will require to adhere to the overall national plan. The cabinet secretary should rest assured that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues stand shoulder to shoulder with him in resisting the call from his own colleagues and others for those powers to be centralised.
Turning to the issue of nature conservation MPAs, although I accept that designation needs to be based on robust science, I believe that it is critical that, when marine conservation orders are drawn up, specific regard is given to social and economic factors as well as to climate change mitigation. The fear is that MPA designation will result in areas being off-limits to economic activity and development, and ministers can best deal with that myth by being more explicit on the matter in the bill.
On the sensitive issue of seal protection, I congratulate Advocates for Animals on the way in which it has made its case to the committee so far. I agree with members that improvements have been made, but I am concerned by claims that without close seasons during breeding times seal populations might be under more threat than they currently are. We might return to the issue at stage 2.
The bill is a good one and our collective efforts have contributed to it. It demonstrates the benefits of a consistent approach on the part of successive Governments in Scotland and collaboration between Governments north and south of the border. Liberal Democrats will be happy to support the principles of the bill at decision time.
As with that long return to Ithaca, with its many trials and tribulations, so, no doubt, will be our journey to a healthier marine environment. We lack good baseline data, we lack research, and we have depleted the biodiversity of our seas. There is much to be done. Confucius said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step; today we witness the first flap of a tail.
The recent Scottish Government report, "Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland", concluded that the sport benefits the Scottish economy to the tune of £114 million. The figure sounds substantial, but it could be considerably greater. Twenty years ago there were some 118 sea angling charter boats on the Clyde; now there are three.
Why has sea angling on the Clyde declined so drastically? Have sea angers simply found another enthusiasm? Have they prawned their fishing tackle to buy season tickets and abandon the sunny Clyde for the terraces? I suspect that St Mirren and Greenock Morton football clubs wish that it were so, but the truth is far less pleasant. The Clyde has a sad history of overexploitation, the most recent chapter of which begins with the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, which allowed fishing by all methods within a 3-mile limit. Since the 1980s, when I used to fish the Clyde—with a notable lack of ability or success—there has been a significant decline in biodiversity. Some 20 species of fish are at the point of commercial if not ecological extinction.
According to the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network, the Clyde has become a nephrops monofishery, with no sign of whitefish recovery. As nephrops stocks decline too, there is talk of moving further down the food chain to brown shrimp and smaller shellfish. That is not sustainable. When commercial fishing is obliged to move down the food chain, something is wrong. The Clyde has become a degraded environment; a once-rich estuary is now a relative pauper. Where do we go when we reach the bottom of the food chain? How can our environment recover if there is nothing to recover with? The current state of the Clyde white fisheries brings to mind that well-known verse by Walter Wingate:
Sirs, row in; ye may as weelFish till aa' the licht is lostFish till day begins ti speelYe'll get naething but ae hoast.
Why have I spent so long talking about the Clyde? Because the Clyde makes abundantly clear why the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommended
"that the Bill place a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies, when exercising functions, to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area."
Other members mentioned the recommendation, which I urge the cabinet secretary to accept. Are other regions in Scotland's seas as depleted as the Clyde is? We lack the data that would enable us to be certain about that, but the evidence casts doubt on the health of Scotland's seas.
There should be no doubt as to our commitment to the sea's recovery, which would be good for our environment and our economy. If our fishing communities are to survive we must have healthy seas. For that reason I encourage the cabinet secretary to accept the committee's recommendation that the bill impose a duty on the Scottish ministers
"to create an ecologically coherent and representative network of marine protected areas".
The creation of such a network should be based on science and it is essential if we are to restore the health of Scotland's seas. Failure to ensure a coherent network might leave vital elements of biodiversity vulnerable to extinction. There is currently no obligation in the bill to designate protected areas when the scientific evidence supports such designation; the existence of evidence will merely make designation permissible. That might be understandable when several sites are similar, but the reasoning is less clear if the site is unique. The requirement to create an ecologically coherent network would remove fears that such sites might escape designation, regardless of the scientific evidence.
If we are to ensure that the health of Scotland's seas is maintained and improved, continual monitoring of such sites is essential. It would be all too easy for ministers to designate a site and then rest on their laurels—or seaweed, or cockles, or whatever ministers rest on after a bill such as the Marine (Scotland) Bill is passed. Given that much of what goes on in the sea is not readily visible, and given the progressive development of marine science, continual monitoring is essential to ensure that marine protected areas continue to function as they should. Furthermore, as species and communities adapt to global warming it is not inconceivable that MPAs will not be static and, over the decades, will need to be relocated as species and ecological communities adapt to the changing environment.
Like other members of the committee, I found it difficult to understand why fishing activities require additional legal protection. When an MPA is designated, there should be a clear statement about why it has been designated and what activities are prohibited or permissible. Prohibition should be on the basis that an activity conflicts with the stated aims of the MPA. If fishing or other economic activity does not negatively impact on those aims, the activities should be permissible within the MPA. It should therefore be clear to fishermen what they may or may not do in the area. If their activity is legal, they should be left in peace; if it is not legal, action should be taken. I repeat: the reasons for designation should be clear, as should the activities that are not permissible. There should be no need for additional protection.
I cannot discuss all the recommendations in the committee's report; there are far too many. I simply make the additional point that there was little dissent in the committee—we have heard about the one notable exception. I hope therefore that the cabinet secretary will be able to adopt most of the recommendations.
The bill has, rightly, been widely welcomed. William Topaz McGonagall, in the opening lines of his "A Tale of the Sea", wrote:
A pathetic tale of the sea I will unfoldEnough to make one's blood run cold
Action by the Government will ensure that those sad words will not ring true for the generations that follow us.
Like other members, I very much welcome the bill and support its general principles. As the cabinet secretary and Liam McArthur said, the bill has had a long gestation and there have been efforts over many years to pull people together to find answers to a series of questions and challenges that we face in relation to our marine environment.
The bill can be strengthened, which is typical of any bill that comes before the Parliament. Adoption of the committee's good recommendations, on which we were unanimous—with the exception of Liam McArthur on one point—would help to strengthen the bill substantially.
I have spoken before in the Parliament about how we have taken the health of the seas for granted for far too long. Because most of what lies beneath the surface is unseen by the vast majority of the population, as Bill Wilson said, it has been out of sight and out of mind for all too long. Mankind has abused the seas throughout all generations until perhaps this one, when we have recognised that the sea does not have infinite power to restore its health. We have heard from Elaine Murray and Bill Wilson about the condition of parts of our seas that we know about, but we do not know the condition of an awful lot more areas.
If the bill is to mean anything, it must make a clear statement that the health of the seas is the overriding concern that drives the legislation. That is why the committee recommended that there be
"a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies, when exercising functions, to have regard to … the health of the Scottish marine area."
That is not just about arresting decline and maintaining the current condition of the sea; it is about restoration and improvement where we have made the condition of the sea bed, in particular, significantly worse. We will need more scientific evidence as a basis for greater understanding of the situation, and I hope that most of the evidence will be independent. We need to develop indicators so that we can judge our progress.
Like other members, I am disappointed by the minister's response to the committee's recommendation. Our national Parliament is debating our interest in our seas and therefore must have a chance to say what it wants about the matter. I am sure that the recommendation will lead to the lodging of amendments at stage 2. Where there is a will, there is normally a way to accommodate what members want. I urge the cabinet secretary to work with members to secure a way forward, and I am sure that we can find a form of words that will address everyone's interests and concerns.
A motivation for the bill was the complexity of competing issues to do with our seas. There is a myriad of institutions, organisations and management concerns with competing interests in renewables, oil, gas, commercial fishing, sea angling, a variety of forms of recreation and transport. Therefore, I support the mechanism of regional marine planning partnerships, which will help to reconcile those interests and create opportunities for dialogue, debate and agreement about the way forward. Partnerships will vary in size and composition, and it is right that there should be such flexibility, but clarity is needed on their composition.
We also recommend that the minister appoint the chairs of partnerships. I noticed that the Government's response made no reference to that, and I would be interested to hear from the minister on that point.
The MPPs will involve a lot of process, administration and complexity, but I can think of few other solutions that would allow people to get round the table and try to reconcile the management of their seas.
I support the power of the minister to sign off the regional plans, because that will give them status. The minister needs a context in which to do that, which is why the vision of the national plan is important. As other members pointed out, it is slightly paradoxical that the bill contains no duty on the minister to produce a plan. Scottish Environment LINK drew that to our attention, and I am sure that the matter will be tidied up in due course.
Other members have also talked about the vital part that marine protected areas can play in helping to restore the health of our seas and preserving important features. The provisions on MPAs also need strengthened. I recognise that there are international obligations, but we should make it clear that there is a duty to create a coherent network of MPAs.
MPAs can be highly controversial. As a first cut, the conservation measures in them have to be based on science, but social and economic factors must also be taken into account. We must at all times seek to take local people with any proposal for an MPA, to engage them and to give them ownership of the process and as much of the local management control of the MPA as is possible. We need look no further than Barra, where local people are demonstrating to Scottish Natural Heritage their concerns about a different designation and the impact that it would have on their way of life and their ability to make a living.
MPAs must not be about a loss of economic opportunity alone. If that is the way they are perceived, they will be opposed—understandably so. There seems to be plenty scope for more development of offshore renewables, for example. Not only can that co-exist with other uses of the sea, but it may be complementary to them and help to achieve some of the bill's objectives.
The bill's provisions on seals are potentially controversial, but I am glad that, so far, there seems to be a broad consensus on what can happen and how we could manage the situation. Generally speaking, I welcome the bill's approach to the culling of seals, although it can be strengthened and tidied up. The key to that is tough licensing and tough mandatory conditions on any regrettable need to take seals out and shoot them.
I see that you are glowering at me, Presiding Officer. I am coming to the end of my time and I will happily sit down. I am very happy to support the general principles of the bill.
I am sure that I never glower, Mr Peacock.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Marine (Scotland) Bill. The bill has been a long time in coming and the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for it. Overall, it achieves its principal aim of finally delivering simplicity in a sector that has become increasingly complicated, with many different Government departments dealing with different marine consents.
We must consider how the proposed legislation will affect certain industries. There needs to be a balance among the environment, the environmentalists and those who live and work in coastal communities. Fishermen and fish farmers need to have an interest in, and an input into, marine planning. They have practical knowledge, as they spend a great deal of time at sea, and an interest in ensuring that their industry has a sustainable future. That is why they must be included as much as possible in the establishment and workings of Marine Scotland.
The bill will succeed only if stakeholders from all sides are involved in future planning for the marine environment. If we rely too heavily on scientists without adequately consulting those in the industry and drawing on their knowledge, we may harm the fishing and fish farming sectors. As we heard from my colleague Peter Peacock, SNH is trying to convince the local population and the fisherman that another special area of conservation is required around the island of Barra. I do not think that it is getting much support for its proposals. Instead, a conflict is developing between the local community, which depends on the sea, and a quango.
The same argument applies to the development of Scotland's potential as leader in marine renewable energy generation. Scotland boasts 25 per cent of Europe's tidal power and 10 per cent of its wave power resource. We must use that advantage to our best interest by allowing the industry to flourish and allowing Scotland to benefit from the employment that it would create, but to make that happen we need to consult the industry experts, not only environmentalists. Furthermore, we need a clear and coherent marine planning system to uphold substantial development. Although the bill makes gallant attempts at producing a clear code, it does not present strong guidelines and leaves the marine energy sector in uncertainty.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I do not support one aspect of the bill: the handing over of planning powers for fish farms to Marine Scotland. Planning consent for fish farms should be granted democratically at a local level so that the concerns of communities and other interests can be taken into account when planning information is asked for. Marine Scotland will undoubtedly be of great benefit for marine planning as a whole, but it will not be democratic and would ultimately be unresponsive to the needs of small communities in relation to the siting of fish farms, which is often controversial.
I petition the Government again not to take any rash action on the management of seals. Fishermen and fish farmers need to retain the ability to cull seals under licence. Seal populations are at a high level and cause immense difficulty for all those who attempt to make their livelihoods from fishing and related activities. Any legislation that would restrict fishermen and fish farmers from responsibly protecting their businesses must be reconsidered. Seals are not the friendly, cuddly mammals that many people imagine them to be; they are prolific and aggressive killers that have decimated large areas of our inshore fishing grounds. Their numbers must be controlled.
Overall, I welcome the proposals in the bill and look forward to the benefits that Marine Scotland will bring to our coastal communities.
John Farquhar Munro expressed concern about paying too much attention to scientists and marine science because it might slow things up. However, the problems that we face exist because we have consistently ignored scientists' advice not only for decades but for centuries. We must heed the scientific advice if we are to make any improvement in our marine environment.
Many of the committee's recommendations on seals are to be warmly welcomed and their inclusion would represent a significant improvement in the bill's provisions. However, one proposal that has been brought to my attention causes concern because it represents a step backwards in relation to closed seasons. It is simply wrong—close to barbaric—to kill mammals that are accompanying their offspring and leave the vulnerable and defenceless pups to survive alone. That kind of approach would never be tolerated on land. We do not take cows away for slaughter as soon as they have calved or ewes just after they have lambed. Seal pups should not be deprived of their parents just after birth. We cannot ignore that point simply because the killing takes place at sea, and I will work with the committee to have an amendment accepted, I hope, at stage 2.
I am delighted that the Marine (Scotland) Bill has reached stage 1 and welcome most of the committee's recommendations. There is a way to go before the bill is fully fit for purpose. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's apparently flexible approach. I hope that he continues to be flexible and to listen.
The Scottish Association for Marine Science's recent report for Scottish Environment LINK makes it abundantly clear that the regulation of fishing activity is fundamental to any strategy that is designed to promote marine ecosystem recovery. In response to Liam McArthur's earlier comments, I say to him that we cannot have an MPA without it restricting fishing activity. In that regard, I cannot understand why the cabinet secretary keeps insisting that the legislative control of fisheries is unrelated to the bill. If marine protected areas are to mean anything, the cabinet secretary must make clear his intention to use legislative powers to restrict fishing activities within them, especially bottom trawling and dredging, which he has mentioned.
The member rightly says that we should listen to scientists. Does he concede that we should also listen to communities and that one reason why the European Commission's proposals in Barra are so unpopular is that there is no obvious opportunity for the community to have a voice in the consultation process?
The Liberal Democrats have already voiced their concerns in that area. All that I have to say on that issue at present is that it is clearly up for further discussion. However, I believe that science is still being driven into a corner. If the point of the bill is to get healthy seas and restore the marine environment, the science must come first.
We would be well advised to follow the UK Government's lead by altering the make-up of inshore fishery groups. I do not believe that we need to wait three or four years before we do that. Frankly, the position at the moment is absurd, because we have the fox in charge of the chicken coop. We must ensure that marine planning partnerships are constituted more sensibly. Elaine Murray and Bill Wilson made excellent speeches. I am so glad to hear scientists in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee express strong views on how the bill is to be progressed.
Another species that I believe deserves specific protection under the bill is the cetaceans. People are often surprised by the diversity in Scottish waters of cetacean species, including bottle-nosed dolphins, minke and killer whales, and humpback, fin and sperm whales. The bill provides the perfect opportunity for Scotland to demonstrate how much we value those animals by designating our waters as a whale and dolphin sanctuary. I know that we and the UK are already signed up to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, so such a sanctuary might seem extraneous, but it would send out a clear and strong message, and cost us nothing.
Such a designation would also boost Scotland's burgeoning ecotourism businesses and send a strong message to the world's few remaining whaling nations that Scotland values and wishes to protect those cetaceans that live in and migrate through our waters. It may have been many years since whales and dolphins were actively hunted in Scottish waters, but they still find themselves under threat from development, pollution, loss of habitat and lack of food. If we can do anything to help those beautiful, peaceful, charismatic creatures, we should. I am confident that other parties in the Parliament will share that view, and I hope that other marine nations will be inspired to follow suit.
For some, our marine environment provides a livelihood, from fishing to ecotourism; for others, it represents a chance to escape, relax and enjoy themselves, whether through the world-class surf in Thurso or international sailing competitions on the Forth. It also provides us with an enormous opportunity for renewable energy.
Scotland's seas are an ocean of opportunity. Therefore, given the heavy demands on our coast and inshore and offshore waters, the Marine (Scotland) Bill must put environmental protection and enhancement at the heart of all decisions about how we use our seas. It is critical that the bill is designed not only to rein in activities that continue to damage our marine environment but to promote actively and effectively the regeneration and restoration of maximum biodiversity. I am glad that that long-term view seems to be shared by most of the speakers in the debate.
I am delighted to take part in the debate, not as a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee or as a scientist, but as someone with an interest in promoting Scotland—internally, and to the wider world—as a marine centre of excellence. I commend the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for its valuable report and congratulate the Scottish Government on bringing the Marine (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament in the first place. I am delighted that legislation dealing with one of Scotland's major resources—the most important resource, of course, is its people—is being considered by the Parliament. I am sure that, whatever the outcome by the end of stage 3, Scotland will have a legislative environment in which our marine resource will be cherished for the long term.
As a west of Scotland MSP, I do not have to look far to see water. I grew up in Inverclyde and I still stay there. I honestly do not believe that everyone in Inverclyde, including me for a while, has fully appreciated the beauty of the Clyde as well as its positive economic impact on the communities both north and south of the river, and the recreational benefits that the river brings. As a result, I will focus some comments on the River Clyde. Much of the river's shipbuilding industry has been decimated, for reasons that include the UK Government policy that nationalised and then privatised the industry, and the lower Clyde being designated for oil platforms just as the bottom fell out of platform construction. The death warrant for yards, with thousands of men being placed on the dole queue, was sealed by the Tories in the 1980s. The river has therefore had a chequered history, to say the least. Thankfully, there is still a yard left on the lower Clyde—Ferguson's in Port Glasgow—but it does not seem to build many ships these days. It is clear that the river must not only be utilised in a different manner, but protected.
My members' business debate in November 2008 on sailing and recreational boating was the first debate on that issue in the Parliament. I was stunned that it took nine and a half years to have such a debate, particularly given that the Scottish coastline is more than 13,000km long and therefore of substantial interest to many of Scotland's communities. Since that debate, I have established the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on recreational boating and marine tourism to ensure that a voice can be provided for everyone who uses the Scottish marine resource. Next month, the group will discuss the Marine (Scotland) Bill and I look forward to representatives of Marine Scotland coming along to the meeting.
I fully welcome the bill for three reasons. First, it aims to simplify legislation by consolidating some 80 pieces of legislation. Secondly, the collaborative working relationship between the Scottish and Westminster Governments is to be commended. Thirdly, the Scottish Government's open approach during the consultation on "Sustainable Seas for All: a consultation on Scotland's first marine bill" was warmly welcomed outside this chamber. A representative of the Scottish boating alliance told me that asking the SBA for its views and opinions was an extremely positive approach that showed the Scottish Government's willingness to get stakeholders to participate in Scotland's legislative process. It also showed that the Scottish Government wanted the bill to be the best that it could be from the outset.
Having read the submissions from the SBA and the Royal Yachting Association Scotland, I know that those organisations have issues with aspects of the bill. I am sure that those issues will be discussed with Marine Scotland at next month's meeting of the cross-party group. Given the massive economic benefits—some £270 million—that recreational boating brings to the Scottish economy, not to mention the sporting and health-related benefits that it also brings, the Scottish Government should consider fully the input from the SBA and the RYAS. Further, as others have discussed, we learned recently that the Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers, which is a member of the SBA, estimates that sea angling brings in some £150 million to the Scottish economy. If we can get the bill correct, there is no reason why those substantial sums of money should not increase, thus benefiting communities the length and breadth of Scotland.
I return to the subject of the Clyde. The Stornoway Gazette is not a publication that I read very often—we do not really get it in Greenock—but an article in the paper was brought to my attention as I prepared for the debate. The article—"First Class Facilities for Yachties Make the Clyde Attractive"—encapsulated what is excellent about the River Clyde and some of the facilities that it offers. I do not sail, but having had three opportunities in my life to do so, I have learned that one does not need to be an oil oligarch to enjoy the pastime. In fact, recently I met constituents from a community-based sailing club who reiterated that point. However, I do not know whether we fully appreciate what we have on our doorstep. The article highlighted the excellent facilities at Troon and at the Largs yacht haven, the latter of which I can vouch for. However, if one considers facilities such as the Kip marina in Inverkip, the Fairlie quay marina and Ardrossan marina, to name just a few, it is clear that we have an abundance of top-quality, successful marina developments, which have set the standard for the rest of the country.
I am sure that the Marine (Scotland) Bill can and will deliver for the whole country. I look forward to it complementing the fantastic facilities that we have in place on the River Clyde. I am sure that they can raise the bar across the rest of the country.
I welcome the chance to sum up this debate on the important subject of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. As Liam McArthur and John Farquhar Munro have stated, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the bill, which must of course complement the UK legislation, complex though that process may be. However, I regret the time that it has taken for the proposals to reach this stage.
The debate has highlighted our marine and coastal environment, which contains many special, and some unique, landscapes of national and international renown. Our distinctive habitats, sea lochs and maerl beds are synonymous with Scotland. Scottish waters are among the most diverse in the world, given that they support some 8,000 complex and more than 36,000 single-cell species and animals. The two examples that always come to my mind are the basking shark and the leather-back turtle. The latter species is threatened by our humble plastic bag, which it confuses for its jellyfish prey.
As a South of Scotland MSP, like the Deputy Presiding Officer, I represent a region that contains a large part of the Scottish coastline. The mild Solway and Ayrshire coasts on the west and the East Lothian and Berwickshire coasts on the east are estimated to include—depending on how one measures such things—more than 600km of coastline. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report highlights the need to consider the Solway Firth as a single marine area, as recommended by the Solway Firth Partnership. Like Elaine Murray and John Scott, I agree with that proposal. I look to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to work with the Westminster Administration to draw up an agreed strategy, as hinted at in the Government's response to the committee's report and in the cabinet secretary's opening speech today.
As well as helping biodiversity within our seas, the coastline provides important economic benefits in supporting communities through activities such as fishing, aquaculture and tourism. Fishing provides 16,000 jobs. Aquaculture generates a landing value of some £300 million from Scottish boats and a farm-gate value of £340 million. Indeed, Scotland produces about 90 per cent of the UK's farmed fish and shellfish. The opportunity for renewable energy from tidal and wave power is also huge and, as yet, untapped. Fishing is not only a vital industry for my region, but lies at the heart of many coastal communities. As such, fishing must be a major consideration in any marine legislative proposal. Liberal Democrats have consistently fought for the rights of Scottish fishermen, as we recognise that a balance must be struck between considering our natural environment and allowing Scotland's world-renowned sustainable fishing industry to flourish.
In addition, visitors to Historic Scotland's staffed coastal and island properties generate some £2.5 million of income per annum. Recreational diving opportunities attract many thousands each year to places such as St Abb's Head in Eyemouth—with its flora and shipwrecks, including a U-boat—and have given opportunities to companies such as Marine Quest, which was set up following fishing-boat decommissioning. Offshore British oil and British gas support 164,000 jobs. There is cross-party agreement that Scotland's seas should be managed in a coherent way that addresses social, economic and environmental factors.
Some key issues need to be addressed through the bill. Scotland will now have responsibility for planning and conservation measures out to a distance of 200 nautical miles—as was originally suggested by Scottish Lib Dems—so an integrated system of marine spatial planning is needed. Crucially, those measures will build on current powers over sea fisheries and offshore renewable energy. Therefore, the Scottish Government must continue positive dialogue with UK ministers to achieve those benefits. Without a streamlined framework for coastal zone management, there has been increasing evidence of environmental degradation. A more integrated approach would reduce uncertainty and bring real benefits to all marine and coastal users. It is vital, therefore, that the Westminster and Holyrood bills complement each other.
It is also vital to note that many of the bill's proposals were recommended by the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy, which is the task force that was established in 2005 under the chair of the Lib Dem minister, Ross Finnie. The AGMACS report of 2007 appears to have formed the cornerstone of the Government's proposals—as is the case with many of the SNP Government's recent achievements.
Given that the previous debate—on the marine bill consultation—highlighted the issue of licensing arrangements, I hope that the cabinet secretary can assure us that the licensing arrangements will be aligned with the measures to protect the marine environment that will be introduced under the UK's Marine and Coastal Access Bill. There are concerns that British gas and British oil have already been removed from the remit of the marine management organisation that will be established under that bill. There is also no guarantee that the MMO will have responsibility over carbon capture and storage. That suggests that the protection of the marine environment is not being sufficiently considered. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether Marine Scotland will play a part in that?
Licensing for offshore storage of natural gas and carbon dioxide needs to take full account of environmental risks and should integrate with future provisions for managing and protecting the marine environment. We should ensure that consultation with stakeholders takes place before licences are granted for the importation and storage of combustible gas and carbon dioxide. I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment or the Minister for Environment—whichever of them winds up the debate—to provide assurances that that is being considered.
Around 50 per cent of respondents to the consultation believed that Marine Scotland should be established as a statutory body at arm's length from the Government, whereas the other 50 per cent believed that it should remain a Government body. Can ministers clarify, therefore, why they took the decision that they took? What measures will be taken to ensure the independence of any scientific advice?
I refer members to my fishery interests in the members' register of interests.
As my friend John Scott indicated in his opening speech, we strongly welcome the Scottish Government's intention to consolidate current marine legislation. We believe that the Scottish Government's legislation must be complementary to the Marine and Coastal Access Bill that is going through Westminster. That is a crucial requirement, which ministers must recognise.
Scotland's marine environment is of huge importance to our country, especially my region of the Highlands and Islands. It is right that we take every possible step to protect and enhance our marine biosphere while recognising that people's livelihoods—and, thus, the future of many of our coastal communities—depend on sustainable utilisation of the marine resources. It is crucial that at all stages we involve key stakeholders, such as fishermen's associations and the representatives not only of conservation bodies but of the aquaculture and marine tourism sectors. They must all work together.
Given that many members have mentioned marine protected areas, I want to raise a connected issue that relates to a proposed special area of conservation that is of huge concern to my constituents. I refer to the proposal to establish a marine SAC around east Mingulay and the Sound of Barra, which has been mentioned already. After I secured a members' business debate on a similarly controversial proposal in a nearby area during the first session of the Parliament, the idea was dropped at that time. I seem to remember standing shoulder to shoulder with the well-known SNP councillor from Barra, Donald Manford, in opposition to that proposal. Local people had enormous—and, I think, genuine—fears that the SAC could remove their ability to make a living from what they and other independent organisations believed to be a sustainable fishery. Ministers rightly want decisions to be taken on the basis of science, but what happens when the constituents who have direct experience of conditions at sea question the accuracy of the science? What options are open to hard-pressed constituents who face the loss of income and livelihood?
I agree with the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report, which recommends
"that provision be inserted into the Bill requiring the Scottish Ministers, when drawing up a marine conservation order for an MPA … to have regard … to social and economic factors",
which are the factors that affect people. That is a crucial point. I would also be interested to hear what lessons ministers believe they have learned from their experience of SACs that will improve the consultation on, and implementation of, MPAs.
On the issue of seals, which other members have mentioned, let me repeat the comments that I made in the aquaculture debate. No one wants to see such beautiful mammals culled unnecessarily, but we need to respond to the fact that each year approximately 20,000 to 30,000 seal attacks take place on Scottish salmon farms. Last year, the industry admits that it was forced to shoot 489 seals—the estimated figure from some lobbying groups has perhaps been exaggerated. Although the industry makes it clear that it wants to bring down that number by making significant investment in more sophisticated acoustic deterrents, it maintains that, from time to time, as a last resort, it needs to shoot persistent rogue seals that attack the nets.
Of course, there are also seal attacks on our valuable wild salmon. The welfare of the salmon must surely be considered as well as that of the seal, and we should also consider the welfare of the people whose jobs depend on the fish farms and the wild fisheries. I support the fact that the bill will allow the culling of seals but only in particular circumstances and under strict licensing.
On an issue of detail, aquaculture representatives have identified a small but, they believe, important technical omission from section 98(f) of the bill, where there is a need to insert a phrase that allows the humane killing of seals to protect the health and welfare of farmed fish, because that protection is a requirement on farmers under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.
The minister will know that 58,000 young salmon escaped recently from a farm in Loch Striven in Argyll. That single escape, which was apparently caused by a hole in the net, is larger than all the escapes of last year, and it could be an ecological disaster for wild fish. The chief executive of the fish farm is quoted as saying:
"As the fish are very small and young, it is unlikely they would survive in the wild."
However, what will happen if some of them do survive and they breed with the wild fish? They will surely introduce a weaker strain to our wild stock, which is already under pressure, as we have seen from the poor runs this year. Roger Brook of Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland said:
"This is yet more proof that escapes, both major and minor, will persist until such time as the companies put the necessary resources into robust equipment and training … If the cages are located in open waters to which the natural wildlife … has access, then they must be capable of withstanding any attack."
Jon Gibb of the Lochaber district salmon fishery board, said:
"After 20 years of serial escapes, the industry has proven that it is incapable of containing its fish."
I know that fish farming is important to Scotland, but it is also important that a proper code of good practice is law and that lessons are learned from the infectious salmon anaemia crisis in Shetland, which almost wiped out our indigenous salmon and smolt production industry. That industry is equally important to many of my constituents. It is vital that a code of good practice is followed and there should be severe penalties for any fish farmer who breaks it. Why should a few spoil the reputation of a good industry?
The member should wind up.
On the subject of aquaculture, one other concern that industry representatives have put to me is that the bill proposes to introduce a universal licensing system for all marine activities except aquaculture. Why? There are worries that the proposal will result in additional complexity—
The member must sit down.
—and inconsistency. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The debate has been interesting and, in the main, remarkably consensual. The areas of concern as well as the areas of consent are broadly accepted by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and indeed by the parties in the chamber. That also reflects our discussions and deliberations with stakeholders. I add the thanks of members on the Labour benches to those which other members have expressed to both the stakeholders and the committee's clerking team and SPICe for all the help and information that they have given to committee members, especially those, like me, whose constituencies do not contain any element of coastline. It has been a steep learning curve for us.
We all recognise the value of our marine environment and we want to get the bill right. That is why I urge ministers to look again at the timetabling. I have made this point to previous Administrations as well as to the current one. Parliamentary scrutiny of bills is vital because we have only one chamber. If members receive the Government's response to a committee's stage 1 report only late on the night before a morning debate, that does nothing to encourage effective scrutiny. Perhaps ministers could reflect on that and ensure that members are given at least 24 hours to read and reflect on Government responses before we comment on them in the chamber. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment always wants to work with the committee, so I hope that he will take that point on board.
The Scottish seas are a source of great pride to us all. One of the key issues in the marine debate is that there is a three-tier system between Scotland, the UK, and our international partners. It is imperative that that remains in place and we welcome the fact that the bill does not seek to rock the boat in that regard. Fish swim and boats move, so it is important to have a co-ordinated approach throughout the UK and with our international partners. However, there is clearly a case for Scotland-led legislation regarding certain sectors of activity. The bill's proposals are therefore broadly to be commended, including the new systems of marine planning, streamlined licensing, and the establishment of marine protected areas.
As well as being a source of pride, our seas are a source of beauty, but they are also a source of economic activity for many of our coastal communities. That is why the committee's comments on genuine community engagement— which were articulated well by others, particularly Peter Peacock—are crucial in the area of policy that we are discussing. We need to take people with us. It seems to me that the dual mandate proposal to pursue economic prosperity alongside strict, regulated conservation through one Government body and the variety of stakeholders will be highly conflicting. The minister needs to explain how he proposes to ensure that there is a strong commitment to promoting both national economic development and the cultural and historical preservation of our seas, which are often on opposite sides of the debating table. It seems likely that, when the choice is polarised between prosperity and sustainability, as it will inevitably be in the discussions between local authorities, conservation groups and ministers, the short-term interests will trump the long-term interests. For the future of Scotland and its seas, we need to ensure that we take the long-term approach.
One of the key issues in the committee's report is community engagement. The committee found from the evidence that it took that there are polarised views on certain issues and it is important that we ensure that the broadest possible range of people are represented. Paragraph 105 of the committee's report deals with the issue, but the ministerial response is not as positive as we hoped it would be. I am sure that we will return to the issue at stage 2, given the overwhelming evidence that we have had.
The issue of seals clearly demonstrates those differences and debates. I appreciate John Farquhar Munro's comments. Indeed, only yesterday, we took evidence from marine scientists who outlined the impact that the seals are having on fish quotas and the availability of fish to our fishermen. John Scott and Jamie McGrigor outlined their concerns about fish farming and the potential impact on economic stability if our decisions are too stringent. However, Robin Harper passionately made the case for the seals. I agree with him that science is vital in that regard, or in any regard. My experience in 10 years as an elected member has been that lobbyists on both sides always overegg their pudding to make their case, so clear, independent scientific advice will be crucial to the committee when it makes decisions.
As my colleague Elaine Murray articulated, the committee's consensus to date has been that seals need to be controlled but that that must be done as humanely as possible and that legal methods should be the last resort. When licences are made available, they should be issued only to those who can demonstrate high levels of marksmanship to prevent unnecessary suffering and the painful and prolonged death of the seal.
Only yesterday, members received the Law Society of Scotland's concerns about sections 37 and 38, on fixed monetary penalties and the appeals process. Its letter states:
"The Society suggests that it would seem appropriate for a person in receipt of a notice to have a clear right to appeal to a Sheriff and that the current provisions within the draft Bill did not appear to be fair and reasonable."
Perhaps the minister will comment on that concern before stage 2, either when he sums up today or in a letter to the committee.
For me, the key issue in the debate is the balance between the economic needs of our coastal communities and the needs of future generations to have a vibrant ecosystem. That is why a whole ecosystem approach is crucial to the debate. I understand our fishing communities' concerns about their future economic activity, but we need to ensure that the fishing industry is sustainable for the long term, not just the short term. That is what the bill is about. It is about protecting our marine environment for future generations so that members, who are growing older in years, can be assured that those who come after us have a marine environment that they, too, will be able to celebrate, share and use for their purposes in a positive and sustainable way.
I commend to members the stage 1 report and the bill. I am sure that a constructive approach ahead of and during stage 2 will lead to positive legislation at the end of the process. I look forward to working with ministers and the rest of the committee in that regard.
There has been a lot of unanimity in the debate, which I welcome. Only the Liberal Democrats reverted to type from time to time. They said that everything was a bit too late, that there is not enough money, and that all the Government's successes are down to historical figures and Liberal Democrats in the annals of history. However, there has been unanimity on important issues.
We all agree that Scotland is a marine and maritime nation. Members have underlined the relationship between many of our communities and our seas. Sometimes it is good to take a step back and think for a moment about the importance of Scotland's seas to our people. It is estimated that we have the biggest share of Europe's coastline. We have 20 per cent—a fifth—of Europe's waters and some of the most important and biggest shares of Europe's seal populations. We have some of Europe's richest and most valuable fish stocks in our waters and a growing sea angling fraternity that has a big future—we are determined to develop sea angling with a new strategy, which we are discussing with that sector. We have the potential for the biggest offshore renewables industry in Europe. That will be extremely important in the 21st century. There is the economic role that our ports and harbours and marine transport play, and we have, of course, the biggest oil and gas sector in Europe. Many of Europe's most rare and unique habitats and species lie beneath our waves, and we must protect them for future generations. We have more than 6,500 species of plants and animals in our waters, including 22 species of porpoises, whales and dolphins. We must protect precious species and habitats such as the tall sea pen, the flame shell, native oyster beds and the deep-sea sponge communities. Our scientists deem all of those to be under threat. I hope that the bill will help us to protect them.
There is also historical heritage beneath our waves. Members have spoken about Scapa Flow and the remaining wrecks of the German high seas fleet, which attract tourists and divers and are good for the local economy. I was impressed by recent images of HMS Campania, which was the first-ever aircraft carrier—it was converted from an 1892 Cunard liner. The first flight from it took place on 5 May 1915 and it was lost in November 1918. I hope that the bill will shine a light on the heritage that lies beneath our waves, which not many people know about. The people of Scotland are fascinated by Scotland's seas and what lies beneath the waves.
Wildlife tourism is a growing sector of the economy. Spey Bay in my constituency is attracting tens of thousands of visitors every year to witness the local dolphin populations. We all recognise the importance of Scotland's seas to the people of Scotland.
I wish that we had full control out to 200 nautical miles so that we could further streamline marine activities and the relevant regulations in Scotland. However, following negotiations with the UK Government, we have won executive devolution and we are now in the driving seat for marine planning and nature conservation out to 200 nautical miles. I take issue with those who think that, even with the powers that we will have under the bill, we are not doing enough streamlining. We are streamlining the arrangements for marine renewables, for instance, and there are numerous other examples of streamlining. Where possible, Marine Scotland will be the first point of contact for marine licensing issues. There is the food and environmental protection legislation, and coastal protection licences now form a new single licence. Section 36 consents for renewable marine energy projects are to be considered at the same time as marine licences. Once the bill is passed, activities with a low environmental risk can be registered rather than have to be licensed. Therefore, there will be streamlining for important marine sectors.
In my opening remarks I mentioned that the committee did not take a unanimous view on aquaculture, but we believe that the position that is reflected in the bill is the best way forward. It will enable any local authority that wishes Marine Scotland to take responsibility for aquaculture licensing to do so. However, if local authorities wish to retain that power for reasons of local accountability, they can do that. I welcome the fact that many members support that position.
Perhaps seals represent the best example of an area in which we have to strike a careful balance between conservation and allowing some economic activities to continue. I welcome the many comments that members have made about our having struck a balance. I reassure members who think that we need to go further that the Government will have a general power through the bill to amend licensing conditions. That means that we can address issues that members have raised. There will also be a code of practice, to which those who are issued with licences will have to adhere. We will be able to debate the content of that code of practice in the future.
During the first parliamentary session, I think that Ross Finnie, who was a minister, mentioned the possibility of a seal commission. Has the minister given any more thought to that possibility?
The bill mentions seal management plans, of course. We believe that they are a huge step forward in addressing issues relating to Scotland's seal populations.
Many members have mentioned the debate about whether duties should be included in the bill, as against ministers simply taking powers in a number of areas. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have an open mind about where we should stipulate duties in the bill and where amendments might be possible in that regard. We will discuss that with the committee in the weeks ahead. I echo the comments of my UK counterpart at Westminster, made in the past couple of days, I think. The point was made that the more duties that are placed on ministers through legislation, the more effectively a lawyers charter will be created. I do not think that any member wants to go down that road. There may be a case for introducing duties for ministers in some areas, but we want to avoid that in other areas if possible.
I remind members that by establishing marine protected areas we will acknowledge the value of those areas of the marine environment that we think are precious and need to be protected. If we wished to go a step further and to introduce restrictions, we would have to introduce a marine conservation order. Of course, the Parliament will have full opportunity to scrutinise such orders to ensure that factors that members have mentioned are taken into account. There will be a full process in the Parliament for such orders. I hope that that addresses concerns that members have expressed.
Marine Scotland, which will be the champion of Scotland's seas, will play a leading role on some of those issues. Members have mentioned that. We set up Marine Scotland to avoid a further year's delay while we waited for the bill to go through Parliament. Most people acknowledge—the stakeholders groups do—that getting it up and running as soon as possible was a good idea.
Members have expressed concerns about the independence of the science that Marine Scotland will use. Only last week, Marine Scotland advertised for members of the science advisory board that is being established to ensure that independent scientific advice will be mainstreamed into the workings of Marine Scotland. I hope that that reassures members.
I remind members that the marine strategy framework directive, which, as I mentioned earlier, will be transposed into Scottish law, will put an obligation on the Scottish Government and all UK Administrations to establish an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—the OSPAR convention—which Scotland has already signed up to through the UK Government, also places such an obligation on the Scottish and UK Governments.
I hope that I have addressed the key issues that members have raised. Again, I thank the committee for all its hard work, and I thank all our stakeholders and the general public, who have taken an intense interest in the bill. The bill has attracted comments from many members of the public in the past year or so.
I have listened carefully to the points that members have made and we will take forward many of those ideas. We will reflect on the comments that have been made by members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and by other members in the chamber. As I have said, the Scottish Government intends to lodge amendments at stage 2, and that dialogue will continue in the weeks ahead.
Our seas are very special, as the chamber has acknowledged. Our seas will feed the nation in the decades ahead and they will power our nation, helping us to tackle climate change. We need our seas and our seas need us to protect them—that is what the bill is all about. I thank members for supporting it at stage 1.