Fife's Coastline
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4434, in the name of Andrew Arbuckle, on Fife's coastline. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises that Fife has some of the most beautiful coastline in Scotland; further recognises that the Scottish Executive has made efforts to clean up our coasts and seas, particularly through the Scottish Coastal Forum; recognises that the local tourism industry depends on Fife having clean beaches and seas; understands that there is much work still to be done and that some of our coastline is still littered with rubbish and other pollution, and considers that the Executive and other relevant public agencies should redouble their efforts in cleaning up the coastline and seas for our own quality of life, for tourism, for wildlife and for future generations.
For those who are into clichés, a current debate on the coastline of Fife could transform into one about the good, the bad and the ugly—more specifically the very good, the unnecessarily bad, and the avoidability of the ugly.
The ugly is the potential disaster if the proposed ship-to-ship transfer of oil is allowed in the Forth estuary. Sadly, it seems that all the bodies that are against it, from the local authorities through to the Scottish Executive, will have little say in the final decision. It appears that the Executive can only swing on the proverbial environmental branch created by a European Union directive to prevent the operation from going ahead. The big decision appears to lie with the United Kingdom Government, with its responsibility for shipping.
However, there is also the paradox of the applicant and a potential financial beneficiary, the Forth Ports Authority, being part of the decision-making process. I urge the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to do all within her powers of persuasion to ensure that this business operation does not go ahead in the Forth estuary. The public do not understand the complexities of who is or is not legally responsible for dealing with the issue, but they know that they elect representatives to reflect their views—and their view is very much that they do not want this business on their doorstep.
When the issue was last debated, in our temporary home up the road, Jim Wallace indicated that he would welcome more ship-to-ship oil transfer in his part of the world. I do not believe that it displays a nimby attitude to say that the shelter of Scapa Flow would be better for this type of operation than the open seas in the Forth estuary.
If that is what comes under the heading of ugly in relation to the Fife coastline, what constitutes the bad? To my mind, it is the mindless littering of some of our most scenic areas. I add that Fife is no better or worse than other parts of Scotland—in fact, to my mind, litter is a national disgrace.
Fife Council has performed remarkably well in achieving blue flag status on a number of sites, thus providing a safe and clean environment in those locations. However, many other beauty spots rely on local voluntary help to keep them free of litter. Earlier in the year, I took part in one litter pick at Kinghorn and everyone who took part could confirm that we live in a throwaway society. Marine waste and visitor litter were both highly visible and bags of rubbish were collected. Mostly it was tin cans and plastic rubbish, but other, more esoteric litter was also picked up. The Marine Conservation Society and other organisations such as the Friends of the Forth are to be congratulated on their efforts, but until we can convince people not to litter, there should be more rigorous enforcement of legislation.
Sadly, no single organisation appears to have responsibility for marine litter and we should be advancing that issue to protect our remarkable coastal areas. If we spent a fraction of the cash that is wasted on picking up litter on enforcement and education, I am sure that we would be far better off. I welcome Fife Coast and Countryside Trust's clean team initiative and their proposal for a rapid-response litter task force that will go into areas where dumped rubbish is a problem.
So, we come to the good part of Fife. Thanks to the creation of the Fife coastal path, we are experiencing a new type of visitor to the ancient kingdom. Research by the trust shows that more than half of those who come to Fife do so because of the views, the scenery and the heritage. Tourism is now a major driver of Fife's economy and maximising our visitor assets is essential for our future. However, if we are relying on the physical assets of Fife to drive the economic wheels, we must ensure that the approach is sustainable. Coastal protection is essential. That might come with restrictions on development, and it might come by developing footpaths away from the coastline.
I said that there were three strands to my debate and I hope that the first—the ship-to-ship transfer of oil—will disappear over the horizon. I also hope that the second—litter—will disappear as society realises the damage that it does to our environment. The third strand of my speech—my reflection on the beauty of the Fife coast—reflects my hope that it will provide the background to a booming tourist industry.
I welcome the debate initiated by Andrew Arbuckle. It is on days such as today that I know that I live in God's kingdom. The train journey through Aberdour, Burntisland and Kinghorn is quite stunning and, on the nice sunny mornings that we get on occasion, it really does look like an impressionist painting as I look over the Forth to Edinburgh.
Sadly, after Kirkcaldy, the east cost line cuts into the countryside, so our beautiful east neuk coastline is not seen. That might be an argument for reopening some of our disused railways.
Andrew Arbuckle was right to draw attention to the improvements that have been made to our coastline and beaches. The Fife coastal path has indeed opened up the area to tourism and the blue flags that we now see flying over some beaches are testament to the work that the Executive, Fife Council and others have done to improve the quality of our beaches and bathing waters.
As I sat watching the media coverage from Cellardyke a few months ago, two things occurred to me. The first was the good sense of the people and poultry producers of the area compared with the mass hysteria of the media. The second was that the beautiful coastal village of Cellardyke was being seen all over the world. I hope that that will translate into an increase in tourism.
I turn to the ship-to-ship transfer of oil, which is where Andrew Arbuckle started. There have been debates in the Parliament about the proposals and many questions have been asked of the minister, who has kindly met members who are interested in the issue. Although it is true that the consultation process that is being gone through at the moment leaves most of the decision making to Westminster, I am not as pessimistic as Andrew Arbuckle is that nothing can be done here. In all our communities, both those along the Fife coast and those along the East Lothian coast, all MSPs, regardless of political party, have argued that such transfers must not be allowed to happen. Ship-to-ship oil transfers would be a disaster simply waiting to happen.
The idea that we have little influence over the outcome of the consultation does not appeal to me. I believe that ministers still have a duty under the EU habitats directive to ensure that our coastlines and wild areas are protected. Therefore, I urge the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to redouble her efforts to ensure that she can find a way through the issue for the benefit both of our communities and of our stunning coastal scenery. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the people and communities of Fife are prepared to accept that a lack of clarity over whether Westminster or Holyrood is responsible means that the proposed transfers will simply be allowed to happen.
People do not want ship-to-ship transfers to happen and the political will is against the proposal. I urge the minister to embrace the political opposition to the proposal that exists among all parties. She must do all in her power to ensure that we do not have ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth.
I welcome the opportunity to talk about Fife's coastline and I am grateful to Andrew Arbuckle for lodging the motion for this afternoon's debate.
A significant length of the Fife coastline lies within my constituency and many of my constituents have made their livelihoods along it. The coastal towns of Leven, Methil and most of Buckhaven all lie within Central Fife and each of those settlements has a long and proud tradition of using the land, water and resources of the coast. Those traditions carry on to this day, albeit perhaps in a different way and in different proportions from those of previous times.
Fishing, although not quite to the same extent as previously, continues in Buckhaven. We used to have a significant trawler fleet that sold fish up and down the coast as far as Kirkcaldy.
As many of us will know from walking along Fife's beaches, sea coal is still washed up and is testament to our mining tradition.
We used to import and export coal, pig-iron and other heavy materials using the railway line that ran down to Methil docks. Many of us hope that that line will be restored as a passenger line serving the community of Leven and I am delighted to see that that is now contained within the Fife structure plan. From the expressions on colleagues' faces, I know that we all share that ambition for that community.
Our coastal towns were involved in shipbuilding. Many of them were also used to supply our fleets during the last war. We recently unveiled a memorial in Buckhaven—some of us were there—to remember the young people who were killed in a tragic accident after they picked up a mine that then exploded.
In the 1970s we had engineering and fabrication for the oil industry. Finally, of course, we have tourism. Leven is still a holiday destination for many from the west of Scotland who keep up a tradition that has gone on for many years.
Last Friday night, I attended a presentation—which I believe was repeated on Saturday—that was organised under the auspices of the National Theatre of Scotland. Along with children from Kirkland high school and its feeder primary schools, the folk from Lauder College and members of the community put on a stunning performance at the facility at Methil docks about what the Fife coastline and towns were like in olden times. Through a series of tableaux, they expressed their hopes for the future and their memories of the past. The presentation culminated in a magnificent firework display over Methil number 3 dock. I just wish that more had been able to attend that event.
The economic life of the Fife coast continues. The proposed energy park at Methil, which will replace what used to be the RGC (Offshore) Ltd fabrication yard, will be involved in a groundbreaking fabrication project for the offshore wind industry. If successful, the project could bring many jobs and be worth billions of pounds to our economy.
We have the regeneration of the towns, led by groups from the community, together with the council, Scottish Enterprise Fife and others. We also have the coastal strategy, which determines the uses to which various parts of the coastline will be put. I support others in urging the minister to see what can be done to prevent what I, too, believe is a disaster waiting to happen—the proposed transfer of oil between ships using swinging anchors, out in what I still consider to be open water. The minister knows my views on the subject.
We must consider the environmental uses to which our coastline is put and the economy of the coastline. I regret that the environmental study of the coast that has been done does not address the issue of economic impact. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say, and again congratulate Andrew Arbuckle.
I am pleased that members' business this week is dominated by Fife, with Mr Arbuckle's debate this evening on Fife's coastline and my debate tomorrow evening on world heritage site status for St Andrews. I congratulate Mr Arbuckle on successfully bringing his motion before the Parliament today. He is absolutely right to praise the beauties of Fife's coastline, about which we have heard so much—that historic
"beggar's mantle fringed with gold",
from Burntisland through to the east neuk, round by St Andrews and back along the Tay estuary.
It is to the huge credit of Fifers who care about their environment and beaches and look after their surroundings that all of the four beaches in Scotland that had been awarded the prestigious European Union blue flag—the gold standard and international benchmark for water quality—before last year were in Fife: St Andrews east and west sands; Burntisland, Elie and Aberdour silver sands. I am glad that in 2005 two further beaches, at Montrose and Broughty Ferry, were also awarded blue flags, but Fife as a county stands head and shoulders above other Scottish areas in its beaches' cleanliness, environmental management and facilities.
Similarly, Fife was successful in the recently published Marine Conservation Society "Good Beach Guide 2006". Among the many beaches that were recommended for their water quality, with a particular emphasis on bathing, were Anstruther Billowness, Dalgety Bay, Earlsferry and Kingsbarns. Particular praise must be directed towards Pathhead sands near Kirkcaldy. Last year, the sands failed to meet mandatory EU standards for pollution, but now they are at the very top of the recommended beaches category, according to the MCS guide. That is an excellent turnaround.
However, we must not be complacent. Fife still has work to do in places such as Leven, Kinghorn harbour and Lower Largo, where potentially excellent beaches only scrape basic passes for water quality standard and the risk of sewage pollution. It would be churlish of me not to commend the Executive on its effort to clean up our coastline, and it is true that the water cleanliness of Scottish beaches has improved overall. We are all conscious of the potential adverse effects on our beaches and water purity of ship-to-ship oil transfers. Like Christine May and other speakers, I look forward to anything that the minister can say on the issue.
According to the MCS, which conducted a survey in September last year, the amount of litter found on Scottish beaches has increased, with an average of one piece of rubbish recorded for every 51cm. Most significant has been the rise in the number of discarded cigarette ends found on Scottish beaches, which increased by a staggering 273 per cent on the previous year. With the Executive's new ban on smoking in public places coming into force, this is one area where the Executive must act to ensure that adequate provision is in place for the disposal of cigarette stubs.
I accept fully that the Scottish coastal forum does invaluable work on the integration management of coastal bodies, but I believe that involving local people in taking an interest in looking after and caring for their beaches is the right way forward. I am all in favour of schemes such as beachwatch, which involve local volunteers giving up their time to tidy the coastline. From seeing his picture in The Courier, I am aware that Andrew Arbuckle has taken part in such clean-up exercises.
Mr Arbuckle is also right to highlight the importance of tourism to our coastline. Annual estimates of the number of visitors to the Fife coast stand at more than 250,000, with a contribution to the local economy of approximately £2.5 million. A major player in Fife's tourism success, as Andrew Arbuckle said, is the excellent coastal path system, which I commend to anybody who has not done a walk along it. I particularly commend the famous caves at Wemyss, which have remarkable prehistoric drawings.
I take issue in a small way with the Ramblers Association Scotland, which claims that golf developments along the Fife coast have precluded the provision of opportunities for walkers. I think that most people would agree that the Fife coastal path is long enough and wide enough to accommodate both ramblers and golfers. Most golfers of my acquaintance are sufficiently courteous to respect ramblers who offer them the same respect.
When I came into the chamber for the debate, I made a small bet with myself about who would be the first to mention the
"beggar's mantle fringed with gold."
Ted Brocklebank wins.
Iain Smith lost.
That was mainly because I warned Andrew Arbuckle off the quotation.
Fife's coastline, which runs all the way from Kincardine to Newburgh, is one of the longest stretches of coastline in Scotland; much of it is in my constituency of North East Fife. The coastline has a number of important functions—historic, environmental and economic—and is also important for our tourism industry. Members will excuse me if I use the debate largely as an opportunity to promote the benefits for tourists of coming to beautiful north-east Fife.
Some great history relates to the coastline round north-east Fife; none of it is greater, of course, than in St Andrews, where the relics—I almost said allegedly—of our great patron saint were landed and where the great ecclesiastical and academic centre was established. That history is still there and I am sure that we will debate it further in tomorrow's members' business debate on St Andrews.
Of course, history also applies to St Andrews as the home of golf, where the great game was established in Scotland. The coastline was important to the development of golf through the links courses in St Andrews and beyond. We can also find bits of history down in places such as Lower Largo, where the famous Alexander Selkirk who inspired the novel "Robinson Crusoe" came from.
Important environmental aspects of the coastline include the Isle of May, which is an important bird sanctuary, and the beautiful areas around the Eden estuary and Tentsmuir, which is one of our hidden gems because of its great beaches. I recommend that anyone who has not been to those beaches should visit them. Ted Brocklebank referred to Fife's great beaches, which include those at Tentsmuir, the east and west sands at St Andrews, and those all the way down the coast at Elie, Crail and Lower Largo. I am sure that the beach at Lower Largo will improve when the sewage treatment works at Levenmouth is finalised. There are also Ruby bay at Elie, Shell bay and many other beaches of great quality. As has been said, the beaches have been praised by the Marine Conservation Society as being some of the best in the United Kingdom and have received the blue flag. All those beaches are important in attracting tourists to our area.
Great facilities such as the Scottish Fisheries Museum at Anstruther celebrate much of our coastal history and the important role of the sea in the history not just of the east neuk of Fife, but of Scotland. People should visit that museum, if they have not done so, because it is a fabulous facility. However, I do not want fishing to be regarded just as history, because it is important that we preserve, maintain and improve our existing fishing industry in Pittenweem and our smaller fishing industries in some of the other harbours around the east neuk of Fife; I am thinking of the shellfish fishermen who work out of places such as Crail and St Andrews. We must protect and preserve such industries to ensure that our fishermen in the east neuk have a fair quota of prawns.
We must all recognise the importance of the quality of our beaches. Many of our schools in north-east Fife—in particular those that are involved in the eco-schools project—have ensured that young children recognise the importance of the marine environment and of dealing with issues such as litter on our beaches. Dunino primary school, which was one of Scotland's pilot eco-schools and the first to obtain permanent eco-school status, had beach cleaning as one of its projects. The school continues with that important role.
We must ensure that our young people are aware of the importance of our marine environment and its importance to history, economy and tourism in Fife. I welcome the opportunity to promote such matters in the debate.
I thank Andrew Arbuckle for securing the debate. One of the most stunning views of the Fife coast that I have ever had was from the top deck of the Superfast ferry as it steamed up the Forth towards Rosyth. It certainly emphasised to me the importance of the Forth's ecology to its economy and the delicate balances that we often need to strike.
Many MSPs have focused on the threat of ship-to-ship oil transfers and their potential impact on the Fife coastline. I hope that, after the recent meeting, the minister will continue to unfold the regulatory powers that are available to her and respond tonight to some of the questions that she was asked, but left unanswered.
The oil transfer issue has exposed the complete guddle of marine legislation in the United Kingdom and Scotland. Tidying up that legislation, which is often contradictory and is certainly not joined up, must be one of the Parliament's key tasks in the next session. The minister has said that the group that is working on the first phase of that considerable task will report at the end of the summer. One of the biggest improvements would be the introduction of proper marine and coastal planning that can encompass activities that might profoundly affect the Fife coastline.
Oil transfer is not the only activity that might impact on areas that are protected under the EU habitats directive. For example, a little further down the coast from Methil, the proposed Kirkcaldy esplanade retail development will sit entirely within a 13 hectare special protection area that is important to wading birds. That development could displace large numbers of beach users on to other important habitats that are used by birds.
There is also the prospect of a second Forth road bridge. During the recent Dunfermline by-election, Fergus Ewing suggested that construction of the bridge, which would also sit within an SPA, could be speeded up by doing away with inconvenient EU red tape.
What will be the cumulative impact on the Fife coastline of oil transfers, shopping developments and more road bridges, especially when we add in the considerable development pressures on the other side of the Forth? At the very least, ministers must ensure that all cumulative impacts are appropriately assessed. Last year, our responsibilities under the EU habitats directive to protected areas and, indeed, to the protected species of the Forth were made fully clear in court and that ruling should give the minister a very real—if not slightly scary—backbone stiffener.
We must use the existing law and make new law to protect the coastline of Fife for future generations.
I congratulate Andrew Arbuckle on securing this welcome debate and my other colleagues on their speeches. I acknowledge the work of Fife Council and the many volunteers in the community who are doing what they can to improve the state of Fife's coast and beaches, of which we are so proud.
At this point, I must declare an interest. I live next to the shore in Dalgety Bay and see how walkers, cyclists, joggers, pram-pushers, mums, dads, grandpas and everyone else enjoy it. As Tricia Marwick said, the views are absolutely stunning and I feel privileged to have the great good fortune to live in the area.
However, there are many issues to address, not least of which is the erosion that affects the Fife coastal path. From my time with Fife Council, I know—as I am sure that Christine May knows—that such issues are serious and that the council has never had enough money to tackle them. Moreover, those matters have often raised complicated questions of land ownership; although financial liability falls on the landowner, in certain cases the ownership of the land has been unclear.
I agree with colleagues about the threat of ship-to-ship oil transfers. I apologise to the minister for not being able to attend the meeting on Tuesday—my thoughts were with those who were able to make it—but I ask her now to do everything in her power to support MSPs' opposition to that operation. If the project goes ahead, there must be a level playing field for developers. If an opencast coal mine were to be given the green light in my constituency, the developer would have to pay a major sum of money as a bond of insurance so that the polluter would pay in the event of any on-going pollution. Similarly, any shipping developer should pay a bond if the project must go ahead. I hope that it will not go ahead, but any financial burden must fall to a developer if an oil spill happens—Fife Council or the Scottish Executive should not have to carry such a burden. A bond should be paid up front that would be enough, in the event of any spillage, to cover the cost of a clear-up and to provide compensation for businesses that are affected by the impact on tourism.
An issue that is of serious concern to the community of Dalgety Bay, where I live, and to all who use Fife's coastal path is radiation on Dalgety Bay's beaches. The radiation, which was first highlighted more than 16 years ago, is said to stem from luminous paint from the dials on the aircraft that were incinerated there, with the clinker being shunted on to the beaches in Dalgety Bay by housing developers.
The community is really upset—I share people's anger—that non-local officials and scientists from the so-called Dalgety Bay forum have made decisions that impact seriously on the community. The so-called Dalgety Bay forum includes no official local representation such as a community councillor, a Fife Councillor or myself. I should not have to go to a website to download 60 pages of information to find out what is going on. That is not good enough. I strongly urge the minister to ensure that her officials serve the community much better. They should be made to understand that they must deal with the issue. Safety is paramount. What discussions are being held with the Ministry of Defence? When will the officials involved, in collaboration with the Ministry of Defence, remove the radiation? The matter requires urgent attention. We do not just want signs to be put up in Dalgety Bay. We want the radiation to be removed once and for all. It impacts on the sailing club and on the entire community, and it will impact on tourism. If it is not a problem, take the signs down. For goodness' sake, help the people of Dalgety Bay with this urgent matter.
I congratulate Andrew Arbuckle on bringing the debate on Fife's coastline to the Parliament.
It is heartening to talk about Fife's impressive beaches—Fife has everything, so it is just the place for beaches. It is great that we are talking about the matter the day before the start of the official 2006 bathing water season. Many members have referred to the quality of Fife's beaches. As has been said, Fife has more international blue flag beaches than any other part of Scotland. Fife also scored highly in the Marine Conservation Society's "Good Beach Guide 2006", which was published last week. The figure of 13 recommended beaches is higher than that of any other part of Scotland, on which I certainly commend Fife.
Although the bathing waters are currently of excellent quality, the Executive is aware of the work that has still to be done. For example, a revised bathing water directive, to be implemented by March 2008, sets much more stringent standards. All Fife's beaches are expected to meet that tougher challenge. To help to ensure compliance, in March I launched the Executive's bathing water strategy, "Better Bathing Waters: meeting the challenges of the revised bathing water directive for Scotland". The strategy encourages greater partnership working with all those who have an interest in our bathing waters to ensure that the improvements in quality in recent years continue.
We know that Scotland's beaches—including Fife's beaches—are a wonderful asset for the country. For example, Scotland has a reputation as a world-class destination for walking, and VisitScotland promotes the country's beaches as part of its promotion of walking holidays. As members have said, a fine example is the ever-popular Fife coastal path.
Scottish Enterprise Fife, Fife Council, VisitScotland and the area tourism partnership, which is currently developing its area tourism partnership plans, recognise as great assets not only Fife's coast and its blue flag beaches, but the coastal and fishing towns and fantastic sea food. In addition, the Fife coastal path is featured in the Fife element of the national spring walking campaign. I was fortunate enough to walk on a new section of the Fife coastal path a number of years ago.
Unfortunately, as the motion indicates, litter remains a problem in Scotland. The Executive sympathises: inconsiderate people who litter must be made to recognise the damage that they are doing. We have funded a series of educational litter and fly-tipping campaigns through the independent charity Keep Scotland Beautiful, including the bag it and bin it campaign, which deals with beach litter in particular.
As members have said, education is not enough on its own; there must be sanctions. We have taken a number of steps to improve the enforcement of laws against littering and fly tipping. We have doubled the fixed-penalty fine for littering and introduced fixed-penalty fines for dog fouling and fly tipping. We have also doubled to £40,000 the fine that is available in summary proceedings for serious fly-tipping incidents and a range of other relevant pollution offences, particularly those relating to polluting the water environment.
I am not sure whether the incident is related to wilful fire raising but, since the start of the debate, I have been made aware of a major forest fire at Tentsmuir, which is one of the places I mentioned in my speech. Will the minister take the opportunity to wish the fire fighters well? I understand that more than 50 of them are involved in trying to bring the fire under control. I hope that they can do so. I also ask her to assure the chamber that the relevant agencies will speedily assess the environmental and economic impacts of the fire.
Certainly. The member has just informed me of the fire but, clearly, I echo his sentiments. I hope that the fire can be brought under control as quickly as possible. Tentsmuir is a hugely important piece of land for Fife. We will look into the implications of the fire as soon as we get the information.
We have commissioned Keep Scotland Beautiful to draw up a new Scottish code of practice on litter and refuse to advise local authorities and others on their clearance duties. The code will set the minimum levels of cleanliness that must be maintained by bodies that have a statutory duty to clear litter, including on beaches. The consultation on the final draft of the code closed on Friday 12 May, and we hope to lay the new code before the Parliament soon.
As for marine litter, members should be aware that litter from ships is a reserved matter. However, the Scottish Executive has funded the fishing for litter project run by KIMO, the local authority international environmental organisation, under which fishing boats are paid to catch litter and return it to their home port for proper disposal. Ross Finnie launched the project just last year.
Andrew Arbuckle and several other members made reference to ship-to-ship transfers in the Firth of Forth. I met members to discuss the issue last week and am very much aware of the strength of feeling on the issue. As members know, the Executive has responded formally to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency consultation. A copy of our response is available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. In short, we have drawn attention to the need for the MCA and Forth Ports to act in a way that takes regard of the requirements of the European Union habitats directive in the discharge of their respective responsibilities. We have supported Scottish Natural Heritage in the concerns that it has raised on the adequacy of the plan, as currently drafted, to address some of the habitats issues that arise from that obligation. We expect the MCA to comply with the directive as it considers the approval of the necessary oil spill contingency plan. We also expect Forth Ports to comply in the event that any specific oil-transfer operation were to proceed within the framework set by any approved contingency plan.
I am acutely aware of the vast social, economic and environmental importance of all Scotland's coast and seas; I am also aware of the challenging issues that face us in that regard. As Mark Ruskell said, the Executive has embarked on a major new strategy. We will build on our strong record and take a more co-ordinated approach to managing the uses of our marine areas. It is therefore appropriate that the strategy is being taken forward by an advisory group in which key economic sectors are involved, including tourism, environmental and conservation interests, scientific advisers and local coastal partnerships. The Scottish coastal forum has a key role in all of that, and I am pleased that Andrew Arbuckle's motion reflects that. We are also examining outline proposals for a coastal and marine national park. Designation is planned for 2008. No decision has been taken yet; that will not happen without detailed consultation having first taken place
I assure members that we are continuing to devote great efforts to ensuring that the beaches in Fife and elsewhere in Scotland maintain and improve their growing reputation. We look to all our partners to do the same.
Meeting closed at 17:49.