Chamber and committees

Microchipping needs to be a wider holistic approach. It is not just about initially microchipping a cat; it is about ensuring that details are kept up to date and indeed that there is a single database that vets or other individuals can check, which we currently do not have. Given that the Scottish Government is considering recommendations, as the convener highlighted, I would hope that those are dealt with in the round and, ultimately, therefore, I believe that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

I think that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that current BID legislation contains a dual-key mechanism to help protect against large firms forcing through a BID proposal against the wishes of small firms or vice versa. The Scottish Government’s position is that the regulatory role in relation to BIDs should be for local authorities and not Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government has no plans to review or amend existing BID legislation during this parliamentary session, due to cost, resource and time constraints.

I agree with Mr Torrance, but I think that it is worth putting on the record first that the aim of the petition is to reduce gull numbers in residential areas and that to conflate that with a wider piece around declining gull populations would perhaps be wrong. People out there see what many of us see, which is a massive increase in aggressive gull populations, particularly over the summer, when you might be dining outside, and they are all set to attack. I am astonished that a pilot is required to assist with the issue. Nonetheless, I encourage the petitioner, if they are so minded, to reintroduce the petition, with a specific focus, in the new session, because I feel that the response from the Scottish Government is utterly inadequate.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

My amendments in the group seek, essentially, to explore the question of rural communities and the environment versus Government institutions and multinationals, and who is best placed to decide how to protect the interests of individuals. Is it the creel fisherman based in Skye or the bureaucrat based in Edinburgh? It is the classic local-versus-national question.

Ultimately, the amendments seek to address substantial problems with inshore management that are both urgent and long standing. The Scottish Government and the marine directorate have failed to address many problems over many years, and, in each case, those problems have been environmental and economic.

In setting out the purpose of my amendments, I will seek to shine a light on associated problems that, in each case, relate to shortcomings in the 2010 act. The amendments might not be the answer, but in each case an answer is required, and I look forward to the Scottish Government’s response to them.

Ultimately, the amendments fall into two parts—regional marine planning and fisheries management. Amendment 96 seeks to require action on regional marine plans. Section 5(1) of the 2010 act says that

“Ministers must prepare and adopt ... a national marine plan”,

so they should have done so. However, the first iteration of the plan was broad brush practically to the point of uselessness, both for the purpose of ecological restoration and for the management of inshore economic activity. A good national marine plan would have had a clear spatial element, because, without that, the various pressures on the inshore cannot be balanced against one another.

The fishing industry has complained about a spatial squeeze on operations, and it is right to do so. Community groups have complained that much nature protection is in name only, or is simply ineffective, and they, too, are right to do so. Nevertheless, a national marine plan exists, although I note that its next iteration has been delayed. In passing, I encourage the cabinet secretary to ensure that it is in line with best practice around the world and that it includes clear spatial plans that are based on science and economics.

However, I note that section 5(2) of the 2010 act says that

“Ministers may prepare and adopt ... a regional marine plan”.

As a result of that use of the word “may”, none has been adopted. A decade and a half after the 2010 act was brought in, that does not seem good enough, and amendment 96, therefore, would turn that “may” into a “must”.

Amendment 97 addresses the question of who should prepare regional marine plans. At the moment, that responsibility is, in theory, in the hands of non-statutory regional marine planning partnerships. Those that exist have worked hard, and those that have taken part in the processes are to be commended and thanked. However, the reality is that their hands are tied by the marine directorate.

Section 12 of the 2010 act allows ministers, if they wish, to delegate powers and specifies to whom they can be delegated. Amendment 97 would require those powers to be delegated; in other words, the preparation of marine plans should be done locally, with all the protections that are set out later in section 12. That brings me back to my opening point about who knows best how to manage our inshore waters.

Amendment 97 would also require regional marine plans to be prepared with sustainable fisheries and other sustainable economic activities in mind, aligned with the objectives set out in section 1 of the United Kingdom Fisheries Act 2020 and any targets set out in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, once it has been amended by the bill. Importantly, if measures of that sort were adopted, Scottish ministers would still retain a strong and appropriate level of control via the national marine plan. If they were to produce a second, more detailed national marine plan, the regional marine plans could be adopted only if they were aligned with it. I am not proposing 11 separate inshore fiefdoms operating in isolation; I am talking about 11 local communities deciding for themselves how best to deliver on their statutory duties and on the local elements of the national marine plan. Overall, I think that that is a balanced approach.

Amendment 101 gives more detail on what regional marine plans should contain. Unlike the status quo, it would require that areas for different fisheries be identified; after all, in some cases, different fisheries can take place alongside each other but, in others, they cannot. The amendment would also require regional marine plans to be consistent with other statutory requirements and, as discussed, consistent with the national marine plan and adopted by ministers.

Amendment 98 relates to fisheries management. At the moment, we have regional inshore fisheries groups, but, like regional marine planning partnerships, they have no statutory basis and no powers to act. Under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, inshore fisheries management in English waters is handled by 10 inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. Amendment 98, alongside amendments 99 and 100, does not seek to replicate the English model; the Scottish system has some clear advantages over the English regime, most notably the potential—and at the moment just the potential, I am sad to say—of regional marine plans. Instead, this group of amendments would require ministers to establish regional inshore fisheries and conservation management bodies, which would be charged with managing fisheries, and given the powers to do so, in line with locally developed regional marine plans. As with the plans, that approach would ensure that management decisions were taken locally by the industry representatives and other key stakeholders. I should also note amendment 100, which would give such bodies the powers to regulate and do the detailed work on fisheries management, including creel limits, open and closed areas, and so on.

The committee has heard, most notably during pre-budget scrutiny, frustrations on all sides with the marine directorate as well as concerns about underfunding. Those frustrations have come from the mobile gear sector, from environmental non-governmental organisations and from academics—in fact, from a range of stakeholders. Ultimately, I believe that local communities, scientists and industry should be brought to the fore and given the powers to act, and we should let them work together to deliver inshore waters that are rich in biodiversity, with thriving fish stocks, and ensure that all parts of the fleet work together.

Amendment 266 would require the Scottish Government to conduct a review of the efficacy of marine penalties and to consider the feasibility of increasing fines accordingly. In many ways, it dovetails with Ross Greer’s amendments, but it is a proportionate and necessary amendment relating to improvements in compliance and enforcement, which currently are heavily reliant on surveillance aircraft and monitoring vessels in order to catch out non-compliance. Such an approach is costly and, historically, has been somewhat ineffective in responding to offences quickly. Indeed, the response happens after the event.

On your point around timing, I point to the 2016 manifesto, which said:

“We will also update inshore fisheries legislation through an Inshore Fisheries Bill to support sound fisheries management.”

That was not the Conservative manifesto; it was the Scottish National Party manifesto. These amendments attempt, in true cross-party spirit, to deliver on that manifesto commitment.

With regard to timing, given that we are aware of the on-going decline both in our inshore fishing fleet and in inshore biodiversity, should it not therefore be for primary legislation to deliver that spatial management, as the SNP’s 2016 manifesto set out?

Would the cabinet secretary commit to working with me and possibly others to get some assurance in the bill around the purpose and effect of the amendments? We are both standing down as members, and I have heard all of this previously with the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, which was promised in 2018 but did not become an act until 2024, thanks to her colleague. I hope that the cabinet secretary gets my point.

The report is the first step towards developing a new way to deliver such care, but it is partly predicated on having a support network in place so that its rationale can ultimately be justified. My concern is that the support network might not be in place. After you have reported, who is ultimately accountable for delivering on the report’s recommendations in order to make your rationale successful?

I think that that would be helpful, convener.

Everyone will agree that there is already a degree of centralisation, given that we are starting with eight specialist units. However, the concern is the rationale behind all this and how we ensure not just the best clinical outcomes but the best patient outcomes.

I am interested in cases in which, as a result of closures, families might have to live apart and in the impact that that might have. Last month, The Courier reported on the case of Lois Cathro, whose triplets were born at 32 weeks, and all under 4 pounds in weight, at Ninewells hospital in Dundee. They received excellent care, but Lois said:

“Had the unit not been there, we could have faced an unimaginable situation.”

Is it conceivable that parents and families might have to make round trips of hundreds of miles between hospitals just to see their babies? What impact might that have not just on their clinical care but on their overall wellbeing and, potentially, on future health and mental health outcomes?

Thank you.