Section 3 — National marine plan and regional marine plans: 4 Feb 2010: Scottish Parliament debates

Alex Fergusson None 9:00, 4 February 2010

Amendment 102, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 6, 103, 23, 91 and 92.

Link to this speech In context Individually
Tweet Share
Official Report source

Elaine Murray Labour

I lodged but did not press a similar amendment at stage 2. However, I believe that the issue is worthy of consideration by the whole Parliament as it links marine planning in part 2 of the bill with protection and enhancement in part 4. Amendment 102 would require national and regional plans to state how Government policies on nature conservation marine protection areas and other conservation sites that will also form part of the network of conservation sites that is created under section 68A, such as European marine sites, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites, will contribute to conservation or improvement of the marine area.

The minister resisted my amendment at stage 2 on the basis that

"sustainable development policies are about using Scotland's seas in a manner that is best calculated to deliver Scotland's needs, which are protecting the marine area while allowing activity to take place."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 18 November 2009; c 2124.]

I have reflected on that response and I believe that it misses the point. The national and regional plans are the policy documents that will guide the marine planning partnerships' decisions on appropriate development in the different parts of the marine area that they cover. There will inevitably be competing interests. It is important that the policy intention of the creation of nature conservation MPAs and the network of conservation sites is explicit in the plan and is available to members of the planning partnerships, to applicants who wish to undertake activity in the marine area, and to the general public.

Schedule 1 to the bill relates to the preparation, adoption and amendment of marine plans, including publication of and consultation on draft plans, and the laying before Parliament of national plans and possibly—depending on agreement to amendments that will be debated later today—regional plans. As the creation of nature conservation MPAs and the network of conservation sites will constrain some of those activities in some parts of the marine area, I think it sensible that the plans explain the policies underpinning their creation.

At stage 2, Liam McArthur was concerned that there was no counterweight against climate change mitigation. I believe that that concern has been addressed in his amendment 6, his alternative pass in amendment 103 and Peter Peacock's amendment 2, which has just been agreed to. I am happy to support whichever amendment Mr McArthur wishes to press. I am also happy to support amendments 23, 91 and 92, which are in the name of the cabinet secretary.

I also point out that Scottish Environment LINK supports amendment 102. In its briefing for today's debate, it stresses the importance of a three-pillar approach to marine conservation and points out that that was also supported by the advisory group for marine and coastal strategy and the sustainable seas task force. As a result, a clear link between planning provisions and provisions for marine protection and enhancement is necessary.

I move amendment 102.

Link to this speech In context Individually
Tweet Share
Official Report source

Alex Fergusson None

Before I call Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 6 and the other amendments in the group, I point out to members that amendments 6 and 103 are direct alternatives.

Link to this speech In context Individually
Tweet Share
Official Report source

Liam McArthur Liberal Democrat

First of all, I have no difficulty in supporting the three Government amendments in this group. The Liberal Democrats also support amendment 102, as it reinforces the three-pillar approach to nature conservation that was identified by the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy and the sustainable seas task force as the surest means of linking marine planning with marine protection and enhancement provisions. I certainly recognise that efforts have been made to address the concerns that I expressed at stage 2.

On amendments 6 and 103, committee colleagues will recall that at stage 2 Alasdair Morgan, showing all the parliamentary cunning that befits someone who has risen to the elevated status of Deputy Presiding Officer, succeeded in hoisting me by my own inferior amendment, and I am sure that some will feel that I am about to make the same schoolboy error at stage 3. However, on this occasion, I have lodged amendment 103 as a backstop.

I hope that Parliament will agree to support the more substantive amendment 6, which I think provides the clarity of direction and purpose that has been sought by stakeholders across the board and the committee itself since stage 1. Its approach would not compromise the flexibility that we all want in regional planning partnerships, but is consistent with the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, both of which require the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to put in place programmes of measures to achieve stated objectives.

Although I am grateful to the minister and his officials for seeking a compromise, I urge the Parliament to go a little bit further and to agree to amendment 6, which will ensure that national and regional plans set out clearly, simply and in a flexible way what will be done and who will be responsible for doing it.

Link to this speech In context Individually
Tweet Share
Official Report source

Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

Amendment 102 is useful and reflects stakeholders' concerns. As it makes more explicit the link between the planning and conservation parts of the bill, we are happy to support it.

As for amendment 6, a similar amendment was discussed in detail at stage 2. My views remain the same: the bill contains no powers to require anyone to implement policies and programmes such as are referred to in the amendment. The plans get their force from section 11, which requires certain decisions in a marine area to be made "in accordance with" a plan, and requires that regard be had to a plan when other decisions are made. Given that a marine plan is not a vehicle for delivering freestanding programmes or a series of actions, I oppose amendment 6.

However, I am happy to accept amendment 103, which is similar to amendment 6 but has had removed from it the references to policies, programmes, responsible public authorities and persons. As the Presiding Officer has pointed out, the Parliament has to choose between the two amendments: we choose amendment 103, because it focuses on the objectives for marine plans, the condition of the marine area at the time of the plan's preparation and the pressures of human activities on the area. Although such things would appear in plans anyway, I am happy for the bill to refer specifically to them.

Amendment 23 is a minor technical amendment that seeks to bring section 7(2)(b)(i) into line with section 7(2)(a)(i) with regard to the reference to

"the living resources which the area supports".

Amendment 91 is another minor technical amendment that seeks to correct a reference to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 following changes in the final numbering of that act, and amendment 92 seeks to make a minor grammatical correction in schedule 1 so that the sentence in question will read:

"the Scottish marine region to which the plan is to apply".

Link to this speech In context Individually
Tweet Share
Official Report source

John Scott Conservative

I, too, am happy to support amendment 102 in the name of Elaine Murray, as it develops the three-pillar approach to nature conservation that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and others have agreed is vital to the development of a national marine plan.

I have to say that I prefer amendment 103 to amendment 6 in its attempt to flesh out the bill's intentions. Amendment 103 will help commercial development by providing greater clarity in marine plans and making the bill more compatible with the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Both pieces of legislation clearly set out their objectives; this bill should do so as well.