Scottish Exec Extracts

These are extracts taken  from a transcript of proceedings at Scot. Parliament.  By necessity I have only included parts that are directly relevant to MAFA.  The full transcript is available from myself(Nick Turnbull) or D. Wilson.

The important parts, in my opinion, I highlight in italics and where the names of MSPs are not in bold means that I have taken an extract from a longer speech.

Conclusion  :  All parties apart from SNP, who are raising serious doubts, are supporting the principle of CMNP's.   All parties and this is vital, are agreed that the Park cannot be imposed  on an area without the consent of the people living and working in this area.  How this is achieved has not been addressed, though Mr Finnie would appear to believe that the present consultation is adequate and has refused to answer questions on a referendum.

A number of MSP's from different parties regard the consultation process as seriously flawed and are requesting an improvement.

 There is a real question about democratic rights of the people in the area to make their own decisions although some MSP's regard the Park as a "Scottish decision" as It is a "national" park. No matter who or which area is chosen, communities should be arguing for a democratic right as to whether they want it or not.

There continues to be a lack of detail and information on the Marine Park for people to make informed decisions.

You will notice that there is a suggestion that not only can fishing activities be curtailed but reference to zoning of all activities including aquaculture.  Likewise the Park Authority will be able to overule(conservation issues) any decisions made by other bodies such as IFG's(Inshore fisheries groups) unless the act is changed.

While no area has been decided Argyll and Islands continue to be a frontrunner.

Extract

Fergus Ewing: Would there be a referendum?

Col 28603

Ross Finnie: Fergus Ewing and I are keen on consultation, but he wrote to me about the fact that he wanted a consultation on where the consultation should take place. Now he wants a referendum. God, we will be here for a year and a day. I hope that nobody on the Scottish National Party benches ends up in Government; if they do, we will never get anything done.

Fergus Ewing: Would there be a referendum?

Col 28603

Mr McGrigor: I agree with what the minister has said about our marvellous marine and coastal environment, but does he agree that there is such an environment because of, rather than in spite of, management by local people in the past?

(Ross Finnie)--- We have identified three potential models for the park authority that would accompany the establishment of a park. I know that concerns have been expressed about restrictive controls that could impact on the livelihoods of coastal communities, but the favoured model—the park as planner and enabler—is proportionate and would not threaten those communities. The model is

Col 28605

designed to ensure that the park authority works with other organisations. We do not propose that the park authority should become the single regulator for the park area. With its planning and enabling function, the authority should ensure not only that sustainable practices continue, but that the park is an important generator of additional socioeconomic benefits.

Fergus Ewing: In order to confound the minister's expectations of me, I ask whether it would not be better to spend the £4 million or £5 million per year that it might cost to staff and run an office and bureaucracy somewhere on the west coast on affordable housing or getting new people into farming or enabling young people stay in the west Highlands because they do not have to leave to find a job. Would that not be a better way to spend such a huge amount of taxpayers money.

(Ross Finnie)---Jamie McGrigor has expressed concern about the management of inshore commercial fishing activity, but I have clearly indicated that that will continue to be led by the newly established inshore fisheries groups and that the creation of a park will not take over the role of those groups. A coastal and marine national park will be a driver for local sustainable development. There is no contradiction in inshore fisheries group management plans complementing the aims of a coastal and marine national park.

(Mr. Lockhead)----Although the SNP has no objection in principle to the concept of coastal and marine national parks, we do not believe that they have a role to play at this stage. The minister has failed to persuade us and the people of Scotland that there is a demand for coastal and marine national parks in Scotland, especially from the people who matter—those who live in our coastal communities. Given the minister's half-hearted consultation exercise and the wording of the motion, we are not convinced that even he is persuaded that there is a need for such parks at this stage. We believe that the minister should spend his time and energy on more pressing priorities that coastal communities in Scotland face. We also believe that, currently, the management of our marine resources is a dog's breakfast. The last thing that Scotland's coastal communities and our seas need is yet another layer of bureaucracy and yet another body with a say over our marine environment.

And-----

We must allow people who are directly affected by decisions taken in this Parliament to have a say in their own future. We need more bottom-up governance of our marine environment, not more bureaucracy, new bodies and dictation from ministers sitting in their offices in Edinburgh. The minister is out of touch with what is happening. There might be a place for coastal and marine parks in the future, but now we have to sort out the dog's breakfast that is marine management in Scotland and put democracy before bureaucracy.

(Mr. Brocklebank (con)-----We must not impose a national concept of sustainability against the wishes and experience of those who understand and have worked the local coastal environment for generations. I was encouraged to hear the minister say that no community would have a coastal and marine national park enforced on it.

Eleanor Scott(greeen)- -. For example, on Mull, where there is cautious interest in a coastal and marine national park, the chamber of commerce has asked whether the designation would bring extra money—say, to employ more rangers to enhance the already-thriving wildlife tourism sector. It is perfectly reasonable for communities that could be eligible for the accolade to want to know what, frankly, they would get out of it. Communities' support is vital. This cannot be just a top-down exercise or it will not work. Communities must be involved. They must be more than just acquiescent; they must have their own vision of a coastal and marine national park. They must also be keen to take on responsibility, including the responsibility for regulation.

Richard Lochhead: I remind the Parliament that Sarah Boyack supports the introduction of a marine act for Scotland to streamline the existing 85 acts that apply to Scotland's waters. Would it not make sense to go down that road before we foist another tier of bureaucracy on our seas.

Sarah Boyack (lab)-----Consultation and participation must be a key principle of the process from the start. I support the work that SNH and the Scottish Executive are doing to raise the issue up the agenda. When I visited the stand in Fort William last week, I was impressed by the range of information that was available. One could not possibly expect the people who were staffing the stall to answer every question when we are still debating many of the principles and the location of any new marine national park.?

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): I am sure that all members will wish to welcome the large party of people in the public gallery who have come down from Lochaber to listen to today's debate. Over a period earlier this year, one of their number carried out a survey of visitors to Lochaber. English-speaking visitors were asked whether marine national park status would encourage them to visit the area. In summary, of the 10,204 people who were asked the question, 8,366 said no, 1,015 said yes and 723 were not sure.

Fergus Ewing 

By contrast with that survey, which was conducted at no expense to the taxpayer by a citizen of Scotland who is genuinely motivated by a fear for the future of communities such as Mallaig and Arisaig, the supposed consultation that SNH carried out this week—which, incidentally, many of my constituents in places such as Lochaline could not find because it was not where it was supposed to be in Fort William—includes questions such as:

"What benefits do you think a Coastal and Marine National Park could bring?"

Many people feel that such a park would not bring any benefits, so that is a loaded question. A further question was:

Col 28619

"Which area would you like to see designated as Scotland's first Coastal and Marine National Park?"

Again, that is a loaded question, because many people do not wish to see an area so designated. More specifically, they would prefer taxpayers' money—their money—to be spent on the real priorities that face rural Scotland

Fergus Ewing: The question, which seems to me to have been perfectly open and fair, was whether marine national park status would encourage them to visit the area. The minister does not like the fact that the response from 82 per cent of a sample of 10,000, which is much larger than any sample that is used by MORI or other pollsters, signified clearly that the minister's main thesis—that the measure would help tourism—is flawed. Moreover, if it helped tourism in Lochaber, what about areas such as Argyll, the Western Isles and the Northern Isles? Would they lose out? Is that fair? The idea seems to me to be absurd.

 Maureen MacMillan(lab)---Because we demand so much from the marine environment, we must protect it. Integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning have been spoken about for years, but little general progress has been made in delivering them. We need to plan where we want and do not want fishing, and where we want fish farmers—progress has been made in that area. We need to

Col 28622

decide how many whale and dolphin-watching businesses are sustainable—the businesses themselves say that having too many operators puts too much pressure on the cetaceans—and where we will site our marine renewables. Some of those matters are being progressed, but I have the feeling that they are not being integrated yet.

15:54

Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab): A week tomorrow, the Western Isles inshore fisheries group will have its first formal meeting, on the isle of Harris. The group is an example of real devolution; it is about empowering a community and particular stakeholders in it. The inshore fisheries group will in effect run and manage all marine activity around the Western Isles, initially in the seas extending to six miles from the shore, with a view to extending the range and competence to 12 miles from the shore. I commend the Executive ministers for realising that the establishment of such a body will improve greatly life and work for many people whose livelihoods or leisure time activities depend on the seas around the Western Isles. Since the creation of the Parliament, Ross Finnie has doggedly pursued that way of working. I was delighted when, some months' ago, he announced that the Western Isles was to be among the first in the country to have an inshore fisheries group.

Turning to the motion, I was particularly pleased to read that

"the Executive will take account of the views expressed in response to the consultation before taking decisions on how to progress the proposals."

A Morrison (lab)--I shall help Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin to short-circuit that process of consultation by placing unambiguously on the record that I do not want any part of the Western Isles to be within any coastal and marine park at this time—I emphasise "at this time". No one questions the principle or the merits of a park; indeed, the principle has enjoyed

Col 28625

support throughout the chamber, with the noble exception of the Scottish National Party.

I place on record the view of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. The sustainable communities committee has spoken with one voice, as indeed has the whole council:

"We all appreciate the benefits, but at this time we do not have evidence and cannot appreciate the demonstrable benefits that would come our way."

I also put on record the views of the Western Isles Fishermen's Association. It, too, is opposed at this stage—again, I emphasise "at this stage".

Mr. A Arbuckle (lLD)--When the proposal is taken forward, it will be important to me and, I hope, to others that local residents and communities play a full role in any controls and management that are needed. To my mind, any management team should reflect local priorities, and I am pleased about the proposal for local voices to have a majority on the board.

I hope that, when the proposal comes to fruition, the percentage of local people on the park board will at least equal the 88 per cent achieved by the Cairngorm park board. Incidentally, the percentage of local representation on the Cairngorm board could be even higher if we moved the boundaries to a more sensible line and included a representative from Perth and Kinross Council.

Fergus Ewing: Were social and economic factors to be given the same weight as environmental factors, it would provide some relief to those who are presently opposed to coastal and marine national parks. However, that would require amendment of the 2000 act, which states plainly that the first aim—conservation—takes precedence, in accordance with the Sandford principle. Is the member proposing that primary legislation should be amended so that conservation is no longer given precedence?

J. MacGrigor-----It is worth noting that the present legislation was designed for terrestrial parks not marine parks. As it would be unwise to suggest a terrestrial solution to a situation in a marine environment, it will be necessary to introduce special legislation that is a bit more appropriate

And

I will also be interested in the results of the consultation. I am glad that the minister has said that he will not impose anything on a community that is totally against it. The jury is still out. It is all very well for those in ivory towers here and in Brussels to talk about conservation but, as my friend Ted Brocklebank has said, we will support a park only if it does not impose a national concept against the wishes of the people who have lived and worked in a local coastal environment for generations. After all, they are the people who, over generations, have created the environment that a marine national park is supposed to protect. They are the ones who know the local environment and who will continue to manage it best. I can think of many things that fishermen have done. Alasdair Morrison mentioned the V-notching and returning of female lobsters. There is also the modification of trawl gear and dredgers to lessen the impact on the sea bed.

Fergus Ewing: On that point, I support inshore fisheries management, but paragraph 26 of section 3 of "SNH Advice on Coastal and Marine National Park—Advice to Ministers" advises that, in the event of a conflict between fishing interests and the park plan, the park plan should take precedence. Is that the Executive's view?

Rhona Brankin----

In response to the Conservatives, it is not true to say that no one has visited the roadshow—1,200 people attended at Kirkcudbright and Oban and considerable interest has been shown in each leg of the tour—nor is it true to say that the roadshow is designed to sell a coastal and marine national park. The roadshow is intended to provide information on the proposals so that people can form their own views and submit their comments to the Executive. The roadshow provides one of many opportunities for people to participate in the consultation. In addition, we have sent out 600 copies of the consultation document, which can also be accessed on the Scottish Executive website

.