Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are a lot of amendments in the group, and colleagues will be relieved to know that I am not going to refer to them all.

I think that everyone here is trying to strengthen to the bill and respond to the various stakeholders who have spoken to us about the improvements that they think need to be made. I thank the Marine Conservation Society, the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, Scottish Environment LINK and the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust for helping me to craft my amendments in the group.

Given that a huge portion of our environmental sector is focused on our marine, coastal and fishing environments, the amendments are incredibly important not just for our seas and our marine ecosystem but for the people who rely on those for their livelihoods.

My amendment 17 would provide that

“The Scottish Ministers must, within 12 months of Royal Assent, publish a national marine strategy”.

Many stakeholders in the marine sector have been asking for that. The strategy would need to set out clear indicators or methods for measuring progress. My amendment would ensure that ministers, in preparing or reviewing the strategy, were obliged to consult relevant stakeholders and take account of “new environmental challenges”; that is something that Scottish Environment LINK mentioned.

Amendments 93, 328 and 95 would all strengthen our focus on adaptation as well as mitigation. Amendment 93 would update section 68(3) of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 so that ministers must state the ecosystem recovery objectives for any new nature conservation marine protected area. That would ensure that designation criteria are properly aligned with future nature recovery targets under part 1 of the bill.

Amendment 95 would require ministers to review the guidance annually so that it could be updated in line with new scientific evidence and best practice, which is vital to raising awareness and delivering best practice whereby lessons can be learned, shared and implemented.

I thank the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and SIFT for helping to craft my amendments 156 and 265 on inshore fishing. Amendment 156 would give ministers the power to bring in low-impact fishing priority areas, in line with their commitments to support a just transition to a more sustainable industry, and I have worked closely with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation on it. It is a modest proposal that would require any such areas to be subject to extensive consultation; it could be done only to help meet any targets that are set under the bill, to fulfil the national marine plan or to help achieve ministers’ legal duty to deliver good environmental status.

Having said that—and, again, this has the support of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation—I encourage members to also support amendments 96 to 101, in the name of Maurice Golden, which are systemic and in the same space. Those amendments draw on the positive experience with the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities that operate successfully in English waters. What is proposed would fit within a potential hierarchy in the 2010 act of 11 regional marine plans sitting below one national marine plan.

My amendment 265 would give ministers the powers to protect the parts of our sea lochs that are most important as marine carbon stores. Those make a significant contribution to Scotland’s climate mitigation efforts, burying more carbon than the whole North Sea and storing more per hectare than peatland. However, there is significant concern that carbon that is sequestered in those sediments would, if it was disturbed, re-enter the water column, and would then be at risk of returning to the atmosphere.

Scottish ministers have drafted the “Scottish Blue Carbon Action Plan”, which rightly supports more research, and there are indeed many areas where that research is needed. The areas referred to are only rarely fished, so their closure would have a minimal impact on the trawl sector, which is the primary cause of disturbance to our inshore marine muddy sediments. However, their protection would have a significant impact on the amount of carbon that Scotland can sequester.

I also support amendment 294, in the name of Ross Greer, on enforcement, because taking stronger action is important.

In conclusion, the amendments in the group are important because they would improve our environment for coastal communities as well as for those who are working in the fishing industry, which would, in turn, enable us to create a more sustainable future for Scotland.

I have spoken to Government ministers, and I am conscious that they have a variety of views on these issues. I am trying to get positive results here, so I am keen to listen to what ministers have to say. Like other colleagues, I want to be constructive and ensure that we get the best possible legislation in order to have the best possible impact.

I move amendment 17.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

NatureScot has questions about funding, and local authorities also raised concerns that they would not be likely to have the resources that they would need to engage in an ecocide investigation. Will you clarify or explain how the expansion of powers in section 9 relates to the existing regulatory remits of public bodies? As the member who is leading on the bill, which bodies do you think would be expected to lead on an ecocide investigation?

I just wanted to flag up that SEPA has raised concerns that the financial memorandum does not cover what it thinks the cost would be for it to proceed with an inquiry.

I move on to the financial memorandum and how the bill’s provisions would be implemented. SEPA has raised concerns that the financial memorandum underestimates the costs of implementation. NatureScot has said that, as things stand, it does not think that the extension of enforcement powers would apply to it, so it would need to work with SEPA.

There are a few questions about the detail of implementation. Have you thought through how the implementation costs would be met by the public sector organisations that would be required to implement the provisions?

Thank you. Back to the convener.

I want to follow up on EU alignment and discuss the issue of penalties. We took quite a lot of evidence from witnesses who had a range of different views about the exact detail of potential penalties. Some witnesses said in response to the call for views that the bill should go further in some areas, including in relation to penalties, by looking at what has been discussed in the environmental crime directive and looking beyond traditional types of penalties. Some issues that were considered included restricting a company’s operations, turnover-based fines and remediation orders.

I am keen to get your views on remediation orders, which is one issue that was discussed by witnesses. Having listened to, or seen in writing, the evidence that different witnesses gave, do you think that there is a case for expanding any of the penalty provisions in the bill?

Basically, you do not think that there is a need to reference remediation explicitly because it could be delivered through other elements of the bill if it was appropriate and possible. I just want to get that on the record.

What was appropriate at the time would depend on different cases in which legal proceedings were brought, but remediation is not excluded from the bill even though it is not explicitly referenced in it. Is that a correct interpretation?

No. It was just that one of the witnesses said that it is a curiosity that it is not specifically included in the bill. The issue is about explaining the options that come from the current legal provisions that are referred to in the bill.