Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that there is competition between private interests for the use of the seas, but the public interest in the room really lies with Mike Spain. After all, the Crown Estate could be leasing the sea bed.

Therefore, Mike, I am interested in hearing your views on the regulatory frameworks that are being established here. As I understand it, SEPA’s controlled activities regulations licensing will not apply when it comes to waste discharges, lice treatments, medicines and so on. Those things might or might not be necessary, but given that you will be leasing the sea bed in the public interest, can you tell us how that public interest is reflected in a regulatory framework that does not replicate what we have inshore, where there are some quite strict environmental limits that are monitored by a public agency?

You have been a little bit quiet this morning, so I would like to hear what the public interest says about what is before us and how you are managing private interests to ensure that the public interest in the environment is being protected.

I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing the debate to the chamber. We have this debate pretty much every year, and it is really good to be able to reflect on the progress that has been made and to celebrate MCS’s on-going, excellent work.

As we have heard in contributions from all members, Scotland undoubtedly has some of the most beautiful beaches in Europe. It would be remiss of me not to mention West Sands in St Andrews and Silver Sands in Aberdour, in my region. We have thousands of miles of beaches and coasts, which not only are home to nature but keep us active and healthy, and bring pleasure to millions of people. They also tell us the story of our communities and are wonderful places for learning and discovery for people of all ages.

Although our beaches and coasts are also on the front line of climate change, with threats from storms and sea level rises, our shores hold part of the solution as to how we can adapt to climate change, too. I was really delighted to visit Restoration Forth’s seagrass project recently. I see that Ben Macpherson is nodding, as he will recognise that project from this side of the Forth—in particular, the excellent work on oyster bed recovery.

I was particularly struck by that work on seagrass, which is—or was—found in many sheltered areas and coasts. Not only is seagrass a wonderful nursery for marine life, but it captures 35 times more carbon than the rainforests do. It feels to me that restoring seagrass and working with communities is a great way to address some of the impacts of climate change and to empower people. We need to find those wins for nature and climate that create that sweet spot for community action. Seagrass is a really good example.

Many more coastal projects have been funded through the nature restoration fund, which is creating a real focal point for community empowerment. It would be great to hear the minister reflect on the success of that fund and where it will go in the future. However, what we have learned through the surveys, particularly in the past couple of years, is that our beaches are sadly becoming dirtier, with a rising tide of marine litter. To return to seagrass, 92 per cent of our seagrass across the UK has been destroyed, in part because of litter. This year’s “State of our beaches” report shows an increase in the proportion of litter that is found on our beaches for the second year in a row. We cannot ignore the fact that drinks bottles and cans remain a major part of the beach litter problem.

Changing behaviour and attitudes is one part of the solution. A number of members have mentioned the success of the carrier bag charge, which came in more than a decade ago. As a result, there has been an 80 per cent reduction in bags turning up as marine litter. Clearly, incentives for citizens and consumers work, but it is also important that we do not forget that the polluter should pay and that producers of waste should ultimately take responsibility for it.

In the previous session, the Parliament agreed to the deposit return scheme for drinks containers, putting the responsibility back on to producers to run their own take-back scheme that would work for the public. I remember that, when the DRS was being considered by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, the many years of MCS beach cleans were a central part of the evidence in favour of the DRS scheme, which was originally introduced by Roseanna Cunningham.

It is disappointing that, in this session of Parliament, ostensible lobbying from the glass industry undermined the scheme that had been developed in Scotland. Ultimately, it was blocked by the UK Government. As we move past that period and look to a new UK-wide DRS, although it will arguably be weaker, it is important to acknowledge that, in many ways, the worsening condition of our beaches is happening because vested interests have had some considerable success in slowing environmental regulation.

Members talk about nurdles and microplastics, so there is a role for regulation here. There is a role for making the polluter pay and for driving industry towards innovation to find solutions. Voluntary action can take us only so far. For decades, raising the floor of regulation across Europe was how we delivered environmental progress. That is why maintaining alignment with European Union laws will be important for the health of our coasts, nature and bathing waters. It is also why Environmental Standards Scotland has such an important role in holding Governments and regulators to account post Brexit, so that we can continue that progress.

I am a little disappointed that we will not see the promised water and sewage bill from the Scottish Government in this session. Maybe the minister will have more to say on that. That could have kept up the pressure for improvement.

I believe that communities, from wild swimmers to dog walkers, have a role to play in monitoring the state of our beaches and making a small but important contribution to cleaning up. I join other members in thanking volunteers and celebrating that work. I am already looking forward to joining my next beach clean in Fife.

What you are suggesting would be very much a bespoke project—that is, the application of hydrogen heating in a particular geographic area, rather than more of a national approach to the adoption of heating in individual homes.

John Andresen, could you share your views on that issue, and also talk about the international comparisons? Are other countries taking different approaches to which sectors are being targeted for hydrogen investment? Are there stark differences in approach?

Nigel Holmes, you mentioned the fertiliser sector; we do not have a fertiliser sector here, but it could be brought back effectively and decarbonised that way. What do you see as the areas that we need to focus most on in the hydrogen hierarchy?

Okay. Is that in the context of society becoming increasingly electrified in terms of both transport and heating, and therefore needing a back-up system to release that energy during winter or at other times when demand is high?

I would welcome that approach. Since the committee last took evidence on this issue, which was in May 2023, we have seen quite a few changes. Low-emission zones have been rolled out in Scotland; there is increasing evidence with regard to particulates from wood-burning stoves; and new scientific evidence is coming along about the impact of air pollution on child development. Therefore, I would say yes to the suggestion that has been made. Now would be a good time to reflect on the evidence, take stock and write to the stakeholders who were part of the initial inquiry.

I note that the two chemicals in question have an impact on human health. The notes say that UV-328 is

“toxic for mammals, endangering human health and the environment (causing damage to liver and kidney),”

while dechlorane affects the nervous system of aquatic animals. It is right, therefore, that those chemicals are being phased out.

Although I accept the Government’s approach and the representations that have been made by the medical industry, I note that those two chemicals will be prohibited in the European Union in autumn 2025. I am content to accept the regulations, but I would like to know whether the chemicals will be phased out on a similar timescale to that of the EU’s. Given that the chemicals have an impact on the environment and human health, phasing them out is the right thing to do.

I will go to Jan Rosenow.

Does Mark Symes want to chip in on this?