 Rymdegwch gyda ymddangas ymddangas ymdegwch, a'r ddweud yn fawr, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, i gynllun rydyn am Richard Lockhead o'r plan ynghylch. Felly, rydyn ni i gwybod i'n ei bodi fawr i'n ddegwch i'n ddegwch i'r ddegwch. oedd gennym eich bwysig yn eich tynneb gywedebenderau i fynd i gyd yn gyflym sprint nad ydych yn gyllidol i'r ddisziwgiau yng ngîm. Ymddeithasg, maid angen i chi i'r bwysig i chi'n bwysig i ddewid ysgolthu nesafren ymgyrch gwasanaeth mwy o ddysgol. A dwi am ystod, a ddwych chi'n ddweud eich cychwyn i gael ei gwrsach ymddych yn ei ddwyng i'r bwysig o'r adnod i niol, a i gael i'r gwneud ei gennym i'r bwysig i'r ardal i'r I want to thank the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for their scrutiny. I set out my response to their thoughtful recommendations earlier this week. I note the positive comments that were made by stakeholders during that particular process. For example, Calum Duncan, representing Scottish Environment Link, stated that, we welcome the national marine plan as a step change in the management of our seas. So marine planning is new and, of course, important. We need to act now to put in place a framework that will promote marine activity and ensure that our unique marine environment is safeguarded. Scotland's natural resources are, of course, world famous. Our seas are very much part of a very rich legacy. In fact, our sea area is six times the land mass of Scotland—I repeat that—six times the land mass of Scotland. That is over 460,000 square kilometres of some of the most productive and diverse waters in the whole of the planet. Those sea support habitats range from shallow estuaries to deep sea coral reefs and over 6,000 marine species, including over 20 species of marine mammals such as seals and dolphins. Our sea bird population is vast, as large as our human population, and includes a number of protected species. I take the responsibility of protecting the environment for future generations extremely seriously, not only for families in Scotland, but climate change is a global issue, for instance, and we must contribute what we can do in terms of a global response as well. The seas, of course, do not respect boundaries. We must work in partnership across sectors and nations to manage them well. That is why I did lead the development of a new legislative framework, the Marine Scotland Act 2010, through this Parliament. The act requires us to have a marine plan that sets out policies for the sustainable development of Scotland's seas, including economic, social, climate change and ecosystem objectives. That is a plan that respects the stunning environment and supports our amazingly productive marine industries and allows for new industries potentially to emerge as well. Our diverse industries illustrate why we must have proper safeguards in place to protect our rich natural assets and those who make a living from them. As we are all aware, a number of recent incidents such as the large cargo ship running aground point yesterday highlight the very real risks that we must guard against and respond to. As things stand, the UK Government is responsible for determining the appropriate levels of provision to protect ships passing through our waters. There have now been three significant incidents in our waters involving large vessels in the past few months alone, reminding us all of the need to protect not only human life but our precious marine environment. Yet we still have the unacceptable situation that sees some of Europe's largest and busiest waters only protected with one emergency towing vessel, Berth in the Northern Isles, potentially leaving our waters on the west coast, in particular, severely exposed. I have raised this issue with the UK Government a number of times since the decision to slash funding in half the number of emergency tugs in our waters. Most recently, I wrote in November requesting an early discussion on the current situation of funding beyond next year following the incident involving a shipment of radioactive waste in our waters. However, I have yet to receive an acceptable response and firm commitment around that issue. Today, I can tell the chamber that I am writing the strongest terms to the UK Government, urging it to immediately review the current provision and call on it to guarantee future funding for appropriate provision beyond 2016 when the current arrangements come to an end. As things stand, by Easter 2016 next year, we could be without any cover in Scotland's waters from that tug service. Given its economic and environmental importance, we simply cannot afford to gamble with our seas, so the UK Government needs to recognise the potential cost of leaving our seas vulnerable rather than be obsessed with the cost of maintaining adequate emergency tug provision. Of course, that is not the only barrier to genuine integrated management of our seas. The current arrangements that govern the crowning state are also well documented, and their assets in Scotland include around 50 per cent of the foreshore, almost all of the seabed out to 12 nautical miles and associated rights on the continental shelf beyond 12 nautical miles. Today, I also call on the UK Government to confirm that it will deliver full legislative devolution for all our assets in terms of the crowning state assets for all our seas out to 200 nautical miles. That will enable the national marine plan to genuinely move forward to cover all activity, including reserved activities, out to 200 nautical miles. That means that future decisions, including those by the UK Government and the Crowning State, must take account of the policies about safeguarding Scottish interests that are set out in the plan. Stuart Stevenson? I wonder whether the minister is aware of the real concerns that many of the fishermen whom I represent in this Parliament have. When they see, beyond the 12-mile limit in particular, fishing boats from other nations operating in a quite different way from our own to their disadvantage, will the minister call on the UK Government to enable us to have greater powers so that we have a quality of access to our waters? Unfortunately, the marine plan does not usurp the common fisheries policy. However, it is certainly the policy position of the Scottish Government that we are pursuing a level playing field in Scottish waters. That is a point that we are making very strongly to the UK Government so that fishermen fishing side by side are subject to the same kind of rules and regimes. Turning back to the plan, I just want to say that the plan is about delivering sustainable development through an ecosystem approach to achieve our vision for seas that are clean and safe, healthy and biologically diverse, productive and managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people. The sea provides a range of goods from fertiliser to pharmaceuticals and critical services such as climate regulation and breaking down waste as well. There are many other types of benefits as well. We hook and fail to value the feel-good factor of a simple walk along the shore, our pride and our maritime history as a nation and our culture or the inspiration that sea can bring to novelists or poets or filmmakers in this country. Sustainability means taking account of and reflecting all the different kinds of benefits. We know that it is possible for the environment to thrive alongside development. The plan seeks to ensure that that is always our approach to create a framework that ensures that development in our seas is always staying within environmental limits. Has he come to consider view on the burying of seabed cables on his point about development, given that the fibre optic cable between Pharaoh's Shetland and the Scottish mainland has been dredged up in the past? Has he come to a final view as to how best to deal with that particular issue? Cabinet Secretary? Well, clearly, as the marine plan lays out and as was discussed with the committee, although we are willing to review the wording, as I agreed with the committee and in line with their recommendations, the position is that we want repairs to any cables to be carried out as quickly as possible, when it comes to laying new cables underground. Clearly, there are some processes that have to be gone through, but we want things to be timely so that things are not held up. Can I also say that, to key to some of the objectives that I have just laid out, are the general policies and objectives that form the core of the marine plan. Those reflect the high-level marine objectives that are agreed across the whole of the UK, not just in Scotland, and of course reflect the descriptors of the good environmental status that flows out of the Europe's marine strategy framework directive. That does ensure that the plan is consistent with existing UK and European frameworks, as well as reflecting the needs of our ecosystem at the same time. The plan also aligns with the guiding principles of sustainable development, which include achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance using sound science, creating a strong, healthy and just society and, of course, as I said before, living within our environmental limits. I very much welcome the committee's endorsement of that approach. The general policies highlight the need for sound science as well, and a good evidence base, of course, is crucial to making the correct decisions. I am very proud of the development of Scotland's marine atlas and the evolution of the national marine plan interactive, which now enables over 500 of spatial data layers to be made available to planners online. Of course, again, that supports the committee's proposal that it should be at the centre of marine planning. We are, however, committed to commissioning new science and research to support the on-going development and understanding of environmental impacts. So, new information will continue to be made available online as widely as possible and inform the monitoring and reviewing of the plan in the times ahead. The policies also highlight adaptive management, which is critical to the development of the decision-making processes in the future, which is another issue that the committee raised with me when I appeared before them. We cannot ever have perfect knowledge. We always have to consider the evidence and adaptor approaches so that we can ensure that the outcomes are the ones that we want to get. The policies also promote an understanding of the cumulative impact of projects and developments, so that the sum of all activities in the area remains within that area's environmental limits. So marine planning provides a single framework that allows all that evidence to be considered in the rounds. A framework that I do believe provides clarity but allows for flexibility and adaptation to changing circumstances. The planning process is also an opportunity for participation and discussion of the evidence and for different perspectives and interests to be represented. The process of planning for marine protected areas, for instance, and renewables demonstrates that. There has been a great deal of public interaction and engagement. The proposals are evidence-based and take account of the experience and views of local communities, but we will continue to explore ways to improve on that and build up even more evidence to make sure that we are reflecting up-to-date knowledge. I have been clear throughout the process that we will require to strike a number of delicate balances. Scotland sees that we are diverse, so are the many and varied activities that take place on our coasts under the seabed and right through the water column. Developing a plan that is comprehensive and clear but remains user-friendly and allows for this range of diversity is of course challenging. Nevertheless, I believe that the plan does strike this balance appropriately, notwithstanding the fact that I am open to making changes before adopting the final plan in line with the committee's recommendations. However, the engagement that we have had so far has been very influential. A pre-consultation draft was issued in 2011 prior to formal consultation in 2013, and there were over 30 public meetings. There have been on-going discussions within the marine strategy forum and in other forums as well. If we take one example from the last few weeks that perhaps sums up the need to strike an appropriate balance, the committee reflected its views on the need to protect fishing, but the need to control fishing was the focus of Highland Council's response to our consultation on the management of protected sea areas. There has also been a number of debates about the benefits of the oil and gas sector or the agriculture industries versus the need to transition to renewable energy on the one hand and control the environmental impact of agriculture on the other. Although we are looking for a single framework and consistency, we have to acknowledge that we have to be flexible. On adoption, the national marine plan will be the first statutory national plan in all of these islands. The first plan was for the east marine region of English waters, but ours is the first national plan. Our approach is distinct. We have sought to ensure sufficient consistency for those industries that operate at a UK, European and global level. We are currently discussing the monitoring and reviewing the plans with colleagues in the marine management organisation in Newcastle, which will feed into the next cycle of planning as well. However, I remain committed to the development of regional planning in line with our belief that those most affected by the decisions should be as closely involved as possible in the decision-making process. Regional planning will be evolutionary and there are legitimate questions regarding governance, structures and resources. We will work hard on those in the times ahead. Of course, we are phasing the roll-out and starting with marine planning partnerships in Shetland and in Clyde to very different areas, which both have strong history of dealing with marine issues. Those lessons will be learned and taken forward in terms of developing the other regions. In conclusion, I hope that what I have said so far has demonstrated that I very much recognise the balance that the plan has to strike. I am happy to reflect further on any particular issues, but I would like to close by reiterating that we need to act now to get a framework in place that will demonstrate Scotland's commitment to improve management of our seas. A framework that will demonstrate our commitment to marine environment and marine industries alike and will provide for truly sustainable development of our wonderful marine resources in the Scottish waters. Thank you very much. I now call on Claudia Beamish to speak to you on the move amendment 12343.29, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scottish Labour values this opportunity for additional scrutiny that this debate on the draft national marine plan brings. The draft NMP must provide, as the cabinet secretary has highlighted, a vision and a framework for the future underpinned by sustainable development. Leading from the Marine Act 2010 supported by this statutory obligation, we must ensure that Scotland's seas are sustainable and that marine biodiversity is at the heart of the plan, through the recovery, protection and, I stress, enhancement of the health of our seas. At the start of this Scottish Environment week, I held a hermit crab in my hand, here in the Scottish Parliament. It came out of its shell home to check me out as I checked it out. Its delicate grace and inquisitiveness were palpable. I carefully placed it back in the small tank and, may I reassure the chamber, it was returned to the sea by the Marine Conservation Society on Monday night. From families who marvelled at the sea life in the small tanks here in the Scottish Parliament on Monday, along with so many others who enjoy our coastal waters and our beaches, to the surveyor who maps out the new onshore wind site, we all have a responsibility to treat our marine environment with respect. Our sustainable marine industry is a fundamental to Scotland's future. As the cabinet secretary said today, within environmental limits, our seas are vital for sustainable sources of protein, from which is hoped that there will be an increasing range of fish. The development of marine renewables, helping to meet our climate targets. Oil and gas, the carbon capture and storage, which not many people have talked about so far in the rural affairs committee, are shipping supported by ports and harbours. It is in this context that the Racky committee issued a quite hard-hitting report. The committee, I quote, believes that the general principles set out in the draft plan provide an important framework and reinforce sustainability as the overarching principle. However, the committee is concerned that the draft, as it currently stands, is in part too detailed and prescriptive and in other parts too vague and therefore requires amendment to make it fully fit for purpose. While I acknowledge the point that was made by the cabinet secretary in his response to our committee, that the varying level of prescription reflects a number of factors, including the current state of the evidence base, the differing levels of maturity of the marine industries and their existing regulatory frameworks and the consultation feedback to date, it is essential that there is as much consistency across all the sectors as possible. The general principles are in the main, robust and set out a clear framework for the future. An example of that is gen 5 on climate change. I quote marine planners and decision makers must act in the best way calculated to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It must be acknowledged that the Scottish Government does not prioritise any one sector over another. While it is essential in respect to the contribution that is made to our economy by all marine sectors and the jobs that they provide, there is attention that must be recognised in gen 5 as we address the challenges of moving towards a low-carbon economy. Further, in the words of Lucy Greenhill from the Scottish Association of Marine Science, as far as climate change is concerned, we have highlighted that there seems to be a poor balance between adaptation to climate change and its mitigation in relation to the oil and gas industry. She goes on, the need to look at the different temporal scales on which effects are elicited on the environment either at the protected area or the species level or at the climate change level, and that is something that I want to emphasise. I would ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that this issue is carefully assessed as the plan develops. There is another general policy, which I think that it is necessary to focus on, and that is number nine on the natural environment. This states, development and use of the marine environment must protect and where appropriate enhance the health of the marine environment. As we are all keenly aware, some of our marine environment is in a poor state of health. In need of recovery, some is even denuded. It would be very helpful if the cabinet secretary could outline now or in his closing remarks whether he is considering further guidance to developers on enhancement. There is a proposal from Environment Link that a further gen in this section would be possible, and Scottish Labour supports that. That is that sustainable developments and marine activities that provide protection and enhancement of the health of the area and which further marine biodiversity is helped by are encouraged. In relation to support for existing activity, I want to emphasise, as the committee did, that this must be sustainable and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation raised concerns in this regard. The draft plan highlights the potential also for the growth within the aquaculture industry. The demand for seafood is increasing as wild cat resources diminish, and so the weight of food security falls heavier on the fish farming business. Increased Scottish aquaculture would provide thousands of jobs, further Scottish exports and contribute to the upkeep of community services. The Scottish Government has set targets of an increase of 50 per cent of aquaculture production by 2020, although I acknowledge that a good deal of this has been met. Those targets have been included in the draft plan, and the key word has to be sustainable. Environmental limits must be rigorously adhered to, or the environment will once again pay the price for industry growth. Can the cabinet secretary reassure us that there will be sufficient scientific research and expertise in place to monitor this increase? If the NMP is to function as a working document, it must be aware of and reactive to the environmental changes as they arise. We also finally have the first marine protected areas, which is a great relief to all sectors and the environment movement. My colleague Sarah Boyack will address whether those areas are robust enough in our view. Strategically, Scottish Labour is clear that, while it is important to ensure that any modifications are included, the overriding aim must be now, as the cabinet secretary has acknowledged, that the national marine plan will be published without more delays. There is, of course, attention here, but what is needed now is the plan that can then be added to and built on. The GSI system, Marine Plan Interactive, must enable the plan to become a living document that stakeholders can contribute to and decision makers will refer to. For instance, RSPB has new data on seabird foraging trips to help them to inform marine planning. That can be added in, and all the industry sectors have a responsibility to contribute to this process. Science has an essential role to play, and evidence can come from such a wide range of sources. The Scottish Fisherman's Federation makes a strong contribution here, and citizen science will also have an increasingly vital role to play. The Scottish marine science strategy will be key in drawing all this together. Can the cabinet secretary reassure the chamber that there will be adequate funding for this? I note his comment today that there is ongoing funding for this area of science. I want to turn now to the regional marine plans and the planning partnerships. Voluntary organisations and inshore fisheries have a strong part to play, such as the Solway partnership in my own region, and so do local authorities. In his letter to the committee, the cabinet secretary explained that a phased approach will be taken, as he highlighted today. This would be in part, and I quote again, to help ensure that appropriate support is not spread too thin. It is reassuring that local authorities will continue to be represented on the marine strategy forum. However, training for assessment and monitoring of developments and conflict resolution when the marine planning partnerships come into place is still a significant challenge. Assessment of cumulative effect will also be vital and will some form of prioritisation by the Scottish Government become necessary as the years go on. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about support for training in local authorities in his closing remarks? Clarity is needed from the Scottish Government about when the review will be and what the process is for public and stakeholder engagement, and Scottish Labour looks forward to the time in the future when the marine plan will be laid before this Parliament and acknowledges the commitment of the cabinet secretary to take the opportunity to make the statement to Parliament, providing an opportunity for final questioning. Scottish Labour and, as a member of the committee, also wishes all well as we move forward towards the adoption of the national marine plan. It is indeed a delicate balance in the words of the cabinet secretary and one that so many want to make sure will work for the future of Scotland. I now call Alex Ferguson to speak to the move amendment 1, 2, 3, 4, 3.1, around six minutes or so please. No one from these benches, and I'm sure from any other, will argue that with the overall statement in the motion before us that the general policies in the draft national marine plan provide an important framework to deliver the sustainable development of Scotland's seas. The opening paragraph of the rural affairs climate change and environment committee's report, as Claudia Beamish has already referred to, acknowledges that fact absolutely. In what I think is first for this session of Parliament, the committee's unanimous report was quite critical of certain aspects of the draft plan. I think that that needs to be recognised in the motion that we're debating this afternoon. I think that it certainly would have been if this had been a committed debate as was originally envisaged, and that's why we seek to amend the motion just very slightly this afternoon to highlight the committee's position. However you try to word it, Presiding Officer, the committee has been quite hard-hitting and critical of the draft plan. Indeed, in one of the lighter moments of our deliberations, an interesting clerical typo, was that the original draft of our report actually referred to the draft plan rather than the draft plan. I have to admit that there was a momentary thought within the committee that perhaps we should leave it uncorrected. More seriously, I'm sure that I'm not alone in welcoming the fact that the marine plan and our deliberations of it have been completely devoid of any party political divisions. The future sustainability of our marine environment is surely way beyond that. However, I would also hope that, as a result of that, the Government would take our constructive criticisms in the manner in which it is intended. Those are not criticisms for criticism's sake or for party political point scoring, they are made with a view to producing a plan that is clear, concise and easily understood by those to whom it applies. I remain a little concerned when the committee states that the national marine plan is both too detailed and prescriptive in parts and yet too vague in others, that the cabinet secretary's response is just, I believe, the plan provides a clear overarching framework. I remain a little concerned that the cabinet secretary's response to the committee's criticism that the draft plan does not provide a clear and concise set of principles that can be consistently applied by decision makers is, I believe, the approach is proportionate given the existence of the marine policy statement and the inclusion of a limited range of general policies. I remain a little concerned when the committee states that it has serious concerns as to whether local authorities have the sufficient experience expertise and resources to successfully develop and implement regional marine plans to which the Government's response is the significant expertise in some areas which partnerships will be able to access. I do acknowledge the cabinet secretary, acknowledged in his contribution that further support and work will need to be done in this area. I could go on, Presiding Officer, but you will have got the picture. The committee has raised a series of genuine questions relating to the draft plan and they need to be taken with the utmost seriousness by the Government if this plan is to provide the ultimate guidance to decision makers and users within Scotland's marine environment that it sets out to be. And if it can achieve that aim, then it will be a document of enormous importance and value, but I do believe it has to remain focused on that principal purpose. I believe that it's been in danger of losing that focus and that somewhere in the long process, and this has been a huge body of work, but in that long process of developing the plan, it's been in danger of losing its way of losing sight of exactly who this plan is for. Having a national marine plan is entirely commendable, useful and desirable, but when we get into the detail of what activity is being undertaken here and I see that we're endeavouring to give indications nationally and create regional marine plans locally, I think that we are in danger of creating a cat's cradle of regulation and guidance. Those are not my words, Presiding Officer. They are the words of Michael Russell during evidence taking within the committee. I can assure the chamber that I have his permission to quote him. He then went on to ask what was happening to ensure that the plan would be a simple framework for decision making and not produce some unconscious move towards the accrual of all sorts of prescriptive powers that will make development, living and activity much more difficult. A simple overarching framework for decision making, that is surely the very heart of what this plan should be about, but it isn't simple and it has gone way beyond being overarching as well. Presiding Officer, there is a great deal that is very good within the plan, in particular the emphasis on sustainability that is at the very core of it. The establishment of NMPIs has already been said as the main portal for special data relevant to marine planning is a great innovation and as I started out by saying that the general principle of adopting a national marine plan is absolutely right and proper. So it's surely all the more important therefore to make sure that our national marine plan becomes a guidebook that is regularly taken off the shelf to be consulted and used rather than a potential cat's cradle of regulation that steadily gathers dust while remaining resolutely on the shelf. It's in all our interest that it should be the former Presiding Officer and that's what the committee's concerns were aimed at, ensuring that the end product of this very considerable body of work is a national marine plan that will be of benefit to the whole country. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of six minutes and I call Rob Gibson to be followed by Margaret McDougall. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. The scrutiny of the national marine plan has raised from our committee quite a lot of criticisms. They're not intended to be ones that say that this is not fit for purpose, but it's not fit for purpose yet. We know that it's taken five years to develop so far. We recognise it's the first one that there's been of a national plan and we very much welcome the efforts that have been made by the officials and Marine Scotland to get something that's a workable document. I think that between myself and my colleagues we'll be able to show some of the ways in which it could become a more workable document. The Scottish Government's draft plan can have the danger in its present form of creating conflict by having highly prescriptive actions in some areas while setting out vague aspirations in others, simply put, instead of making the marine environment easier, it risks making it more difficult. That was the overall view of our committee and it's one that I think we need to take seriously. Looking at the marine plan and how it points to the problem that this generates, if you look at Gen 4 on coexistence you can see in the statement there a whole lot of concerns about the ways in which different sectors should work together. The whole point about a national marine plan is that it's able to give guidance to more local bodies that have to deal with that but also to provide a clear agreement about how each of those competing interests will work together. In the case of where I represent, the Highland Council has got responsibility for three different marine plans. One is the West Highland Marine region from Ardenamerican north to Cape Wrath, the north coast along to Duncan's Behead and then it has to work with two other authorities, Murray and Aberdeenshire, to deal with the area from Duncan's Behead to Fraserborough. It is going to have a huge task ahead of it and it's also been our evidence to show that officials and councillors in the Highland Council do not believe that their planning departments have the skills at this time to be able to carry through the work that is expected of them because they will share the largest burden of that work. It's important for us to highlight those facts just now and knowing that we live in times of straightened circumstances for money for local authorities, we have to then pose the question, how do we proceed? Partly we've got to take the precautionary principle but also we've got to encourage people who want to go further and faster at a local level and that's what I wanted to concentrate a bit on this now because we know we've had the successful application, as far as I know, of the several order around Shetland for the last 10 years, something that is going to be looked at carefully, I guess, in the near future. We have instigated the no-take zone in Lamblash Bay and we have groups such as Sea Change around Loughbroom who want to make sure that the marine protected area in that area is not one that is held back in the process of the development of those plans. The problem that we have is that if we are waiting for the Highland Council to set up the west Highland marine region, what happens in the meantime to people who know in common sense terms that they could do much more to be able to improve the habitat of the area that they represent, for the benefit of fishing, for the benefit of the regeneration of the area and the seabed and for all the benefits that tourism and visitors can have to that. What are they going to do in the meantime? I understand that Sea Change is about to put a petition to the Scottish Parliament to try to discuss this specific matter about how they move forward. I am sure that there will be other people around Scotland who will also have this impatience about being able to make progress and actually do more. At the present time, what Sea Change is saying is that they hope to foster relationships between fishermen and scientists, environment groups and representatives of the public to build a model of best practice that fits local needs. Thus, pioneering a modern approach that includes the on-going education of the public but equally by both fishermen and scientists working together in encouraging greater understanding to achieve common goals. Those ideas are embodied in the national marine plan, without a doubt, but with the evidence here of people saying that there has to be different models tried, and we know that there are pilot schemes in the Clyde and around Shetland at the present time, but we need to be encouraging people to do that. If we are short of money, we need to take the precautionary principle in some cases, which is why folk around Loughbroom are saying that there are certain aspects of fishing such as scallop dredging that will have to be curtailed as part of the process of reaching a balance again in nature. That is the kind of thing that the national marine plan has to take into account. I could talk about many of those things and my colleagues will talk about many others, but the exact model that is developed may be different in each area. However, given our focus on very local matters, it would be appalling if we lost the whole of the habitat of the Minch because, as the cabinet secretary says, the marine coastguard agency Tug is taken away from that area or even near that area by Easter next year. Isn't it appalling that because we are beholden to a scheme from the UK Government that the Scottish responsibility for the MCA is something that needs to take place quickly, but we need to sort out the question of the Tug because the grounding at Arden American is just another example of the fact that around our seas the potential to destroy vast amounts of habitat is something that very local groups cannot stop, but we need a national marine plan effectively to deal with those matters. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on our national marine plan. Those plans have been drafted to be consistent with the UK marine policy statement in which UK Administrations share a common vision of having clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. I have a keen interest in Scotland's national marine plan, as my region is dominated by coastal areas and includes both Arden and the Cumbries, as well as the Clyde. With that in mind, I am going to focus my speech on the work of the community of Arden Seabed Trust, known as COST, and relate that back to the draft national marine plan policy. COST was created in 1995 with the aim of working for the protection and restoration of the marine environment around Arden and Clyde. Since then, it has become one of the UK's leading community marine conservation organisations and is well responsible for the establishment of Scotland's first no-take zone in Lam Lash Bay, which I have highlighted in the chamber previously. It is now campaigning for the complete exclusion of trollars and dredgers from the newly designated South Arden marine protected area. COST currently has some concerns over the national marine plan, and I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary addresses those today. They are concerned that smaller organisations and coastal communities' views are not being listened to. They feel bigger groups such as the Fisherman's Federation, the oil and gas industry and others have a disproportionate level of input into marine Scotland, which they argue is far too centralised and needs more bottom-up initiatives and less dictation. In COST's view, coastal communities get no say over the waters that surround them. So how will the new local level regional marine plans be developed to ensure that both coastal communities and smaller organisations are able to have input into them? While I note that they will take account of local circumstances, we need to ensure that those in local areas have an input. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee's scrutiny suggests that the current draft of the marine plan fails to give sufficient guidance to local authorities on development of regional plans and that many local authorities will not have the experience, expertise or resources to develop and implement those regional plans. That is also an issue that is highlighted by the Scottish Environment Link, who argued that the emergent marine planning partnerships, the mechanism by which regional marine planning is to be delivered, will require secure funding to ensure evidence-based adaptive decision making via stakeholder participation. While I accept that Marine Scotland will take a lead and feed into this process in developing expertise and sharing good practice, I wonder if that would be an ideal opportunity to get organisations such as COST and our coastal communities involved in the process, allowing them to work with local authorities so that the regional plans can be fed into and are created using an evidence-based approach, which is currently not reflected through the draft marine plan. In relation to a consistent evidence-based approach, Scottish Environment Link and other stakeholders are also concerned about what constitutes good environmental status. That was highlighted in the Rural Affairs Committee's scrutiny, which points out, as I mentioned earlier, that the plan does not contain sufficient guidance for local authorities and that the document does not provide a clear and concise set of principles that can be consistently applied. It is not enough for the plan to have vague aspirations. We need clear and consistent policy and indicators, not only so that the regional plans can be implemented, but so that they can work collaboratively. Having clear indicators would also allow us to monitor, evaluate and report on the plans, so I agree with the committee's recommendations that the Scottish Government should revisit the document with a view to streamlining the information provided. To conclude, we need to ensure that the draft national marine plan is robust, consistent and adopts a strong scientific approach. I hope that the Scottish Government will take on board the concerns raised by the RACI committee, as well as those raised by outside stakeholders. Finally, we need to make sure that sufficient resources and funding are made available to those who are expected to deliver regional marine plans and that the guidance on those plans are clear and concise so that there is no conflict between different regional plans, because, as we all know, the seas have no boundaries. I have a little bit of time in hand if members take interventions. Graeme Dey, to be followed by Tavish Scott. Pivotal to successful delivery of the marine plan, both in the national and local context, will be the points covered in paragraph 43 of the committee's report. Paragraph 43 notes the role of Marine Scotland in providing advice on conflict resolution between different sectors and intervening in such circumstances as required. More importantly, it sees the committee calling Marine Scotland to be proactive in engaging with local authorities and relevant others to ensure that they are aware of the support that is available. Proactive engagement both in that regard and that of the general expertise that can be called upon is going to be essential when it comes to local authorities, because there has to be a concern that some, at least, are not that well equipped to develop the regional plans as they will need to be. COSLA, in fact, advised the committee that it holds no central data on the level of experience in expertise in marine planning across the 32 authorities. A conversation with a senior official of my own council regarding available and appropriate expertise for this did nothing to ease my own concerns as to how well placed those charts with drawing up a plan for the area that I represent may, as things stand, be. I would hope that, despite the best, perhaps more accurately, worst efforts by the Westminster Government and the RSPB, we will ultimately have offshore wind developments to factor into consideration along the Angus coast, along with inshore fisheries, recreational angling, the activities of a commercial port and the dredging that that requires, et cetera, et cetera. I thank the member for taking a brief intervention and would just highlight that it's possible, in my view, that if the marine plan hadn't been delayed so much, and I understand the reasons for that delay, but if it hadn't been delayed so much that possibly it wouldn't be in the situation that we are now with the judicial review, I'll just make that point. It's a point of view, but the fact is that a very significant series of offshore, critical offshore developments are under threat because of that. So, appropriate expertise and support will be critical, and as the cabinet secretary himself has ignored, a significant amount of effort will be required to build up the necessary expertise at local level. Therefore, his commitment during evidence to the committee, reinforcing his response to our report, that Marine Scotland would be taking the lead in ensuring that best practice and expertise is shared across Scotland, for as it has been by an explanation of the support being provided, the preparation of the first marine planning partnerships in Shetland is welcome. Clearly, the whole process of shaping the national plan and then working up 11 regional plans is and for some time to come will be a work in progress. Indeed, the cabinet secretary admitted in evidence in terms of completing the jigsaw of regional plans that we are talking about in terms of quite a few years. I think that that is appropriate, as it's important that we get this right. That said, with work supported by Marine Scotland, SNH and SEPA, among others, already going on with regard to the pre-marine plan development phase for Shetland and Clyde, the opportunity should be there relatively quickly to identify any sticking points that might arise and what should be included in the plan that perhaps wasn't featured in initial thinking. It ought to be possible to establish a solid foundation relatively soon, although I understand entirely the point that the cabinet secretary made about not spreading the kind of support that will be required to you thinly. In terms of making progress and calling upon available expertise, can I suggest that in seeking to equip those local authorities lacking a full understanding of all relevant aspects of the marine environment, we should be encouraging dialogue, even informal dialogue, with local RNLI stations both during consultation and development phases. On a visit to the Arbrod RNLI station area this week, I was struck by the very detailed knowledge of the local marine environment that exists within lifeboat crews. Very often crew members have either been crewing a lifeboat over many, many years or indeed made their living at sea. Either way, they've built up a detailed understanding of navigational channels, local fishing areas and the interactions between recreational, boarding and commercial vessels and so forth. Chances are that, unlike others who gave evidence to the committee, they won't have a vested interest in ensuring that local plans, indeed the national plan, perhaps take a particular direction. It strikes me that it would be crazy for those chards who are shaping the regional plans not to sit down with the RNLI volunteers and seek their input. As we seek to draw up plans that are well as fitting in with the overarching national strategy to accurately reflect local circumstances, any relevant data that comes to the fore and is not already included in the national marine plan interactive could then be fed into that. In paragraph 71 of the committee's report, we recommended that we talked of the need to encourage use of the information contained within the NPI for the purpose of developing the regional plans, but we also called for all relevant data held by local authorities to be fed in. In hindsight, we perhaps ought to have added a line somewhere in the report stressing the need for councils to tap into local expertise to ensure that the whole process is fully informed as it might be so that the NPI becomes the single first-class authoritative mapping source for Scotland's marine areas that we would all want it to be. One would hope that that will happen anyway. As we stated in the committee's report, as Claudia Beamish touched on, the marine plan requires amendment to make it fully fit for purpose. As we have heard, the members would stand by that observation. It certainly is an observation at that time. However, in light of the cabinet secretary's formal response to the report and his comments today, I think that we are making some progress. Richard Lochhead's commitment to review the text of the plan to ensure that the relationship between the general and sectoral policies is best representative and that the engagement of Marine Scotland with local authorities will be proactive are examples of that. As to the fact that we have already seen movement in developing the plans for Shetland and Clyde. The cabinet secretary has indicated, of course, in his opening remarks that he is open to making further changes. However, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider the scale of what is being taken on here. The plan and its regional subsets has to take into consideration 900 islands, around 6,500 species, aquaculture, the interaction between fishing and subsea cables, navigational channels, areas for depositing the consequences of dredging and so on and so forth. It must balance the promotion of economic activity whilst ensuring that that activity takes place in a sustainable manner that not only protects but enhances the natural marine environment. It must provide a clear steer on consistency while allowing for local flexibility. Let us recognise the importance of the plan and the fact that, as I mentioned, it is ununderstandably still a work in progress and will be so for some time to come. To which end, I am sure, the successor to the current Racky Committee will, in due course, return to the subject to monitor the progress that is being made. Many thanks. I now call Tavish Scott to be followed by Dave Thomson. I first start by agreeing with Graham Day's point about the RNLI expertise. I would absolutely share that view in terms of the expertise in Lerwick and Aeth in my own constituency. I also agreed broadly with Rob Gibson and the minister's points about emergency towing vessels that I very much accord—not with a rhetoric but certainly with the principle of the positions that they were outlining. I absolutely agreed with the minister on the crown of state as well. My best on that is to implement Smith, because I think that Smith has it absolutely right. I wanted to come at this debate from the perspective of the Government's food and drink strategy, which I entirely agree with. It is worth £13 billion a year to the economy, and Scotland's seas contribute some £2 billion to that overall figure. Fish, salmon, mussels and prawns are all consumed on the nation's dinner tables and, of course, exported across the world. A starting point for a marine plan is, does it help these businesses achieve the Government's own target to grow our food exports and, of course, eat more healthily? Frankie's fish and chip shop in Shetland is the best in the UK. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary has eaten there. They sourced fish from Shetland boats landing in the islands. The seafood industry in Shetland is worth £300 million to our local economy. Now, that in fairness is far higher than oil and gas. So, how does the plan help these industries and that business? Salmon farmers, the salmon industry is under huge regulatory pressure, much, of course, created here in Scotland, yet they are expected to deliver on a 50% growth target set by the Government. How does the plan help them? Seabird numbers fluctuate, as Claudia Beamish and others have already mentioned. Food sources, sea temperature changes and other pressures all affect one of Scotland's most glorious images, gannots diving on shoals of fish close in by the coastline. I can see that out of my window at home in Bresley Sound. I've seen it on the west coast of Scotland and, indeed, in the Firth of Forth. So, how does the plan deal with the changes and fluctuations in seabird numbers? The renewables industry is this Government's closest idea to an industrial strategy offshore wind that Graham Day has already mentioned. Tidal and Wave can keep the lights on by producing green power. Wave, as Liam McArthur's debate showed last night, is under real pressure with commercial firms going bust. So, how does this plan help those emerging technologies? That, Presiding Officer, is my point. Government's, of course, relish plans, consultations, strategies and the rest of it, yet plans have to achieve something. They cannot just be top down. Ask Orkney Islands Council, who want a 10-year moratorium on marine designations set to be implemented by the Scottish Government, an approach that brings local people, industries, science and environmental bodies together has to be the practical way forward. A one-size-fits-all top-down bureaucratic approach simply will not work. Now, I believe that the Cabinet Secretary absolutely knows that. His marine plan, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, has two areas, Clyde and Shetland, already with a regional plan. Now, for some, this obviously is new, but not in truth for Shetland. We have had marine planning around the coast since the 1974 ZCC Act, which gave the islands control over works licences. These were the basis for the soon-of-oil terminal and the subsequent oil agreements. The Scottish Parliament passed the inshore regulating order in 2000, devolving local management over inshore fisheries. Shetland produced its first marine spatial plan in 2006. We have more experience of that than any other part of the country. Under the Government's timetable, it will be 2016 before a regional marine plan is formally in place in Shetland. I guess that Clyde will take a little longer, given the number of local authorities that are involved. None of that is in truth quick. However, our experience in the islands of marine spatial planning is simple. Have all the people affected sit around one table and work on the way forward. Offshore renewables developers like the clarity and use the Shetland marine spatial plan. It tells them what they need to know. It tells them the areas to avoid. It saves them time and money. I hope that approach will work in regional plans right around the coast of Scotland. It helps marine planners to integrate terrestrial and marine planning, the very correct aim of the Government in this area. Even salmon farmers, or in our case the Norwegians, know where an application to increase production is more likely to be agreed than less so. Those are the positive aspects of any agreed marine local plan. Underpinning that plan has to be good science, data collection, verification and the constant updating of information. I feel a bit for Marine Scotland, because I see in the Government's budget this year that their own budget is being reduced by 3 per cent in the next financial year. Yet they are under pretty enormous pressure from all of us who want to see more effort in marine science. They can, of course, enter more working partnerships with marine research institutions around Scotland, making sure that regional plans are based solidly on evidence. I suggest that the Minister looks at increasing, for example, the Fisheries Industry Science Alliance funding from the current £150,000 a year and turning it into three-year funding allocations, which health projects become much more effective than just annual projects. In Shetland, the North Atlantic Fisheries College staff work with Whitefish Skippers to monitor landings and records. That keeps the figures and the evidence up to date. The marine plan changes or should change based on real-time evidence, a point that a number of colleagues have made this afternoon. It has to be a live working document, not one that gathers dust, as Alex Ferguson rightly said, on any academic shelf. My plea in supporting the Minister's approach here is not to listen to the clarion calls that everything must be driven from the top. Regional plans will, frankly, be worthless if they're all the same. They, of course, will be different. Never mind between Shetland and the Clyde or between Graham Day's constituency on the east coast of Scotland. Also, to invest in science and evidence and to do that in a coherent and long-term manner. I also agree, I thought, interestingly, with the case made in today's press and journal for the Scottish Seafood Association to be on the Scottish Food Commission, a policy and an approach that I agree with the Minister, but I hope he might have another look at the membership of that. I very much in winding up, Presiding Officer, agree with the Government's approach to Scotland's food and drink industry, seafood and sea fish is an enormously important part of this. My test of this plan will be how it helps to develop an industry that can be an increasing part of that overall approach, so that it flourishes in the context of sustainable development, but does so in supporting the local economy and local people. Many thanks. I now call Dave Thompson to be followed by Elaine Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I too welcome the principle of the Scottish Government adopting a national marine plan to provide guidance to decision makers and users within Scotland's marine environment. Mr Thompson, could I ask you to move your microphone slightly towards you? We're having some difficulty hearing you. I could shout, but I better not. Is that better now? I'll start again so that you can hear the whole thrust of the wisdom of my words. I welcome the principle of the Scottish Government adopting a national marine plan to provide guidance to decision makers and users within Scotland's marine environment. The draft NMP's vision for the marine environment is one that strives to ensure clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse seas, managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people. That is admirable, and I congratulate the Government for their work so far. At this point, I would like to mention the grounding of the ship on Arden and Merchan Point near Kilchon in my constituency, which the Cabinet Secretary mentioned earlier on and one or two other speakers have mentioned. Fortunately, the crew of the ship are safe. There's a little apparent pollution, and it looks as if they're going to be able to get her off the rocks all right. However, what it does do, as the cabinet secretary said, is to highlight the need for a tug on the west coast. We're vulnerable at present. We might not be so lucky the next time. While Sturridge Scott says that he agrees with the principle of the tugs, but not the rhetoric that he has heard, I would just remind him that I agree with the principle and the reality that it is the Conservative Liberal Government that is presiding over a situation where we only have one tug based up in Shetland when everyone, with any sense, knows that we need two and we need one on the Minch. I would hope that Tavish would support that in a much stronger way than he has done up until now. The marine plan is primarily designed to protect Scotland's sustainable future. That is great, because I would not support activities that were to be to the detriment of our natural heritage, but we must also safeguard the livelihoods of those in our coastal communities. The feeling of the Rural Affairs and Climate Change Committee, the Rocky Committee, of which I am a member, is that the Government must ensure, as the plan develops, that appropriate safeguards are put into place to ensure that rights, responsibilities are outlined clearly but without being too highly restrictive in nature. I would also endorse the comments by my colleagues on the committee about our concerns, which I am sure the cabinet secretary will and indeed is addressing. In particular, I would urge him to make sure that the regional marine planning is married properly with the national plan, as some other speakers have said, and that relevant guidance is given to local authorities who must also be adequately resourced. As I say, the cabinet secretary has acknowledged that in his opening speech, and for that I am grateful. It is good news that, after our initial reservations, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is much more satisfied than they were initially in relation to the plans. They believe that most of their concerns have been addressed, and they are now much happier with it. I am, of course, very supportive of sustainable fishing activities in our waters, and our fishing fleets are major users of the marine environment, with a vital role to play economically and socially in Scotland. However, that must be balanced against environmental protection. I have some reservations on scallop dredging. My feeling is that there should need to be safeguards that are put in place. I am pleased that the three scallopers who are members of the Malig and the Northwest Fishermen's Association, who also contributed to the consultation, are fairly relaxed about the consequences for their businesses of the plan. With their vast experience in mind, that puts me at some ease, they are relaxed about the NMP so long as there is suitable impact assessment applied to any detailed proposals that come forward in relation to their sector of the industry. There has been some concern about the inclusion of targets for growth of aquaculture within the planning policies. Those targets must, of course, be subject to strategic environmental assessment and habitat regulation assessment to ensure that the level of growth can be achieved within environmental limits. Although climate change impacts are noted for every other sector in the plan, there is no mention of the climate change impacts on the oil and gas sector, which is not in keeping with the Government's commitment to reduce the carbon footprint. As the Iraqi committee has noted, and other speakers have said, and I have already alluded to, local authorities are currently not equipped to deliver marine planning effectively, and that must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As I say, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has expressed his willingness to do that. Regional marine planning and the Governance of the Decision-Making Bodies, which are required for delivering the plans, must be well resourced, as that will facilitate efficiency and streamline management at regional and national level. Scottish Environment Link, which Claudia Beamish mentioned, who also takes the same view, is the forum for Scotland's voluntary environment community, with more than 35 member bodies that represent a broad spectrum of environmental interests, and Link aims to ensure that the environment is fully recognised in the development of policy and legislation that is affecting Scotland. It has a common goal with the Iraqi and, indeed, the Scottish Government, which is the aim of contributing to more environmentally sustainable society that I support. Finally, I would like to insist that the cabinet secretary makes sure that the final plan is effectively monitored and assessed. On that basis, I recommend that the Government revisit the document with a view to streamlining the information provided. That will ensure that the final national marine plan stands as a clear overarching framework for decision makers that can be applied evenly across the country. I also echo the comments of my colleagues in the Iraqi Committee that the online interactive version of the plan, which is to be established, should be a first-class authoritative source for all of Scotland's marine areas. That will keep arrangements fluid between regional and national bodies and enhance accessibility for all concerned and engender the trust of the general public too. Deputy Presiding Officer, I apologise to the cabinet secretary for not being present at the beginning of the speech, but I am a member of the justice sub-committee in policing, who is taking some evidence that is of some interest to the Parliament and to the Government. My apologies for not being here. My focus of the debate on the national marine plan, unsurprisingly, rests around the Solway and regional planning for that sea. The Solway has been rightly proposed as one of the 11 Scottish marine regions, but it differs from most of the others, not only in crossing the Scottish-English border, but also in being in close proximity to the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, which also have their own marine legislation and management. The English side of the Solway is regulated by the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act, and the Scottish side by the Marine Scotland Act. Although there are many similarities between the two bases of legislation, there are also differences. Despite that, there was a strong feeling that the Solway Firth should not be divided for marine planning purposes. The Solway Firth partnership, which I spoke about in one of Grant's members' debate on Scotland's coastal partnerships in December, led a vigorous campaign to ensure that the area was not divided for planning purposes and that any differences in arrangements should be a help rather than a hindrance to the planning process. The sustained campaigning on the issue resulted, as the cabinet secretary knows, in a joint ministerial statement in 2009 by the UK minister at the time, Hugh Arancadavis, and the cabinet secretary committing both Governments to a joined-up marine planning process across the border. The agreement included a joint stakeholder consultation and communication between Governments throughout the planning process, the publication of a single planning document, a seamless approach to marine spatial planning for the Solway Firth and clear articulation on how the two planning regimes interact and integrate. It is not surprising that, at the end of last year, the Solway was chosen as a case study by the Celtic Seeds project, which identified as being a best practice example of how the co-locational, sexual interaction and trans-boundary challenges are being addressed, and specifically in the important role of the Solway Firth partnership plays in ensuring success. The outcome of the first stage of the case study will be presented at a conference in Paris in May, and I do not know whether any members of the chamber might be invited to attend that and hear the results. Other than campaigning for the Solway to be treated as one entity, the Solway Firth partnership does not normally lobby as it has a broad membership in its role. It is normally one of facilitation and mediation between interests. It did not, for example, contribute written evidence to the rural affairs climate change and environment committees inquiry into the draft marine plan. However, when reading the committee's report, it struck me that the experience of the Solway Firth partnership could be helpful in addressing some of the issues raised by the committee. Paragraph 42, for example, expresses concern about the possibility of inconsistencies between regional marine plans and the need for guidance on how regional marine areas will be expected to work together to ensure that users of the marine environment operating at a national level do not face inconsistency or conflicting arrangements. It strikes me that a challenge of that nature will be addressed in the Solway, because of the different legislative regimes and management arrangements, not just between Scotland and England, but the island of man and Northern Ireland, too. There could be some examples of that good practice that could be applicable across regional marine plans throughout Scotland. The sectoral interests of the Solway are diverse. It supports diverse mix fishery, which in turn provides employment in Cumbria and in Frees and Galloway. As Stathomson was speaking, it reminded me of the conflict of interest indeed between the hand gatherers of cockles and the dodging for cockles, so there are differences of interests between, even in the same sector or in the same areas, differences of interests between different proponents of different techniques. There are areas of environmental importance. The estuary is a ramps or site. The inner Solway is designated as a special protection area under the EU birds directive and is a special area of conservation. The English side of the Solway was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty back in 1964, and the three national scenic areas were designated on the Scottish side 20 years ago. The area also includes a number of national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interests. There are potentially areas for conflict between those interests. With the renewable energy opportunities in the Solway—those of us who are around at the time will know that the 60 turbine Robin Rigg offshore wind farm development was contentious on both sides of the Solway. Five years ago, nine possibilities for tidal generation, including barrages, legumes and reefs, were identified in a report commissioned by Scottish Enterprise, Northwest regional development and the nuclear decommissioning authority. I am not aware that there has been much progress in any of those proposals over the last five years. However, undoubtedly, there could be significant environmental consequences, particularly if the larger barrages that the schemes are implemented. Those are the ones that were considered the only ones that were commercially viable. Marine planning in the Solway will be crucial in balancing competing interests, but it is also very important in protecting the marine area and the marine environment. It will be essential, as others have said, that local authorities on both sides of the Solway have sufficient expertise and resource to develop a robust marine planning system for the region. They need to be able to draw on the expertise of local organisations such as the Solway-Farth partnership. I note in the cabinet secretary's response to the committee report that he acknowledges that the existing expertise can be drawn on locally and how much that is. However, to enable local expertise to be best used, the national plan must, as the committee recommends, be clear and concise in defining the principles that must be applied without, at the same time, being prescriptive. The RACCE committee has been critical of the draft plan, for example, in stating that it is too detailed and prescriptive in parts and yet too vague in other parts. I note that the cabinet secretary has agreed to review the text with regard to the relationship between the general and sectoral policies. I would welcome further clarification of what opportunities might be available for scrutiny of any revised plan. The draft national plan has been in its preparation for a long time, as we have heard, but the committee's report indicates that it still has some distance to go before it becomes the final plan. I am glad that the cabinet secretary has, at the very outset, drawn attention to the on-going difficulty in the sound of moll with the Liesblink Seaway, which is in Mr Thomson's constituency, but in sight of mine. I shall be on the island of moll tomorrow, just across from where it is. That grounding is now leaking fuel oil and there is a boom round the ship. I am very pleased that, not only the cabinet secretary, but also the MP for the Western Isles, Angus Brandon McNeill and the Westminster candidate for Argyllin but, Brendan Ahara, have both drawn attention to exactly the same issue as the cabinet secretary has raised, which is that we do require there to be a tug on the west coast. If there is not a tug on the west coast, an instance like this can only be dealt with more slowly than there would otherwise be dealt with. That leads to the situation, where a small leak yesterday is a larger leak today. It is still not a crisis, but there could be a crisis. It is very important that the tug is based there. That demonstrates the need for an integrated approach to marine management. I commend the cabinet secretary very strongly for the work that he has done with the UK Government to seek that integrated approach. It is just a pity that, in this matter and some would argue in other matters, the UK is not yet measuring up. The marine plan is undoubtedly a good marine plan. The obligation, however, is on the Scottish Government not to produce just a good marine plan but to produce the best marine plan that it possibly could. When Graham Day and I met with the Northern Ireland Environment Committee members this morning, we were sure impressed by Anna Low, the convener of the committee, who said that she thought that the work that was done in marine planning by the Scottish Government was exceptional, without doubt the best that she thought in the world. However, it could of course always be better. Alex Ferguson's view that the marine plan should be clear, concise and easily understood is exactly correct. That is what the plan should aim to be. I am very pleased that the cabinet secretary has confirmed to the committee that further simplification is required and has committed himself in the letter to the committee convener to review the text to consider how the relationship between general and sectoral policies is best represented. I think that that will take us a further stage along the road to that best marine plan. If I could, Presiding Officer, raise three specific points that I think are of importance. The first has been raised by a number of members, but there are two illustrations to it that I think would help members. That is gaining the expertise and experience in marine planning that local authorities need. I spoke to Liam McArthur last night—I am sorry, he is not in the chamber—and he knew that I was going to raise this about the representations from Orkney fisheries that some members have received, where they believe that there is a lack of expertise in the local authority, which is hindering the work of the local fishing industry. Paradoxically, the opposite position is taken by, in the representations to the committee by Argyllin bute Council, who believes that that lack of expertise, which they admit exists, will in actual fact lead to more restrictive planning and restriction on development. Whatever the final outcome, there needs to be careful and strong resourcing of training and the development of expertise in local authorities to allow them to operate the marine plan. Until that is in place, the plan should not be operating in the regions anticipated. The two pilot regions are working reasonably well. It should not be expanded until that experience is in place. Secondly, there is concern by some people about the process being made in conservation. In particular, in my area, the work on the marine protected area for the common skate and the special area of conservation for the harbour porpoise have both seemed to have moved more slowly than they should have done. Northern Ireland has a special area of conservation for the harbour porpoise. Scotland does not yet have one. It is, as Rob Gibson has indicated, very important that the enthusiasm, the impetus from local communities to be involved in those processes and to see conservation take place needs to be supported by Government. The marine plan is the ideal place for that to happen because it gives the framework in which communities can understand the process of conservation, can understand the process of designation and can make sure that they influence it. I know that the cabinet secretary expected me to raise the issue of marine cables. There is a difference between repairing an existing cable and replacing that cable and putting in a new cable. I make that an obvious point because of the experience of the people of Islay, Jurre and Collins last year, who for six months did not have a working marine cable that brought electricity to their islands. For six months there was a discussion and debate between Marine Scotland and SAAC and other parties about how that cable should be replaced. That was an existing cable that had failed. The marine plan still does not make the proper distinction in that matter. The marine plan must allow the replacement of cables as an emergency because those are the ways in which electricity is supplied to remote communities. It must allow that replacement to take place speedily. Of course, new cables should be subject to different regulation. It is important that, where necessary, those cables should be buried. I do not think that even the most difficult electricity company would in the end resist that, but to stop communities being connected as a result of a failure of a cable because a state body could not agree with the electricity provider was the wrong thing to do, and it was a disservice to those rural communities. Those are three issues that are of many issues that the committee discussed. I was very impressed with the work of my new committee colleagues on that matter. There is a desire to support the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary to make sure that this is the best possible marine plan, and certainly a marine plan that can stand amongst the best in the world. To do that, it will require simplification and some redrafting. I do remember a senior civil servant saying to me on one occasion, Minister, that simplification is a complex business. I think that we have a situation here where simplification can be very simple indeed. The committee has given good guidance to the Cabinet Secretary about how to go about it, and I look forward to reading and debating the final version of the plan. I, too, welcome the national marine plan as a positive step towards the effective marine spatial planning of the Scottish sea area. I acknowledge that, while the plan is a work in progress, it does need to be implemented in part to allow regional planners within the 11 regions to manage their natural environment. However, the impact of certain sectors I feel have not been addressed within the plan and they could jeopardise the recovery of the marine environment. I feel that it is wrong at this time to place targets on the tonnage of fin fish to be produced per year considering the environmental implications of a mismanaged fish farm, and we shouldn't pretend that they don't exist. The environmental impacts of these farms can range from internal effects, which may only affect a single cage, or at worst, the whole farm, to those that have repercussions through whole water bodies and ecosystems. Effects such as nutrient enrichment, contamination through fish facial matter, increased parasite numbers and fish escapees from cages all carry significant risk to wild populations and ecosystems as a whole. Sea lice are of particular concern. While I understand that this industry contributes towards food security as well as the Scottish economy, the risks that I have outlined cannot be taken too lightly. Those targets should be subject to rigorous environmental impact assessment and with the knowledge that we now have presumed against in some areas of high sensitivity. The lack of climate change mitigation measures within the oil and gas sector is baffling, too, considering that sector is probably the most polluting of all. Rather than showing a commitment towards a low-carbon economy, the plan seems to promote sector growth of the oil and gas industry. I hope that that will be reconsidered. Scotland has climate change targets and the industry needs to be accountable for the damage that it does to the environment. There have been concerns that the 11 marine regions may not be able to cope with the challenge of managing their coastline, whether that be due to funds, lack of expertise or resources. I think that there must be a cohesive approach from local authorities, environmental groups and local people to deliver the objectives of the plan. I believe that the Iraqi committee is correct in its assessment that local authorities are not currently equipped to deal with setting up and monitoring local marine plans. However, development of tools and collaboration between local authorities may ensure that mistakes if they are made are not repeated. I believe that the plan needs to be more ambitious in setting targets for not just recovery of the marine environment but enhancement of it, both outside and inside marine protected areas. Within my constituency lies the Westeros MPA, which has some badly damaged mero beds in spite of those being a priority marine feature. The management plan has now become obsolete due to further scientific work carried out on the location of those beds, and there have been reported infringements of the voluntary marine area. The national marine plan needs to firstly protect and then restore vulnerable areas such as those alongside the marine protected area legislation. In one comparatively small sea loch in Westeros, there is all manner of sea best activity imaginable. Three ferries per day, commercial trolling, fishing scallop divers, shellfish creels, three wrecks attracting divers and mero beds, sea angling and wildlife boat trips, skiffs, kayaks, canoes, yacht mooring, windsurfing, waterskiing, sailing school, fish farms and possibly soon-to-be subsea cabling. Visiting cruise linders and even wee girls and boys fishing off the end of the jetty and off the end of the big pier if they get the chance. I think that that kind of activity in our sea lochs really merits this kind of management. My concern will be twofold, one that we do, police it properly and I'm not sure how that's going to be done but it's essential if it's going to have any effect whatsoever and the other is possibly the one that at the moment is left perhaps to the creative industries to deal with which is dealing with the and fishermen of course dealing with the litter in the sea and education for that to change. But I agree with Rob Gibson in Tavish Scott that the local variations of the national plan would be essential and welcome. Thank you. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches and I call on Jamie McGregor six minutes please. Thank you. I'm pleased to close today's important debate for Scottish Conservatives. We've had some positive contributions from many members. As Alex Ferguson indicated, the Scottish Conservatives, like parties across this chamber, recognise the vital importance of our marine environment to our biodiversity, our economy and our communities. All of us surely can sign up to the vision of the national marine plan for clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse seas that have managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people. The challenge is how to achieve this vision while allowing existing sustainable activities, some of which have gone on for centuries, and the jobs and communities they underpin to be preserved and indeed enhanced and to avoid complicated or excessive regulation. Unfortunately, as members across the chamber have also said today, we do have real concerns that the current draft plan as it stands simply does not adequately help meet all these aims. Like others, I therefore welcome the thorough and very useful report of the Rural Affairs Committee into the plan which makes important recommendations for significant improvements and we look to the government to act on these recommendations. I fully agree with the committee's statement that the NMP should provide a simple framework for decision-making and should not unintentionally produce a variety of prescriptive powers which will make operating in the marine environment more difficult. On fishing, I wish to flag up the concerns expressed by Bertie Armstrong of the SFF who rightly spoke about the need to recognise the existing and sustainable activities while fishing fleets. These activities, of course, sustain many remote and island communities in my region on the west. They help with food security and they are valuable to our economy, so the NMP should provide the appropriate level of protection for existing sustainable use in the wildfishes industry that our fishermen understandably want to see. I would also echo the committee's sensible call for the Scottish Government to work with the SFF and our other fisheries associations and all other stakeholders to review the fisheries chapter so there can be no contradictions with existing fisheries regulation or confusion in interpretations. Now, on fish farming and aquaculture, I have consistently argued for a sustainable coexistence between our farmed and wild fish sectors, both of which are so important to the economy in my region and the wider Scottish economy. While it is right that the NMP supports the development of our aquaculture sector, it is also right that it identifies the needs for a risk-based approach to the location of fish farms and the potential impacts on wild fish. I have consistently called for fish farms to be positioned away from river mouths and further out to sea. I note with interest the committee's discussions on the current precautionary principle in terms of a presumption against aquaculture on the north and north and east coast. One leading aquaculture stakeholder suggested to me only yesterday that this presumption was outdated now and in the not too distant future it may be possible for the industry to have developed the technology that will allow it to be in a position to develop on the north coast. At any rate, I would support the committee's recommendation that the Government should review the science and evidence with a view to refining the presumption. The aquaculture industry has had a very bad year and I would make the point that a healthy and prosperous aquaculture industry will do far more for conservation than an industry that is hard-pressed and hanging on by its fingertips. I wonder whether you can tell me what species you think should be farmed in the north and east coast of Scotland. I think that we are talking about salmon, but I think that that is what they are talking about. Finally, and on behalf of constituents in Isla and Dura, I welcome the fact that there are various serious concerns about the unacceptable delays they have faced on restoring the subsea power cable serving their islands. This was mentioned by Mike Russell during which time they had to rely on an ageing generator, are voiced in the committee's report and I strongly support the calls for there to be a new, fast-track approach for these emergency circumstances which should be detailed in the final NMP. I received so many concerns from people living on Isla and Dura in this respect and I would like to close by supporting the amendment in Alex Ferguson's name and calling for the Government to recognise the significant improvements that are required for the final NMP. The marine act that we passed five years ago was hugely ambitious and the marine plan that follows it is absolutely crucial five years on. As others have said, it is a framework for decision making, it has to be a document that is up to date and reflecting national priorities and policy, but it has also got to provide the good basis for regional and local decision making. That is the context in which the RACI committee felt that the plan was currently not fit for purpose, as many have said this afternoon, over-prescriptive in some areas but too vague in others. Rob Gibson ably set out the concerns of the committee. I very much welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary accepted our amendment this afternoon, because we wanted to move on from the Government motion not to delete it but to add to it, in particular to reflect the excellent representations that were received in committee evidence but also to enable us to flag up a couple of issues that were not covered in the minister's motion. In the context of today's debate, I think that it has been a really good debate and I think that it also reflects the quality of the briefings that we have all had in advance of today's debate, which I think have been extremely helpful. We wanted to flag up the important issue, the central issue of the health of Scotland's seas, and the importance of enhancement, recovery and protection. We wanted to note the concerns expressed by the do-take-the-pee-out-of-NPA's campaign on marine protected areas and particularly to recognise the significant challenges posed by taking forward the delivery of the plan, and of ensuring that there is the capacity at the regional level in the new regional partnerships but also in our local authorities to monitor, to assess developments and to consider the potential cumulative and interconnected impacts of new development. We recognise the importance of the national marine plan interactive to make sure that the national and regional marine plans are living documents, and I think for us that overarching objective has to be sustainable development, recognising the importance of the three legs of sustainable development in terms of environment, social and economic interests, but also that issue about being sustainable going forward. I think that for a marine environment that is the crucial issue, it's not just looking at how things are now, it's thinking to the future, and particularly thinking about adaptation and mitigation in relation to climate change. I think that one of the key issues that's been stressed today in the debate is about the capacity, the resourcing and the expertise to make the decisions that will be needed following on from the marine plan, and the key issue about how the regional marine and spatial planning partnerships are going to be able to take forward those bits of the national marine plan, which we think in the committee are vague. I think that the idea of sharing expertise and science from marine Scotland is absolutely crucial, but I'd observe that if we're thinking about renewables, for example, the time lag of expertise in local authorities on onshore marine took years, it needed extra investment from ministers, and I think there's a huge catch-up agenda that will be needed here, as marine technologies are changing all the time, but so is the science, so is the knowledge about the impact on our wildlife, so that means that we have a real challenge in front of us, and I think it's crucial that we get the balance right, whether it's fishing, aquaculture, oil and gas, renewables, transport, leisure industries or nature interpretation. The interplay between all those different uses is going to be judged, it's going to be decided on, not just by what's in the plan, but by how the regional partnerships and our local authorities get involved, and I think that's why the science space that was mentioned in Tavys' amendment is so important. Science won't make the decisions for us, but it will at least let us weigh up the choices and at least let us make more informed decisions, and I think that the point that Rob Gibson made about the precautionary principle is absolutely crucial. If we're not sure, we can always come back to some of those issues, but we need to make sure we're not making things worse. I think that there were some important issues raised by the Scottish Renewables briefing. They're concerned that there aren't ad hoc year-on-year changes to the national marine plan. I understand that concern, it's the concern of stability that was raised by Tavys' Scott, but there's also an issue, and we felt this quite strongly as a committee, that we need to be making sure that we do revisit the marine plan, not just in five years but probably in three, given the pace of change and the scale of change that's taking place in our marine environment and in the industries that are active in our marine environment. I think that there was an important point made by RSPB about the fact that national policies must be implemented within safe environmental limits and are supported by robust environmental assessment. They're concerned about the lack of an overall assessment of the plan. They believe that that compromises the potential of the plan to deliver. I think that, from where we are now, that probably makes the assessments on every NPA and every protected area in the marine environment even more important in terms of that environmental assessment. If we are to achieve the clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse seas and if they are to be managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people and to live within environmental limits, we really need the knowledge base to do that. I think that that's a key issue because that's a relationship between what we need as a society and what the many of some of our most fragile rural communities need to keep living and to keep growing and also the long-term capacity of our marine environment to be exploited to deliver those jobs and to deliver those economic benefits. That's really why we wanted to flag the concerns of the don't take the protection out of NPA's campaign. I think I'd want to echo the comments made both by Claudia Beamish and by Rob Gibson about the need for conflict resolution. In fact, conflict resolution was mentioned by everybody who was talking about the local issues and I think it's an absolutely crucial issue for us to focus on. I think the points made by Graham Day, I think the point was made also by Margaret MacDougall and by Elaine Murray and we need to draw on the expertise and experience that is there already. The work that's been done in Shetland and Clyde, that is important, we need to draw that in but I think we also need to reflect on the fact that we can't wait until those pilots have been done before decisions are taken because of the length of time it's taken to get to the marine plan that are decisions that are needing to be taken across the country. So that makes the local experience, it makes the experience of volunteers and local organisations, marine planning partnerships, it makes them hugely important now, not just in the future. I think there was a reference made to the work that's been done by Coast, I think by Margaret MacDougall and some of the work that they have done in their submission to the Clyde marine protection area. I think it actually begins to highlight some of the win-wins, I think Dave Thompson was talking about, about when you have sustainable fisheries, when you have local involvement, when you try and bring together the interests of sustainable fisheries, recreational sea angling, tourism, leisure and other sustainable developments, there are potential win-wins there and the research that they have highlighted in their submission talks about the economic benefits that come from making the most of some of those small-scale but cumulatively important developments and I think the same point was made by Jean Urquhart about how we make sure those opportunities are delivered properly and I think she made an important point about policing of the process and policing of what people are doing. We need to have that confidence that what people aspire to do is actually what happens in practice. I think the points made by Elaine Murray about drawing on the expertise across boundaries is an important point and it's the point that I want to finish on, Presiding Officer. There's a huge amount that's there already that we need to learn on and if there's one thing we need to take forward is the fact that there's knowledge and information there already, the real challenge is making sure that those who will be responsible for marine planning have that knowledge and have that expertise at their fingertips because that will be the judge of whether it's a successful process in the end. Excellent. I now call on Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead to wind up the debate. You have until 3.45. I just add my thanks to all the members from across the chamber for their contribution to this debate. It's a debate on Scotland's first national marine plan. It's been many years in the making and whilst we may have improvements to make, I accept that and that's the whole purpose of the committee's work and laying in a draft plan before Parliament for comment. Because this is a first, we'll look back, hopefully, in a few years' time, but it will be taken as a norm that Scotland has a national marine plan and Scotland will move forward and get all the benefits from that. We all support having a thriving marine environment. We all want to safeguard that because of biodiversity reasons, environmental benefits and so on. Of course, at the same time, we want to promote sustainable economic development in our seas, given that the industries that thrive in our seas sustain tens of thousands of jobs onshore in that sea as well. It's about industries, and it's about people who use our seas for work or for leisure. I'd like to join those members who pay tribute to the RNLI in Scotland. We saw recently that they had a record number of call-outs last year and they're doing a grand job and, of course, put their own safety in the line often for others. The 2012 Scottish annual business statistics demonstrated that the core marine sector alone is worth £4.5 billion to the Scottish economy, employing nearly 50,000 people. That includes oil and gas services but not oil and gas extraction, for instance, which, of course, accounts for more billions of pounds of revenues and thousands more jobs as well. Of course, on top of that, we have our fishing and aquaculture sectors. They're major players, again contributing £100 million to our economy and safeguarding local jobs, as many members mentioned, in some of their more remote parts of Scotland. Our seas are also providing Scotland with energy and will do so more in the future. 25 per cent of Europe's tidal and offshore wind power and 10 per cent of Europe's wave power can be found in Scottish waters. That's massive potential. In many regards, Scotland is a leading player in terms of our seas globally. Stakeholders and others who have been put into the process over the past few years have played a huge role. I'm glad that they welcome much of where we've got to with the first marine plan. Bertie Armstrong of the SFF said in general terms that we are pleased with what has come out. The Crownry State said that it provides a good vision for Scotland's seas. The British Ports Association said that we very much welcome the documents. Professor Thomas from the Salmon Producers Organisation said that the plan is probably more advanced than those in any other European Union region. Although I asked Professor Thompson to take note that Scotland's nation is not a region, I think that he does make a fair point generally in his comments. Of course, the representative of the marine scientists, Lucy Greenhill, said that the main benefit that the marine plan and processes could provide is the ability to assess cumulative impacts across multiple sectors. Despite some of the comments about the need for improvement in some aspects of the plan, the draft plan, which I accept and I'll come on to, generally speaking, the stakeholders who we've worked very closely with over many years have welcomed where we've got to with this plan. There have been many comments about making the plan simpler. Again, I take that on board. As we prepare to adopt the final plan, we'll see how we can make it more simpler and easier to read and so on. I would simply gently point out that the only plan that we have produced in England so far is only one of the regional plans, not even the national plan, which goes to 190 pages. Ours is only 133 pages and we represent 60 per cent of UK waters. We've at the lion's share of the waters, so I think that we accept that there's a lot of detail that has gone through those plans, but we're perhaps more streamlined and simplified already than other parts of these islands. As I said, we do have an open mind to looking for further improvements to the plan. Take seriously many of the comments made by the committee and members speaking today in this debate. There's been a range of issues. The lack of expertise has perhaps been highlighted by local authorities to take forward implementation of the plan. Again, that's something that we take seriously. I would point out that at the moment we have seven coastal partnerships in Scotland already and the Scottish Government already funds project officers working on those kinds of issues that work for those coastal partnerships. Establish Scotland and others made the point as well. In places like Shetland, which is going to be one of the first two areas for regional planning, I think that no one would argue with the idea that Shetland has a lot of expertise in dealing with the kind of issues that we're speaking about today. So, yes, as the years progress and more regional plans are put in place, we'll have to develop the expertise at a local level, but there is a lot there already and we have to just make sure that we're using that and bringing it together. In terms of conflict resolution, many members mentioned that as well, where the issue of should one activity, trump and other activity is very difficult to lay down a general rule because you have to look at each case on a case-by-case basis, but Marine Scotland will play a role of being broker where there is potential conflict at local level. Yes, we will monitor the plan going forward to make sure that it's constantly adapted where necessary and it's working. There's a five-year review timescale as the members are aware. Some members have said that that should be reduced to three years. We will consider that, but, of course, renewable energy in other sectors is saying that there should be stability, so we keep on having reviews that could make it less stable, so we have to take their views into account as well. Also, in terms of marine features, should we go for enhancement, not just protection of marine features, that is something that's also part of the debate over marine protected areas at the moment, which will also be taken forward as part of the marine bill in due course. As the chamber knows, we've just consulted the management options for the MPAs. Would the cabinet secretary agree with me that the enhancement is absolutely vital, as I made the point of my speech, in relation to the fact that some areas are denuded, so recovery isn't enough for our marine environment, and that is highlighted in the act itself. As Claudia Beamish knows, our approach is to encourage enhancements of the marine environment where possible, but we have to expect existing activities, so unless there's really strong evidence that existing activities are causing significant damage, we have to respect those activities that have been there for a long time and should continue, but we should enhance the marine environment of course where possible. In terms of some of the delicate balances that many members have alluded to, I just want to highlight a couple of issues that arose in the debate that perhaps illustrate the challenged facing Government in terms of striking that balance. Margaret McDougall and Rob Gibson spoke about the calls for more fisheries conservation at local level in different parts of Scotland. At the same time, we had the recommendation from the committee saying that perhaps we should put more safeguards in for the fishing industry, so it's quite difficult to have it both ways. Therefore, we have to strike a balance because these two positions are incompatible in the eyes of some, so we have to strike a balance. Also, in terms of aquaculture, we had Tavish Scott looking for the plan to promote aquaculture in Shetland. Jeane Urquhart said that she did not want to see a target for aquaculture and should take a very precautionary approach. Again, two positions, which the plan, I think, does a fairly good job balancing so we can have a sustainable aquaculture sector developing and sustaining jobs in local communities in the times ahead. I also just want to refer to the fact that this is a marine plan, of course. It does not just go out to 12 miles, which is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, because of the agreement with the UK Government, it goes out to 200 miles, albeit that we still await for additional responsibilities such as control over the management of the county state, and we are seeking confirmation from the UK Government that that will be out to 200 miles and not just 12 miles. In terms of the fact that it does go out to 200 miles, it gives us a whole range of factors that we can take into account in planning for the future. We have to safeguard fishing, whoever is possible. We also have to have the ability to have preferred locations for marine renewable developments. We have to look at salmon and migratory species and the impacts that they have on their environment and other activities that they have on their health. We have to look at how we reuse oil and gas infrastructure wherever possible, particularly in relation to carbon storage and carbon capture. Therefore, there is a range of issues that we can look at as part of the plan between 12 and 200 miles as well. I just want to close by saying that we are entering a new era for the marine environment in Scotland. We are a global player when it comes to marine sector or maritime sectors and the richness of our seas. I outlined in my own remarks how we have unique species, we have off-road renewables potential, we have the off-oil and gas industry, and we have the fishing industry and so on. We are a major global player when it comes to maritime sectors. We are looking at marine protected areas, which will be implemented in Scotland soon to add more conservation to marine features that lie beneath the waves. We have inshore fishing groups set up that look at local management of fishing. We are looking at regional planning partnerships as part of what we are discussing today with the marine plan. We are looking at a bottom-up approach, not just simply a top-down approach to a halftime. It was particularly in the point about the MPAs. I think that one of the concerns that we have had flagged with us is just about the detail of the MPAs and about that balance of protection and sustainable fisheries. Will you take a look at that so that we make sure that we do not have blanket decisions across those MPAs and that local concerns are adequately reflected? Yes, as indicated previously, I am happy to look at that. Finally, if I have time, I just want to raise the issue that others mentioned as well, which I raised in my own remarks. If we are ensuring that we can protect our marine environment and we have the power and the resources to do that, therefore it is unacceptable, given the events of the last 24 hours, that Easter 2016, just over a year's time, we could have no emergency towing vessels based in Scottish waters, because the contract for the one vessel that we are left with in the Northern Isles will run out in Easter 2016. Given that there have been three major incidents involving three major vessels, large vessels in Scottish waters over the last few months alone, we shouldn't have less emergency towing vessels in Scottish waters. We should have the number that we had before restored, and we should have two vessels back in Scottish waters to safeguard Scotland's marine environment. The UK Government should get a grip and deliver that and recognise that they are leaving Scottish seas vulnerable to pollution and other damage. That is why I am writing to the UK Government to ask them to make sure that they put the adequate resource into Scottish waters to protect the marine environment. I believe that the marine environment, if we can get all those ducks in a row and we will improve and take on board the comments for the draft marine plan, will deliver protection for the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on Scotland's seas and also deliver protection for Scotland's precious and world-famous marine environment. That concludes the debate on the national marine plan and it is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the community charge debt Scotland bill. In dealing with the amendment, members should have the bill and the martial list. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes should there be a division on the amendment. The period of voting will be 30 seconds. Also members who wish to speak in the debate on the amendment should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the amendment, which I now do in the name of Gavin Brown. Amendment 1, Mr Brown. Thank you. This amendment reflects concerns raised by a number of councils during the Finance Committee written and verbal evidence. Councils were worried that this legislation and the publicity surrounding it could have a negative impact on the collection of other local government taxes. Seven councils who gave evidence either in writing or verbally to the committee made this point. It was a spread of councils in political terms and geographical terms and it was raised by councils both who were for the bill and indeed against the bill. In our view, if this turns out to be the case in practice, then the burden to compensate should fall on those who created the situation, in this case the party who brought forward the legislation, central government, as opposed to local government. I was not allowed to go quite as far as that in terms of admissibility of my amendment, so my amendment does in my view the next best thing. It creates a legislative obligation on the Scottish Government to monitor the situation and to publish the results in a transparent fashion. A specific duty like this allows Parliament and the wider public to judge for themselves the impact of the legislation. If there is to be an impact on the collection of other local government revenues, then in my view it is most likely to happen sooner amid the publicity of the act rather than later. Hence the amendment obliges the Scottish Government to do this only twice, once after six months and once after 12 months. It is in my view important to have this amendment in primary legislation given the mixed messages coming from the Scottish Government. Following a meeting with the then local government minister Derek Mackay, COSLA understood the position to be that if revenues elsewhere were hit, the Scottish Government and COSLA would be back round the negotiating table sorting the issue out. However, the deputy First Minister, in giving evidence to the committee, suggested that any hint of compensating councils was off the table. In my view, there is a risk flowing from the legislation that has been highlighted by many councils. In my view, the risk ought to be monitored closely, and the results of that monitoring should be transparent and should be published. I therefore move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. I now call on Minister Mark O'Biaggy. This amendment is laid because of a desire to see the continued health of our local government revenues. We all in this chamber share the belief that taxes arising should be taxes collected. The money that we are paying in council tax is going straight into funding essentials offered by our local councils, whether that is schools, care homes, roads, parks—the list goes on. Keeping those revenues buoyant is already a priority that is closely monitored. Council tax collection rates today stand at 97 per cent. Placing an additional burden on local authorities to provide the specified information to the timescales that Gavin Brown proposes is, I believe, unnecessary and unhelpful. Information on community charge payments is already included in the returns that local authorities make to the Government on tax collection. The council tax collection statistics for 2013-14 as well were published by the Scottish Government on Tuesday 17 June 2014, less than three months after the end of the financial year. The Scottish Government will undertake to report the final community charge collection data to the finance committee at the same time as the council tax collection statistics for 2014-15 are published. I expect that to be before the summer recess. I also expect that the data will show that the amount of community charge collected continued to decline up to the date that was extinguished should the bill pass today. Further council tax collection statistics will continue to be published as routine. For those reasons, I ask Gavin Brown not to press this amendment. Thank you very much. I now call on Jackie Baillie, unusually, to speak in this amendment. I will revert to the minister at the end. I will call Cameron Buchanan after as well. Jackie Baillie. Thank you very much. I understood that there was an open debate on the amendment, which is why I pressed my button to speak. I have sympathy with the substance of what Gavin Brown says. We also want to make sure that there are no unintended consequences or impact on the collection of council tax. We already monitor, as I believe, and publish collection rates. Therefore, I do not believe that we need to put it in legislation. The one thing that I am sure of is that local authorities will be extremely vocal in ensuring that attention is drawn to any reduction in collection of rates despite their considerable efforts to recover debt. I suspect that the local government committee of this Parliament will do likewise. For those reasons, we will not be supporting the amendment, although we have sympathy with its intentions. Thank you very much. I now call on Cameron Buchanan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would not usually expect to be speaking at stage 3 of the Bill so soon after having... Thank you for Mr Buchanan. So soon after having been speaking at stage 1. Then again, this government seems to have little desire to listen to most people's views on removing liability to pay community charge. I have said before that there are many worrying questions and I am compelled to ask them again. How is this Bill fair to the people who paid the charge? Would it stand up to the legal challenge from those who would understandably seek compensation? Will the compensation be offered to local authorities to be reviewed to match the true cost of this policy? What will be the total effect on the worrying precedent that this Bill sets on tax avoidance? Will its impact be monitored? Mr Buchanan, are you speaking to the amendment or are you making your speech that we would expect in the open debate? I think that your speech should come later. I will now revert to the minister if you have anything further that you wish to say before I ask Mr Brown to wind up this amendment. Content. Thank you. Gavin Brown, do you want to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Presiding Officer, I am a little disappointed at the Government's response. I have to say not hugely surprised. He says that the minister says that the burden would be unhelpful. Well, I suspect that it would be a little unhelpful on the Scottish Government, because it may shine a light on what the impact of the Bill has actually been. I am not sure that there would be quite such a big burden on local authorities. I think that what would be more unhelpful is a situation in which the collection rates drew drop as a consequence of the legislation that we have passed. However, it is unable to have any real recourse to the Scottish Government, and there is no obligation on the Scottish Government to do anything about it. Given the level of sophistication of local councils and their financial officers, they would be in a position in early course to give us an indication of how the collection rates have changed if they change. They may not change in practice, but the evidence suggested by certain councils was that they may well change, and I think that it would be in a better position to know about that sooner, rather than waiting until several months after the end of the financial year and then trying to do it driving backwards. Jackie Baillie is right that I am sure that local government will be vocal if the collection rates do drop, but the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that there is an obligation on the Government to monitor and publish, because if that is there, the Government is more likely to listen to councils, and it is more likely to be forced politically to act, as opposed to being in a position to more easily ignore councils. For that reason, I will close just now, Deputy Presiding Officer, but press amendment 1. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, and there will therefore be a five-minute suspension after which there will be a 32nd division. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1. This is a 32nd division. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1 is yes, 13, no, 90. There were two abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed, and that ends the consideration of amendments. The next item of business, therefore, is a debate on motion number 12344, in the name of John Swinney, on the Community Charged Debt Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate. The presser requests to speak buttons now. I now call on Marko Bianchi to speak to and move the motion in the name of John Swinney. Minister, you have 10 minutes, please. On 2 October last year— On 2 October last year, the former First Minister announced the Government's intention to introduce legislation to ensure that councils could take no further action to recover ancient debts that arose under the community charge, which, of course, we have all come to know as the poll tax. We are here not because we need to abolish poll tax. Strictly that took place now 22 years ago, but now we deal with what that left behind. Today we vote on legislation that will draw a line under the last remnants of that tax and, most importantly, put one of its last bitter legacies behind us once and for all, and ensure that all can come forward to register to vote without fear. The register is nothing less than the foundation that we lay under our democracy, on which everything else rests. All of what we do here is built on what has to be an authoritative and comprehensive account of those eligible to vote on the future of our country. It has to be so, because if we are to be faithful to the principles of democracy, all those who have the right to vote should also be free and feel free to exercise it in practice. A fortnight to go at First Minister's questions concerns were rightly raised about reports that many hundreds of thousands of people may not yet have transferred to the new register under individual electoral registration. Any loss of voters from the register is a concern, but any growth from genuine democratic spirit should be welcomed. We can be proud of the democratic spirit that our country showed in the referendum last year. There was an 85 per cent turnout and a total of 4.3 million people on the electoral register, which was an all-time high. It has been noted, praised and celebrated in this chamber time after time as a sense of democratic engagement that is second to none. I know that many of the new names on the register were 16 and 17-year-olds, for whom this was a democratic awakening of their own. However, there were still significant numbers of people who registered again for the first time in decades or who had never registered at all before. We all probably know them or knocked their doors and spoke to them. Many were signed up to vote at makeshift stalls on high streets or in one campaign outside job centres. It was clear to all of us that people were invigorated by the choice like nothing before. In a democracy, that sort of awakening is precious. It must be cherished. It must be nurtured. It was because of the high level of registration that, after the referendum, the responses of some councils gave us concern. For example, Aberdeenshire Council was quoted in the media as looking at the register to track down people who owed poll tax debt. If they do not pay, we will go after them for that money. 30 September 2014. In defence of their proposed approach, those councils often referred to the statutory duty on local authorities to collect local taxes. They have that duty, as they should, because collecting taxes arising is important, as I reinforced in speaking on Gavin Brown's amendment. The abolition of domestic rates, etc., Scotland Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1992 make it the duty of every local authority to collect the taxes that they are owed. I understand councils who genuinely felt that they had to do something. It was their responsibility. While some had already ceased to collect, there was a space there for legitimate doubt. We wanted to make it crystal clear through this bill that local authorities were absolved of their obligations to pursue and collect poll tax debt. That is not simply a case of a voluntary arrangement to cease collection. That is to deal with that debt, that doubt, once and for all. We wanted to ensure therefore that the legislation is simple, straightforward and unambiguous. It has to be said that it is one of the more short and to-the-point bills that we have considered in this Parliament. That is why we have to put the issue beyond doubt by extinguishing liability in this way entirely. Gavin Brown. Is it okay for councils to look at the expanded electoral registers to track down council tax debts of, say, 18 years duration? We have issues with poll tax that created very particular historical circumstances, very particular levels of protest, disruption, deliberate non-payment, deliberate non-registration. That is what we are dealing with here, that is what we are trying to address. I will come on to the issues of council tax, because it is important that councils collect council tax and do so in a responsible way. Had we taken a different approach in the bill on, for example, making it illegal to collect poll tax debt at all, that would have caused all kinds of difficulties. For example, if debtors were not able to cancel repayment arrangements in time, councils could have found themselves breaking the law simply by receiving money, or if a civic minded individual simply wanted to make a gratis payment out of the blue, we would not want to replace one uncertainty with another. However, it is not only the basic poll tax debt that is extinguished, there are also all the associated liabilities that will be extinguished as well. Those include the interest charges, the penalties that were imposed as part of the process for collecting poll tax. As with many debts of this type, as many money advisers will be aware, penalty can heap upon penalty and leave money still being repaid long after the principle would have expired. Those who were paying off community charge debt up until 1 February include some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society who were unable to pay at the time and were paying small sums towards arrears every week. Extinguishing that historic debt will let local authorities concentrate on breaking the cycle of debt, as some of them explained in their evidence to the finance committee. As we know, many councils gave up pursuing historic poll tax debt years ago. There are 10 councils that will not be receiving any money from the settlement here because they had indicated that there was no further collection that they were going to undertake. I would point out that every single one of them has a council tax collection rate that is either at or higher than the Scottish average for in-year council tax collection. Each of those councils has made a choice on that. They have made a choice for their locality that today we are making for the nation as a whole. In the stage 1 debate, and indeed just then, I reminded the chamber of the singular unfairness of poll tax. The history of that goes back for over 1,000 years and members may be disappointed, but I do not intend to go over that detail again. Although I should not have to say this, let me just repeat it one more time. This Government believes that people should pay the tax for which they are liable under the laws of the land. Even after that legislation is passed, as I hope it will be, it will remain for each local authority to determine the most appropriate means to recover council tax debts. That bill leaves that liability to pay council tax unaffected and the local authority's duty to collect council tax unaffected, too. The Government will, however, expect local authorities to pursue debts in a way that is sympathetic to the debtor's needs and circumstances, as we always have. The bill also leaves unaffected the long-standing law that debts prescribe, as indeed most of that outstanding poll tax debt now almost certainly has. In 2013-14, the authorities that still collected community charge debts collected a total of only £327,000. That was down from £1.3 million in 2009-10, just a few years before. The total collected has clearly been declining every year. The collection rate for community charge over its lifetime was 88.4 per cent. That compares with the in-year collection of 95.2 per the council tax and the expectation, as I said, that more than 97 per cent of council tax will be collected once follow-up measures are taken. In the last week, we have read reports of one council after another setting their budgets and, let us be honest, it has not been without controversy and debate and extensive discussion. This time, they need not take any element of the community charge into account as they do so, not just those authorities that had willingly already stopped, but all authorities. I would just like to thank at this point everybody who has been involved in making sure that that happens in partnership with local authorities, dealing with the expedited timetable, officials and officials in Parliament. With all of that co-operation by parliamentary authorities and local authorities, we were able to do this so that it could be enforced for the start of the next financial year. I move that the Parliament agrees that the community charge debt to Scotland bill be passed. I now call on Alex Rowley. Seven minutes, please, Mr Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would begin where I forgot at the stage one, was to thank the finance committee, because the finance committee did a good piece of work on this bill and taken evidence that I think was really useful, and that should be put on the record. I did say that Labour would support this bill at stage one and that we would support the passage of this bill as speedily as possible. I think that it is right to draw a line under the poll tax. It is right also to say that the success of the referendum in terms of the numbers of people that are registered to vote should not then have resulted in some of those statements that were made. I think that the then First Minister was absolutely correct to say that he was legislating. We are certainly happy to be here to be supporting this bill today. We heard many passionate speeches in this chamber about just how bad, how unfair and the misery that was caused to communities up and down Scotland and to individuals in communities as a result of the poll tax. It was a bad tax, it was a wrong tax and it needed to go. There are a couple of other points that I made in stage one that I think it is important to make again. The finance committee took evidence and the point was made, I think, by East Ayrshire Council, where they said that they had taken evidence from people who had a struggle to pay, but paid the poll tax even though they objected to it in principle. It is important that we draw a line under the poll tax. It is very important that we equally recognise that many people throughout that difficult period paid the poll tax. For some of those people, they absolutely struggled to pay the poll tax, but they did so because they valued local government services. If you remember back to that time, I was a member of five regional council at that time, the poll taxed through local government finance into turmoil and had the probability of throwing services into uncertainty in turmoil. To all those people who did pay and struggled to pay, we should equally say today, thank you to them and we recognise that they made a sacrifice at that time. However, it is right to move on for them. It is also important that the Deputy First Minister pointed out in his speech at that point that, in terms of collection, by 2013-14, the amount of moneys that was being collected was down to £327,000, and there has been now a deal agreed with COSLA. My view, and it is a view that we need to take on board, is that we were at the stage where councils were getting to the point where it could be costing councils more money to collect than they were able to collect. By and large, as the minister has said, and as we saw through the evidence, many councils had stopped collecting, and councils were at the point where it was becoming really difficult to collect much more. For that point of view, we are taking the steps today to formalise that, but we were really at that point where very little money was going to be collected, so it is right to draw a line and pull a line over it. However, there are a couple of other points that come from the debate. I think that it was Perth and Cairnross council when they gave evidence to the finance committee and they talked about having to pursue the poll tax, and that interfered with some of the collection that they had of council tax, and that some of the same families that were in debt those 20 years ago in terms of poll tax also had agreements in place and were paying back debts now in terms of the council tax. What that shows us is that some 20 years on, in communities, the same families, the same individuals are still today struggling with deprivation and social inequality that they were some 20 years ago. That has to surely tell us that there is more that we need to be doing to tackle inequality and to tackle poverty. The Deputy First Minister said that those paying off community charge debts include some of the poorest and most vulnerable who were unable to pay at that time and are still in arrears, having arrears deducted from their social security benefits. That should wake us up that other poverty strategies have been put in place and are still not working for many communities, many people and many families, and that is a generational thing. We have not been able to break that cycle of deprivation and poverty that should shame us all in this chamber. We need to highlight that today and look at how we are going to tackle that. It links to local government and the fact that we are talking about local government finance. The minister talks about council tax and we know that council tax in its current form, and certainly where we are at right now, is causing major difficulties out there in communities in terms of not being a sustainable way forward for financing local government. We need to find a way forward because the type of budgets that we are seeing local authorities announce this week in the type of cuts are biting into local government services right across Scotland. We need to find a way to properly fund local government finance, so some 22 years on, through the poll tax being scrapped, we still do not have in place a proper mechanism to funding local government finance. That brings me right back to my point about poverty, because I believe that you will not be able to tackle poverty and inequality in Scotland unless you have a national poverty strategy that links into a local poverty strategy. At the heart of that, and delivering that locally, is the community planning partners, and the key to that is local government itself. Local government is the body that can tackle inequality and poverty at the local level and change things. If it is not financed properly and if local government finance is broken, that will not work. Today, with pleasure, I think that we will see this bill go through and we can draw a line under the poll tax, but the message is that we have to sort local government finance. We have been against this bill from the very beginning. We have been critical of the way in which it was announced. We have been critical of the lack of consultation. We are against the bill in principle and we are concerned about the pragmatic aspects that could flow from it. Let me deal with a point that I tried to make in an intervention. The Government tried to paint that as some kind of high-minded safety for democracy that it has to bring in in order to protect democracy and the electoral role. It says that people should feel free to register without the fear of being chased for tax. What it does not say is that that only applies to community charge. If councils want to use the expanded electoral roles to chase up council tax debts of 17 or 18 or 19 years old, that is apparently okay from the Scottish Government. Not only is it okay, the finance minister is enthusiastic about councils using their powers and using that expanded electoral role to chase up old council tax debts. I think that the narrative behind it about how this is a protection of democracy falls some part when it applies only to one tax but not to another tax, which could be decades old. A tax about which, in years gone by, the SNP in particular has been pretty aggressive. It has said some pretty unpleasant things about council tax and is pretty close to the things that it has said about the community charge. It was very different last week when the finance minister was praising the council tax and said on the record how it is linked to the ability to pay. That is in stark contrast to what many SNP members said in the last session of Parliament where we can find a whole plethora of quotes about how awful they feel the council tax actually is. I said that we are against on principle. The principle is fairly straightforward. It is a principle espoused, I have to say many times, by John Swinney himself. People should properly pay the taxes for which they are liable. On this side of the chamber, we do not deviate from that in relation to the community charge. We think that that is the way it ought to be. We also think that there is a principle here. There should be a principle of equality between those who paid the tax and those who did not pay. What we have now, of course, is an idea of where, if you paid the community charge, even if you were against it, as I know many in the chamber or the majority in the chamber were, people may have paid it and made great sacrifices in order to do so, but those who did not pay it, some of whom probably could have paid it quite reasonably, are let off. There is an inequality between those. I looked through the finance committee notes and this is a live issue that has been sent to many MSPs. I know the convener of the finance committee who said on the record, I imagine that most, if not all MSPs like me received a number of communications from constituents who have said in effect what about those who paid at the time. He goes on to say this, we are all getting correspondence about it. I have not had anyone tell me what a great idea of the bill is, but I have had plenty of folk writing to me in the terms that I have just described. Those are not the words of a Conservative MSP. That is a direct quote from the convener of the finance committee who, I have to say, did far more consultation on this issue than the entire Scottish Government combined. We are against it in reasons of principle, but we are against it too for reasons of pragmatism. That was what the amendment that we lodged earlier today was about. Council after council, in giving written submissions to the committee and councils giving evidence to the committee, even those who were supportive of the bill, such as Dundee City Council, were concerned about the impact that it could have on the collection of council tax. Does the member not think that a worse example is the big companies and the rich individuals who hide their tax overseas and there is a huge tax gap? Are they not the ones that should be pursued? We are happy to debate tax evasion and tax avoidance of any nature in this chamber at any time, but today we are debating stage 3 of a specific bill in front of us, which I am sure Mr Mason acknowledges. We are confined to talk about the contents and the impact of that particular bill. If he wishes to use his debating time to debate other stuff, so be it. We are happy to debate at any time, but our remarks have to be confined to the bill in front of us. As I said at the start, we are against it in principle, we are against it in practical terms too. It had no consultation whatsoever from the Scottish Government and there could be some unforeseen consequences. For that reason, we will not be supporting the bill and we will be voting against it at 5 o'clock today. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate and I call on Kenny McCaskill to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm four minutes please. What this debate is not about is the principle of paying taxation. It is about the final burying of the poll tax. Like many members in this chamber, I have recently filed my income tax and have paid my income tax. While it is not ecstatic to do so, I was happy to do so because it took cognisance of the ability to pay. It was banded and it went towards the protection of necessary public services. The poll tax was an entirely different entity. It was a political tax brought in by the Conservatives, brought in a year earlier in Scotland using us as a guinea pig for the taxation that ultimately bit the dust despite, as I say, the best endeavours to advise better counsel and wiser counsel and Margaret Thatcher, some from even within her own party, that she finally fell with it. So I was proud to take part in the can pay won't pay campaign because it was about ensuring that those who couldn't pay wouldn't ever have to pay. We did defeat the taxation and this bill finally puts to bed the last few remaining individuals who are being pursued for this iniquitous tax. It was an iniquitous tax. It was a tax upon the poor and the vulnerable. It didn't take into account the ability to pay. It was about marginalising society whereby if you weren't contributing to health or education, well, if you don't have a child at school, why should you pay for education? And if you don't have ill health because you're fortunate and healthy, why should you worry about those who are afflicted? It was about dividing and divvying up in the privatisation of our society that has sadly been continued through more recent Governments. It also was about the undermining of Government services at local level. Alex Rowley's been making appropriate points, but let's remember, and I touched upon this in the stage 1 debate, the gearing effect was all about either having councils ratchet up the poll tax to an unaffordable level or seek to privatise and dispose of council services, so that's why it had to go. Are there a few individuals who probably will escape who should have paid? Sadly, probably only a few, but what we're talking about, as I say, is an overwhelming majority after 20 years of people who just cannot pay. Why is that? Because this was a taxation where we had expedited powers, and I do know that we have expedited powers with the Inland Revenue to be able to deal with whether it's with MSPs or others who don't pay their tax, and that's rightly so, but, as John Mason was correctly saying in Inland Revenue terms, in income tax and other taxation are especially more complicated ones. Accountants in both tax avoidance and, sadly, tax evasion kicks in. For the ordinary man or woman in the street, the ordinary individuals struggling to pay their community tax was, in fact, imposed and dealt with quite simply by local authorities for those who were able to pay, because let's remember where it was dealt with by a summary warrant, an expedited procedure that didn't require the council to raise any particular action that was printed off on a computer. It was passed to sheriff officers who at one stage could use a warrant sale to intimidate and get money that way, but for the overwhelming majority of people it was dealt with by either a bank harassment or an earnings harassment. So the people who have left who have not been able to pay, those who are being pursued, are those who simply cannot pay, because councils tried to pursue them but couldn't, and the reason that they couldn't get anything from them is that, in the main, they simply do not have the wherewithal to pay and to seek to pursue them would be fundamentally wrong. The final point, Presiding Officer, is simply that it is about protecting the poor, but it's also about dealing with those councils who shamefully wish to intimidate and try to put people off the electoral register. There was a brazen political attempt after the outstanding sign-up campaign and politicisation of the referendum by Tories in particular to seek to do to people what has been done elsewhere in other jurisdictions to try to dissuade them from exercising their democratic mandate, and on that point I end, Deputy Presiding Officer. I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Alex Salmond. Presiding Officer, I was very happy to support this bill very soon after it was published, and I think that it's the right thing to do. I think that we have to respond to the points raised by Gavin Brown, because the Conservatives are the only people opposing this today. I would say to him in terms of his fears about the council tax. I would remind him what Perth and Cynros council told us when we were on the finance committee that further attempts to collect would be expensive and could come at a cost to council tax collection. So I would invite Gavin Brown to consider this bill as the put all your energy into collecting the council tax bill, and if you look at it from that point of view, I think that it could well be very positive, even from his point of view. He talks about Perth and Cynros council, but he said as well that beyond this issue we have concerns about the potential impact of the on-going collection of council tax. That seems to contradict the quote that I've just given. Anyway, I think that the other more fundamental point that Gavin Brown was making that he doesn't regard the poll tax as different from other taxes. I suppose that most of us in the chamber do, and that's the fundamental dividing line between the Conservatives and other people in the chamber today. That's also why I don't think that it will lead to the effects on the council tax. There's never been a mass non-payment campaign about the council tax, because people, even those who are concerned about it, recognise that it's a fundamentally different tax because it is related in various ways to the ability to pay. The collection rates show that. We have very high rates for the council tax and much lower rates when the poll tax existed. I believe that his fears are uncounted. I believe that, in principle, we have to regard the poll tax as a fundamentally different tax, certainly different from any tax that I've ever known in my lifetime, the most unfair and inequitable tax. Of course, large sections of Gavin Brown's own party realised that at the time that it split his own party and united the rest of the country against it. I think that this is a historic day when we put the final nail in the coffin of the poll tax, and for those of us with long political memories, of course, it reminds us of the campaigns that we were involved in in the late 80s and early 90s against it. It was fundamentally different from any other tax that we have ever seen. Of course, there are people outside as well who may have concerns about this and may have written to us about this, so I would make to them some of the points that I've made to Gavin Brown there. However, I think that it's also important to people who have concerns to put the whole thing in perspective. One thing that I say to people is that this is just a Scottish issue. They haven't been collecting poll tax in England for 10 years. I realise that there are legislative reasons for that, but it does help to put it into perspective. Of course, the other point that members have made is that there isn't much left to collect anyway. I think that we should remind people that 10 local authorities don't collect it. Anyway, only £327,000 was collected last year. That just helps to take a little bit of the heat out of the argument, because I understand that some people will feel very intensely about this particular issue, but I think that that helps to put it into perspective. I'm glad that most people in the chamber are united behind this bill today. I accept the Conservative Party, perhaps, because they introduced the poll tax and have a certain affection for it still, and I don't wish to separate it from the other taxes that succeeded it. I understand that, but I think that most people in Scotland will be very pleased that today we're finally drawing a line under that whole era of unfair taxation. Of course, as Alex Rowley said, the important matter now is to fix local government finance. We haven't come up with the best solution yet, but I think that everyone has agreed that the council tax was a big improvement on the poll tax. Let's make sure that all our energies are devoted to collecting the council tax in, because my goodness to the local government needs it. Let's cast into the history books and the dustbin of history, The Unfair and Unwanted Poll Tax. Many thanks. I now call on Alex Salmond to be followed by John Mason. I speak not so much as the member of the Scottish Parliament from Aberdeenshire East, but as Alex from Strickan, who was moved to phone the call-K phone-in programme on this very subject. What moved me to do that was the enthusiasm being displayed by councillor Jim Gifford, the leader of Aberdeenshire council, who seemed to want to use the magnificently enlarged electoral register as a means of hounding down people for debts that were 20-year-olds old and more. There were three particular difficulties that I found with councillor Gifford's argument. One, he seemed oblivious entirely to the fact that the pittance that was being collected by Aberdeenshire council most certainly meant that they were in the position that Alex Rowley outlined. It was costing more to collect than it was being collected. He seemed unaware that much of the outstanding debt was an illusion. It was either owed by people who never existed in the first place or who had long since demised in the last 23 years. It was a mythical debt in terms of its total. Thirdly, he seemed unaware that people who were either collecting the debt collected from them had probably paid it many times over, as the minister indicated, because of the cumulative charges. People who hadn't been paying the debt, by definition, if it was new debt, it was outlawed by the 20-year rule, since by definition, poll tax debt is more than 20 years old. All of those things, councillor Gifford, was unaware of. Hence, I was moved to enter the debate in the call-K programme. It strikes the importance and the connection between non-payment and voting. It has been widely reported in the press that the Liberal Democrats owe £800,000 to the Scottish Police Service, an £800,000 debt that they are refusing to pay. The Labour Party, the Scottish National Party, the Green Party—for all I know the Scottish Socialist Party—pay for the security at their party conferences and have no debts outstanding. However, it has been widely reported that the Liberal Democrats owe £800,000. It has even been reported that the Conservative Party has an outstanding debt to the Scottish Police Service. I do not know whether that is a non-payment campaign, or in the case of Liberal Democrats, maybe they are short of money. The Conservatives cannot be short of money by definition, since their tax-evading donors make sure that they are not short of money. However, I would never, even given those circumstances, draw the conclusion that those people should be stopped from voting in this parliamentary chamber because they are engaged in a non-payment campaign deliberately or otherwise to the Scottish Police Service. Mind you, the Liberal Democrats look like they beat me to it in terms of not turning up to vote or to debate in the first place. It is a very dangerous connection to draw, and I was certain that day by all means. You are going to tell us— It is true that the member is criticising others for not being here to vote or debate, but let us move past that. If it is so iniquitous, why is it okay for the Scottish Government, why is he so enthusiastic for the Scottish Government to use the electoral role to chase up a 19-year-old council tax debt? Because of the three reasons that I outlined, first, that the poll tax was costing more to collect in many circumstances than could be collected. Secondly, because it is a mythical debt that many of those people either never existed or no longer exist. Thirdly, the important point I made, the small amount that is being paid were from people who have already paid many times over, and by definition, Mr Brown, if it is new debt, it is caught by the 20-year rule on the poll tax. All of that and more that this was the most iniquitous tax of recent modern times, and if I were the Conservative Party, I would be trying to forget the poll tax, not to make everyone remember it. I noticed that Mr Brown did not take the opportunity to deny that there might be an outstanding debt from the Conservative Party to the Scottish Police Service. If so, I am sure—if that is not the case—I am sure that I want to come to the chamber and explain why that bill does not seem to have been paid. I would never draw the conclusion that, therefore, Mr Brown or his colleagues should not be allowed to vote in the chamber. Mr Deptigriding officer, democracy is a precious thing. We have a 98 per cent registration on the voter's register. We have an 85 per cent turnout in the referendum. That is so much more precious than any of the normal political arguments that take part in this chamber. We should defend it at every available opportunity. That is embracing a huge democratic experience. If I have one criticism—it is not of this minister. The criticism is of myself as First Minister. I should have brought forward this legislation years ago. I wish that I had. Now that we have, let us put it through and bury this iniquitous tax for good. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased that this bill has got to stage 3 today and that it has the widespread support that it obviously does. This was a bad tax, and my colleague Kenny MacAskill put that very eloquently, and others, I am sure, are as well. In the first place, this is not just any old debt that is being written off. There is a much stronger argument for writing off this tax debt compared to any other run-of-the-mill tax, because it was so unfair all along the line. However, the reality is that all debt needs to be evaluated at times. For example, especially can it be collected at all, whether the cost of collecting it makes it worthwhile, and whether chasing it is detrimental to other objectives? I suggest that, on all three of those points, this bill passes the test. Firstly, clearly the vast bulk of it cannot be collected, as people do not have the money that has died or are not traceable. Secondly, some councils have already decided that it would be throwing good money after bad to pursue it and have stopped trying to collect it. Thirdly, councils such as Glasgow have decided to pursue the council tax primarily rather than diverting limited resources to the poll tax. We should not really think that writing off debt is that unusual. Both private and public sector debt is first provided for if there is any doubt about its collectability. That often occurs by providing 25 per cent or 50 per cent and so on, as the debt gets older without being collected. Once any debt has been provided for 100 per cent, it can still be sitting in the accounts, but the net effect is nil as the provision matches the asset. Effectively, that is what has already happened with community charge, as I understand that all councils have provided 100 per cent of the outstanding debt. Writing it off then merely reflects the reality that this debt to all intents and purposes is irrecoverable. Again, it is not unusual that those who pay tax or any cost for that matter are cross-subsidising others who do not or cannot pay it. Anything that we buy in the shop includes the cost of shoplifting, and when we pay for gas or electricity, that will include the cost of those who default. The Conservatives might try and make a big song and dance out of this situation, but in reality we are only doing what any business, any utility or whatever does on a pretty regular basis. Of course, as has been mentioned, there is a tax gap and for the UK we gather that this is some £34 billion. If we are starting off from scratch to close this gap, would we look at the few pounds here or there that we could get by people who are struggling? Or should we be chasing the big multinational companies who avoid tax through dodgy transfer pricing and the rich individuals who can afford clever tax experts and who move large amounts of their assets to offshore tax havens? I think that there is a moral question in here. Are we pursuing unpaid tax from the rich and powerful with the same enthusiasm as from the poorer and weaker? I think that the SNP, Labour, the Greens and the independence are pretty clear on that point, but I fear that the Conservatives tend to side with the rich and the powerful against the weaker and poorer, and I really have no idea where the Liberal Democrats are at all. So I am more than happy to support this bill today. I am delighted that it has reached stage 3. This is not just about a few thousand pounds or a few hundred thousand pounds, this is also a symbolic message that we are sending out today, that this Parliament does not approve taxes like the poll tax, this Parliament will not introduce taxes like the poll tax in future and this Parliament will do what it can to make our society fairer and help those most in need. I congratulate the Government on introducing this bill and I look forward to it being passed today. Many thanks. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Cameron Buchanan, four minutes Mr Buchanan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I apologise for speaking out of turn, and as they say in the radio programme, I'll sorry, I'll read that again. I'm going to be very nervous now pressing this wee green button again, I can assure you. The Government seems to have little desire to listen to most people's views on removing liability to pay this community charge. I've said before that there are many worrying questions and I am actually compelled to ask them yet again. How is this bill fair to the people who paid the charge? Will it stand up to the legal challenge from those who will understandably seek compensation? I think that's a very important question. Will the compensation be offered to local authorities to be reviewed to match the true cost of this policy? What will be the total effect of the worrying precedent that this bill sets on tax avoidance? For example, what about the council tax? We've heard from people about paying arrears of council tax and I think this will definitely be effective on that. I think that there are many worrying questions and as ever this Government won't give many answers. It seems obvious that removing the liability certainly. Russell? I think that the answer perhaps that the member is seeking but why this Government is so passionate and passionate at her to speak is very simple. Gavin Brown was I think 14 when the poll tax came in. There are many members in this chamber who fought against the poll tax as the most iniquitous tax ever seen in Scotland. That is the answer to the member's question. I was not 14 but I think it's a question of principle rather than anything else, rather than the age. It's a question of principle about paying taxes, not about whether the tax is fair or unfair. I wasn't really arguing that. I pointed out that the collection rate was approximately 88 per cent which makes it clear that most people paid for their contribution. I'm still baffled by this Government's position. I'm aware that they wish to cover new ground but actively legislating to make all taxpayers compensate for the tax evasion of others I think reaches new heights of responsibility. This Government is stubbornly refusing to rush this bill, is stubbornly choosing to rush this bill through Parliament no matter the consequences. No responsible Government would trample over fairness for the honest majority but I think this Government is doing exactly that certainly. John Wilson? Thank Mr Cameron for giving way. What would he say to his colleagues in Westminster who have actively supported those who have been offshoring their accounts to avoid paying tax in the UK? Thank you. I think that that was more the point that John Mason has made. I wouldn't say anything at this stage because it's not what we're talking about here. This is a bill. No, it's not. We're talking about the principle of paying tax and it's talking about the principle of paying this cancer test. Many of my constituents have also contacted me to express their opposition to the community charge debt bill and they're absolutely right I think that it is unfair. No matter that the spin that is offered, it cannot in any way be fair to some people to be excused of their obligations while others are not. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hard-working taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise other people's tax avoidance and the SNP's irresponsible rhetoric. For this policy to have any semblance of equal treatment, those who paid the tax would have to be reimbursed. This is also a fundamental point. The government's retort to this may be that such remuneration would be unaffordable, yet this would only surely undermine the recklessness of the bill as a whole. The only practical, affordable and fair thing to do is to scrap the bill altogether. This is obvious to so many of my constituents and others throughout Scotland. It is important that we fully understand the consequences for local authorities' finances compared to the compensation on offer. £869,000 is only 0.2 per cent of the total uncollected £425 million, which despite the government's protests about collection, the cost is far from adequate. The compensation is far from adequate. It still doesn't accommodate informal payments made to local authorities unless somebody has said that those taxes are still being collected, albeit slowly. It ignores also the potential knock-on effects regarding future tax payments to local authorities. The risk of losing council tax as a result of people expecting their debt to be cancelled at a later date has been highlighted repeatedly, yet this government has explicitly ruled out compensation being given to local authorities that suffer from a knock-on effect in council tax collection. With that in mind, Gavin Brown's amendment to require reporting on the effect of provisions on council tax revenues would have provided much needed information. At the time of significant financial difficulties, the last thing councils need is a Government that removes debt that they are owed, however difficult it is to collect it. It offers only a tiny settlement in compensation, which I think is also a point, and encourages tax avoidance. The people of Scotland deserve to be treated fairly, which means that the honest majority should not be discriminated against in favour of tax avoiders and made to cover the cost of compensation. The only fair thing to do is to scrap this policy. According to the Presiding Officer, I will be voting against that. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Unlike others, I start by thanking the Finance Committee and the clerks to the committee for scrutinising the bill in the run-up to this final stage 3 debate this afternoon. I think that there is little descent, aside from the Conservatives, to the intention behind this legislation. As the architects of the poll tax, I am quite surprised that they are still intent on clutching on to it, given how discredited it is. However, I have to say that the question of whether the legislation is needed has been raised several times before. I absolutely agree that the increase in voter registration during the referendum is to be celebrated. Using that increase to pursue historic poll tax debt would have sent absolutely the wrong message about democratic participation. Let me quote the former First Minister, not something that I am sure he has heard me do often, but this is clearly a case of absence making the heart grow fonder, and certainly for Alex from Stricken. Even he noted that the bill, which was hurriedly introduced, has no practical effect because, and repeated it today, there is already a legal bar on chasing debts that are more than 20 years old. Cozler itself did not believe that the bill was necessary. I am very pleased that the minister acknowledged that a substantial and very welcome element of the increase in voter registration was among 16 to 18-year-olds who were not born when the poll tax was introduced. Indeed so. I wonder if the member might care to just clarify what she said. There is a 20-year bar to recovering debts rather than chasing them. Isn't that the point? You are quite right. There is a 20-year legal bar on recovering debts, but most local authorities, I think that you will find, said that practically it was too difficult to actually chase down those debts after such a significant period had elapsed. However, the Government, having decided to legislate, wasted no time in bringing the bill forward, and we support the bill. I understand the need for speed given the circumstances, but it is clear that consultation was sacrificed as a consequence. A more detailed conversation, indeed. Since I am here to reciprocate for Jackie Baillie, the point about the practical effect that she rightly touched on, and perhaps she should reflect on the point, is about the messages, as she said, that were being sent out. The reason I phoned up the phone in programme was because of the messages that were sent and being sent out by the Conservative leader of Aberdeenshire Council. Those messages could have resulted in people being frightened to stay on the electoral road. Does she accept that point? Jackie Baillie. Yes, I do, and I happened to tune in to call K. I was very surprised to hear yourself described as Alex from Stricken, but there you go. By that time, I think that you'd announced that you were retiring to the back benches, and I suspect that you were enjoying phoning in something that you hadn't done previously as First Minister. However, I do believe that a more detailed conversation with key stakeholders would have been helpful, and I welcome therefore the evidence taken by the Finance Committee. I agree with the majority of members in this chamber. The poll tax is totally discredited and has been overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Scotland. It has finally run its course, and tonight we have the opportunity to consign it to the dustbin of history. Members across the chamber recognise that people who paid their poll tax and who, in many cases, struggled to do so will feel that the Government's decision is unfair. I think that Malcolm Chisholm has got it absolutely right. The amount actively being collected is small. It is practically hugely difficult to track down and collect the rest, and let's be clear, local government is rightly focused on making sure that council tax collection rates are high, and we should applaud them on their efforts. I want to turn to Alex Rowley's concluding comments, because I think that he hit the nail on the head. The real debate is not about the bill. It is important, though it is, but the real debate is about how we finance local government, not as some abstract thing, but how we properly fund schools and education, how we properly fund our home-helps and our care homes, how we properly fund the maintenance and repair of something as basic as our roads, and never mind the range of services provided by local authorities. Members will have heard me saying in this chamber before that local government has borne the brunt of the Scottish Government's cuts. Real strain has been placed on their ability to provide a range of services needed by our local communities. The cabinet secretary has been fond of pointing out that the cut from the UK Government to the Scottish Government is 10 per cent, and that is a matter to be regretted, but what he's done is passed on in some cases 20 per cent to 22 per cent cuts to local government. I welcome the commission on local government funding. I believe that it meets next week. It is essential, but we need to look at the wider issue, not just of the council tax, but how we fund local government in a much more sustainable way. If the Scottish Government is up for doing that, it will have the support of those benches. In the meantime, I am pleased to support this bill and banish the pull tax from Scotland forever. Let me begin with a response to some of the remarks that Alex Rowley made. Mr Rowley identified an important point at the outset of this debate in my response. As we take the final steps to abolish the outstanding debt arising from the pull tax, we should remark on the fact that many, many people in Scotland—and there is a point made by the Conservatives as well—paid their pull tax, many of them through financial hardship, many of them as a response of taking part, as my friend and colleague Kenny MacAskill did, as many of us did, in the non-payment campaign, but fulfilled our obligations once the pull tax had been abolished in the early 1990s. However, people made genuine sacrifices to ensure that public services were properly funded. I appreciate and I have had correspondence from members of the public who paid their pull tax and who are concerned about the fact that the Government is acting to abolish the last remnants of the pull tax today. We appreciate and welcome and value the contribution that those individuals made to the public services of Scotland and to funding those public services. The point that I advanced in the finance committee, which addresses many of the issues that have preoccupied the Conservatives' position, is that there is a false comparison made here between the pull tax and the council tax and the issues of collection that may arise. The difference between the pull tax and the council tax is that the pull tax is a dead tax. It is no longer functioning. The council tax is a currently operating tax for which our local authorities have a commendable and constantly improving success rate at collecting the council tax. The average in-year collection rate for the council tax in Scotland is 95.2 per cent. Mr Biagae, the minister, in his opening remarks made the point that in the local authorities in Scotland who are no longer voluntarily collecting the pull tax have a higher in-year collection rate for the council tax than the average rate in Scotland, which demonstrates that the issue that somehow non-collection of the pull tax and its outstanding arrears in any way affects the council tax collection is a myth, which is not substantiated by the evidence. Seven of the councils that gave written or oral evidence to the finance committee make that point. That is a question that Mr Brown can ask the seven councils concern, but for me the evidence demonstrates that where councils stopped collecting the pull tax, where they still have outstanding arrears of pull tax, it is not in any way undermining their ability to collect the council tax. The pull tax is now uncollectible as the data would show with the fall-off to a collection in 2013-14 of just £327,000. One of the other issues that was raised in the debate was the whole issue of tax compliance and the importance of people paying their taxes. We have wrestled with many of those issues as a Government in the steps that we have taken forward on land and buildings transaction tax, on landfill tax and on the Revenue Scotland bill. What we have done in the cold light of day, and I think that it is a point that resonates with what Mr Mason was making in his argument, we in the cold light of day decided to set the highest possible standard we could by applying a general anti-avoidance rule in the Revenue Scotland bill to ensure that the signal was sent out very clearly that we expect people to pay their taxes, and that is the approach that will be taken by Revenue Scotland in the period going forward. One of the interesting things about this debate tonight, this last and final debate, in which I hope leads to a vote tonight, in which the last remnants of the pull tax are abolished, is that the debate has been graced by contributions by the two remaining members of the Scottish Parliament who actually took part in the parliamentary votes about the pull tax when it was conceived into legislation in the late 1980s, Malcolm Chisholm and Alex Salmond. I thought that both of them I should point out voted against the introduction of the pull tax, but just for the sake of the record. Malcolm Chisholm made a fascinating point that, after all those years of the miserable impact of the pull tax on the reputation of the Conservative Party in Scotland, here we have in 2015 the Conservatives desperately clinging on to the last discredited vestment of the pull tax. What does that say about the Conservative Party in Scotland? It says that they haven't changed one eye OTA since the late 1980s and the early 1990s. I do think that it is important that the debate has heard the contribution of our former First Minister, the member for Aberdeenshire East, and as he may be affectionately known as Alec from Strichen. The fact that we are here today considering this legislation is a direct result of the determination of Alex Salmond, as in so many other areas of policy, to ensure that the right thing was done to address an injustice in our society. And the tenacity and determination of Alex Salmond to bring this issue to the fore in the circumstances that he himself recounted of seeing the democratic enthusiasm of our country somewhat challenged by an enthusiasm to go back to the late 1980s and 1990s to collect historic debts on a discredited tax. And it's to Alex Salmond's credit that he has forced the pace of this issue and got us to the position that we are in today of being able to take the decision that we will be able to take at five o'clock to abolish the last elements of the pull tax. And finally, Presiding Officer, can I respond to the points that Jackie Baillie made about properly funding local authorities and make a point to the Conservatives that this the financial agreement that we reached with the convention of Scottish local authorities of £869,000 as a final payment was an agreement that we reached with the convention of Scottish local authorities. We don't always manage to reach agreements with the convention of Scottish local authorities, but on this occasion I'm delighted that we were able to do that. But this government remains committed to ensuring that local authorities are properly and fully funded to undertake the responsibilities that they are allocated. We know that the financial climate is difficult. We are wrestling with that financial climate into the bargain. But at a time when the Government's budget has been under real strain, we have taken the decision to properly and to fully fund local government in Scotland, and that is the way it will stay under this Government. That concludes the debate on the community charge debt Scotland Bill. We now move to the next item of business. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 12343.2 in the name of Claudia Beamish, which seeks to amend motion number 12343 in the name of Richard Lochhead on the national marine plan to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 12343.1 in the name of Alex Ferguson, which seeks to amend motion number 12343 in the name of Richard Lochhead on the national marine plan to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12343 in the name of Richard Lochhead, as amended twice. On the national marine plan to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12344 in the name of John Swinney on the community charge debt Scotland Bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12344 in the name of John Swinney is as follows. Yes, 98. No, 15. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to and the community charge debt Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.