Thank you very much for inviting me here today.
The petition reflects our experience of a recent proposal to undertake ship-to-ship transfers of crude oil in the inner Moray Firth and comes a decade after a similar proposal was rejected on the basis of the environmental impacts in the Firth of Forth. The question is, why has the issue not been resolved in the intervening years?
North Sea ports and infrastructure are in need of support, but the proposed transfers at sea anchorages would bring no new jobs and would threaten existing ones. There would be no benefit for the areas affected, and businesses and communities depending on the natural environment need clarity to be able to make investment decisions for the future.
Lord Donaldson’s landmark “Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas” report, which followed a catalogue of oil spills around the United Kingdom coast, recommended that such transfers take place at only two UK locations: Southwold and Lyme Bay. No sites in Scotland were mentioned. Ship-to-ship transfers of crude oil in Scottish waters should be subject to both a strategic environmental assessment and a sustainability appraisal that would also consider economic impact. Why have those strategic assessments not been undertaken in Scotland?
Twenty-seven Highland and Moray community councils and several high-profile non-governmental organisations are in opposition to the recent Cromarty Firth Port Authority application, and more than 100,000 people have signed a petition opposing the plans. Three councils representing more than 900,000 people opposed the application in the case of the Firth of Forth, and the issue was raised in the Scottish Parliament. How can the Scottish Parliament use its powers to reflect the will of the people in protecting our environment and the businesses that depend on it? Although ship-to-ship oil transfers are not a devolved matter, environmental protection certainly is, and, in our view, that leads to significant process anomalies. However, we are not here to argue for the devolution of ship-to-ship transfers; we are simply calling on the Parliament to use its powers to protect our environment.
How can Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency protect our environment, our designated areas and our wildlife when they are no more than consultees in, or advisers to, the process? Moreover, how can we ensure that our environment is protected if our environmental agencies disagree with the awarding body, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency?
Implementation of the habitats regulations in relation to ship-to-ship oil transfers requires authority in the discipline area by those qualified in each subject matter. Currently, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which has the expertise of mariners, is the competent authority and can overrule our environmental experts. What legislative levers are available in Scotland to enable the Scottish Government to contest decisions that are made by bodies external to Scotland that might have significant detrimental impacts on the Scottish environment?
The recent inner Moray Firth application process highlighted a number of inadequacies and uncertainties with regard to environmental impact. That would not be limited to the impact of an oil spill, which would be a catastrophe for marine life and businesses alike; there are also significant operational concerns about ballast water treatment, acoustic disturbance underwater and the discharge of carcinogenic volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere. For example, in the case of an oil spill, the modelling is based on a worst-case scenario of the discharge of 1 tonne of crude oil even though the tankers that are involved in the transfers can carry up to 180,000 tonnes. As a result, the environmental impact is grossly underestimated. One of the most shocking elements of an oil spill is the potential for euthanasia of whales and dolphins following their live stranding.
I should say that, in order to simplify the petition, we have made a technical submission to SEPA on ballast water hazards, and we ask the committee to obtain SEPA’s response to that as guidance. One question is, how can the Scottish Government enforce its own code of practice on non-native species when the decision to allow ballast water discharge is taken by a body external to Scotland that is acting contrary to SEPA’s advice? Another question is whether the planned euthanasia of a European protected species is lawful or, indeed, ethical when it could be avoided completely.
In the case of the Moray Firth application, there is not enough certainty in the process to say beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that there would be no impact on the integrity of the Moray Firth special area of conservation. Such certainty is a fundamental requirement, and the situation is not unique to that case. With such process uncertainty, how can we allow another Scottish trust port to make such an application?
The other part of our petition deals with the accountability of ports. Cromarty Rising—which the three of us here represent—has written to individual board members of the Cromarty Firth Port Authority as well as to the chairman of the board and the chief executive about its recent application. However, there has been no meaningful engagement. Transport Scotland has stated that it is up to each trust port to ensure that it complies with its own legislation. Is the committee comfortable with the idea that an unelected, self-appointed organisation that is looking after a public asset should be able to police itself?
Transport Scotland has no remit in disputes and, if stakeholders feel aggrieved, their only further recourse is to take legal action, which is both costly and time consuming. That is wrong. Trust ports manage valuable assets that belong to the people of Scotland. They are managed on behalf of the people and, ultimately, they should be responsible to the people and not to themselves. At the very least, there must be independent oversight. Trust ports are responsible to their stakeholders—they can receive indirect public funding via the Scottish Enterprise network and should reinvest all profits in the ports. Their ability to do that should not be diluted by private sector joint ventures or by their using penetration pricing strategies to the direct detriment of local stakeholder competitors and other Scottish ports.
Is it desirable or in the spirit of the Harbours (Scotland) Act 2015 that Scottish trust ports should deliberately set themselves up in direct competition with their local stakeholder businesses? Does the committee agree that there is a need for oversight of our trust ports?