Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, June 22, 2017

Official Report 600KB pdf

---

Continued Petition

---

Ship-to-ship Oil Transfers (PE1637)

Agenda item 3 concerns a continued petition, PE1637, on ship-to-ship oil transfers and trust port accountability. I welcome John Finnie MSP to the meeting.

Members have copies of the submissions that we have received, including a response from the petitioner to those submissions.

In deciding what further action it might be appropriate for us to take on this petition, members might wish to reflect on the fact that we do not have a role in relation to the circumstances of any particular cases that might lead people to petition us for a change in national policy or practice.

Do members have any comments or suggestions? Does John Finnie wish to make a comment on the petition and his involvement in it?

Thank you for allowing me to join you while you address this issue.

You are right to say that the focus must be on process rather than on any particular live claim. I do not think that there is a widespread public understanding of the process. I would like to know why Scottish Government ministers fail to see that there is a role for them in this matter.

11:15  

We understand that Marine Scotland did a number of reports. Where are those reports? Who caused them not to be advanced? Can they be recovered from a bin? Can an explanation be given as to why they were not used?

There are also the questions of the significant inadequacy of the initial application and how the various authorities should respond to that. It is important to note that Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency provided responses, so there is a role for them, but it is disappointing that Marine Scotland did not do so.

We need to understand the wider implications and the clarity of the process. There is a distinct lack of clarity on the governance of ports. Public bodies can be democratically accountable and commercial bodies may or may not be accountable to shareholders, but there are big question marks concerning where some of the trust ports sit in the level of accountability. There needs to be clarity on that.

Slightly to support what John Finnie said, there is certainly a lack of understanding of who can and who cannot input into the process. The roles of SEPA, SNH and Marine Scotland are vital. It is also vital that, as they work for the Scottish Government, it ensures that they are aware of the reports and supports them when they go up to the next level. That does not appear to happen.

I understand why the petition has arrived here. Maybe the application in question has been withdrawn, maybe another application is coming and maybe we do not know what is happening. People need clarity. Focusing the Government’s attention on the petition and asking it to be clearer about what it is doing would be useful.

Are you suggesting that there should be liaison on the process between the Scottish Government and the UK Government?

The Scottish Government must ensure that it understands what all the agencies that report to it are saying, and it should make its position on the matter clear. I am not sure that the petitioners—certainly Cromarty Rising—understand what the Scottish Government has done. I may have got that wrong, but that is my understanding.

It is important to note that, as it stands, the Scottish ministers do not have regulatory powers in relation to licences for ship-to-ship oil transfers. That is a clear matter of fact.

John Finnie wants clarity on the role of the agencies that sit within the Scottish Government.

I understand that.

And on the extent to which the Scottish Government informs thinking on licensing at the UK level.

I totally understand the legislation and that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will ultimately make the decision, but it is clear that the Scottish Government will have a view on the matter. It has views—rightly so—on a lot of things over which it does not have ultimate control that it can perhaps feed into the UK Government. It should make its position clear on this issue.

Do you mean its view on the particular proposal or on the process?

On the proposal, based on the information it has been given by the agencies under it: SEPA, SNH and Marine Scotland.

I should declare an interest. I and others successfully opposed a Firth of Forth ship-to-ship oil transfer application in 2006-07, and I spoke in support of Cromarty Rising during John Finnie’s members’ business debate in the chamber.

I am at a loss to understand where the Scottish Government is on the matter. It was vociferous on the Firth of Forth application in 2007, but the same action that was taken at that time does not seem to have been taken at the Government level.

John Finnie has raised valid points regarding the lack of accountability of port trusts. I tend to agree with Cromarty Rising’s suggestion that we take account of the fact that the current Scottish Government guidelines for trust ports in Scotland are not binding in law. The petitioners call for greater Scottish trust port accountability to Scottish ministers. That is an extremely valid point. Many of the port trusts seem to be—for want of a better term—a law unto themselves. That might be an issue that needs to be looked at in greater detail.

The petitioners also make a valid point about the need to

“Change the sequence of steps in the licencing process for Scottish trust ports”

and

“Introduce a pre-submission step where compliance with Scotland’s National Marine Plan, European Protected Species Licencing, Habitats Regulations and independent financial assessment is conducted prior to a STS licence application being submitted to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.”

Those are all valid points that should be included in any contact we have with the Scottish Government on this issue.

That is helpful.

As a parliamentarian, I want to be in a position, not to understand the minutiae of the legislation that is involved, but to refer any constituent who wishes to understand the process to a very clear sequence of events. This is not and should not be a partisan issue, but it is not helpful for the Scottish Government to say, “It is nothing to do with us”, when the submission from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency uses phrases such as

“where the competent authority is mindful of the standards set by Scottish domestic legislation”.

The environment does not know boundaries anyway, so this is not about constitutional or party political matters; it is about having a standing process to make sure that all the legislation comes together to ensure the maximum protection for our environment. If we have that, there should not be undue impact.

There is a very close link, as Angus MacDonald has said, between the accountability process and reference to communities. Nairn is directly on the other side of the water, and there was no contact with it. There is a vibrant community campaign that wants to understand the process and to know that, if there is another application—which I hope there will not be—due process will be followed.

Why would Marine Scotland prepare the ports and the ports not be utilised? They were prepared in good faith to service a process. Everyone needs to understand that process.

Given what you have said, Angus MacDonald, what would you do about getting more information?

We need to write to the cabinet secretary highlighting the points that Cromarty Rising has raised. We also need to ensure that the Scottish Government engages with the UK Government and that the Marine Scotland report is submitted. I am not sure whether it has been already—maybe Mr Finnie can clarify that.

I think that that would depend on there being a live application.

It is good to try to ensure that there is an understanding of the process on the basis of what has happened. Clearly, there are flaws in the process, never mind the application. There should be a very clear understanding of who does what when, and what the relationship is. Ultimately there is no dispute about who makes the decision—as Edward Mountain said, it is a reserved matter—but the decision has to be informed.

So we would write to the Scottish Government to ask what changes to the process it thinks would help it inform the decision—not to ask it what information it provided to the UK Government. We would also ask what the Scottish Government’s submission to the UK Government on the licensing process is going to be. Have I got that right?

Yes.

It is all very well for the Scottish Government to submit reports from the agencies, but it also has to take a position on the reports that are submitted to it. I cannot see that any other organisation would not make its position clear at the same time. That must be part of the process.

I would go one step further and say that, in order to help focus and keep this going—you are not going to thank me for this—the petition should be kept open until the process is completed.

It has to be said, and I am reiterating, that the Scottish Government took a decision on this in 2007, just after the election.

Not on this application.

Not on this one.

On a similar one.

It was identical, actually.

So, we should write to the Scottish Government to ask it how it thinks the system should be improved, what information it has and its view of a proposal that can be fed into licensing systems.

If the decision is made at a UK level, but in the sure and certain knowledge of the view of the Scottish Government, that is not saying that the Scottish Government wants to make the decision. The Scottish Government would be telling the UK Government what its view is and what it is doing to improve the process.

There is also an issue about how the trust ports work. We might want to ask for a response on that as well.

Certainly—I agree with that.

Is that everything?

Will you keep the petition open?

Members: Yes.

If we are asking for a response, we keep the petition open until such time as we have the response.

We are alive to the fact that it is not about the specific proposal but the process that applies to any such proposal, and we are trying to learn from the concerns the petitioners have highlighted to us.

That is agreed. I thank you for your attendance.

Meeting closed at 11:26.