As promised yesterday – answers to some of the question posed by Green MSP Mark Ruskell:
To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that ship-to-ship oil transfer operations, as proposed in the licence application by Cromarty Firth Port Authority in December 2015, are compliant with regulations established under directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC.
Answered by Roseanna Cunningham (24/01/2017): As stated in Parliament by the First Minister on 12 January 2017, on the basis of the current information, the Scottish Government is unconvinced that ship-to-ship oil transfers can, or should, take place at anchor in the Cromarty Firth without unacceptable risk to the marine environment.
Current Status: Answered by Roseanna Cunningham on 24/01/2017
Cromarty Rising comment: A repetition of Nicola Sturgeon’s answer. A new application is of course dawning so answers in relation to the application in December 2015 are no longer relevant as that will be withdrawn.
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason Marine Scotland did not provide a response to the licence application by Cromarty Firth Ports Authority, in December 2015, to carry out ship-to-ship oil transfers.
Answered by Roseanna Cunningham (24/01/2017): Marine Scotland is a Directorate of Scottish Government. The Scottish Government is not a formal consultation body for Ship to Ship Licence applications under the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010. We expect an invitation from the UK Government torespond on a revised application.
Current Status: Answered by Roseanna Cunningham on 24/01/2017
Cromarty Rising comment: not good enough – this has not answer the actual question – why did they not provide a response? We will reiterate that we know from FOI Marine Scotland were preparing a response but chose no to submit it. On whose direction? – that is the next question to ask. When Ian Blackford raised this in the UK parliament, Robert Goodwill answered:
“The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned the Cromarty firth oil transfer licence. Marine Scotland was directly consulted on 10 December, and on 8 February, when the consultation ended, it had not responded. When it was asked whether it intended to respond, the answer was no.”
This is clearly recorded in Hansard – https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-02-22/debates/16022238000002/EmergencyTugVessels(WestCoastOfScotland)?highlight=ship%20ship%20oil%20transfer#contribution-16022238000230
The next question may answer that:
To ask the Scottish Government what meetings (a) ministers and (b) officials have had with (i) Scottish Natural Heritage and (ii) Scottish Enterprise at which proposals by Cromarty Firth Port Authority to carry out ship-to-ship oil transfers were discussed, broken down by (A) date and (B) location.
Current Status: Expected Answer date 27/01/2017
Cromarty Rising Comment: we wait with baited breath for the answer. Next.
To ask the Scottish Government what meetings (a) ministers and (b) officials have had with Cromarty Firth Port Authority at which proposals to carry out ship-to-ship oil transfers were discussed, broken down by (i) date and (ii) location.
Answered by Humza Yousaf (24/01/2017): There have been no specific meetings between Ministers or officials and Cromarty Firth Port Authority at which their proposals for ship to ship oil transfers were discussed. However the matter was an agenda item at the Cromarty Firth Port Authority Annual and Board meetings on 24 and 25 November 2016 in Invergordon, attended by a Transport Scotland official as an observer. Officials occasionally attend various trust port board meetings as part of their role in developing guidance for the port sector.The decision on any licence for ship to ship oil transfers is a reserved matter and the responsibility rests with the Secretary of State for Transport.
Current Status: Answered by Humza Yousaf on 24/01/2017
Cromarty Rising Comment: disappointing that Marine Scotland have not met with CFPA. We hope that the Transport Scotland official who attended the CFPA meeting would have realised that there is a significant gulf between the CFPA and their supposed stakeholders and that this is address in developing guidance for the port sector. It is disappointing that minutes for either of those meetings were ever published – here’s the first element of guidance for Transport Scotland – Trust Ports must publish full minutes of all board meetings. After all, what could they possible have to hide?
To ask the Scottish Government whether the Cromarty Firth Port Authority has consulted Scottish Natural Heritage for the purpose of carrying out an appropriate assessment of a plan or project under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) for ship-to-ship transfers of oil in the Moray Firth.
Current Status: Expected Answer date 25/01/2017
Cromarty Rising Comments: well we know they have as we have published their response, however, will be interesting to see what else comes from this.
To ask the Scottish Government whether a harbour authority can consent to a programme of ship-to-ship oil transfers without amending its by-laws to take account of such transfer operations.
Answered by Humza Yousaf (24/01/2017): The licensing of port authorities for the purposes of ship to ship transfers is a matter for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. Once a licence is issued by the MCA, it would be for individual port authorities to ensure that such activity was not inconsistent with its byelaws before any such activity commences.On the basis of the current information, the Scottish Government is unconvinced that ship-to-ship oil transfers can, or should, take place at anchor in the Cromarty Firth without unacceptable risk to the marine environment. The Scottish Government expects to be fully consulted by the MCA on any revised application put forward by the Port of the Cromarty Firth.
Current Status: Answered by Humza Yousaf on 24/01/2017
Cromarty Rising Comment: interesting – the CFPA can just their own bye-laws to suit. Much like appointing their own board we suppose. At least the Scottish Government party line is consistent in their opposition (on the basis of the current information). We appreciate their support.
Warning: call_user_func() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, function 'skt_gardening_lite_comment' not found or invalid function name in /home/blackisl/cromartyrising.com/wp-includes/class-walker-comment.php on line 184