Hansard

I oppose the plans of Forth Ports and Melbourne Marine Services, primarily on environmental grounds. The ship-to-ship transfer of huge quantities of heavy grade Russian export-blend crude oil—REBCO—in the centre of the Forth estuary, close to the Fife and East Lothian coastline and beaches, would surely be dangerous and irresponsible and would invite damage to our coastline and fine estuary.The estuary is a beautiful and highly sensitive environment. It has considerable marine life, which is regenerating, that includes seabirds, seals, whales, dolphins and porpoises—the many recent sightings have been widely publicised. The estuary also contains the Isle of May, the Bass rock and many special protection areas and marine environment high-risk areas.Forth Ports and Melbourne Marine Services—now SPT Marine Services, because it was recently taken over and now has a Norwegian parent company—claim that great care will be taken. It appears that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Southampton has approved the oil spill contingency plan submitted by Forth Ports, although it called for many amendments and voiced many reservations in its initial report, which was published on 14 July 2006. The MCA repeatedly said that Forth Ports must have serious regard to the European Union habitats directive, which states clearly that European protected species—such as whales, dolphins and porpoises, all of which are present in the Forth—must not be threatened.Forth Ports says in its submission to the committee:"Forth Ports is required to comply with the Habitats Directive."The company goes on to say that its responsibilities include"the prevention of pollution and nature conservation."How can Forth Ports square those responsibilities with allowing ship-to-ship oil transfer in the estuary? However great the care that was taken, a grave danger would remain. Even a small spillage can cause great damage to marine life and the environment, given the nature of REBCO, the speed with which it sinks and the difficulty of recovering it. If damage were to occur, the clean-up in the Forth estuary would be the responsibility not of Forth Ports but of the local authorities—Fife Council, East Lothian Council, and City of Edinburgh Council—and, ultimately, the taxpayer.The benefits of ship-to-ship oil transfer to the Scottish and local economy would be negligible. The oil would simply be transferred from Russian tankers to vast supercarriers, for onward shipment to the far east. The operations would bring to Scotland only the serious probability of damage to its environment, marine life and coastline. Scotland would also incur the cost of the clean-up.A viable and vastly superior alternative for ship-to-ship transfer exists at Scapa Flow, in an enclosed harbour with slow tidal waters. The area has 20 years' experience in such operations. Costs are lower and all the income goes to the local authority, Orkney Islands Council, which has responsibility for clean-up. The deballasting of tankers at Scapa Flow has to take place at sea, so that inland waters are not polluted with alien and damaging species. That is not the case in the Forth estuary: Forth Ports already allows deballasting. Under the ship-to-ship oil transfer plan, such operations and pollution would increase hugely.I am also opposed to the plan as a shareholder in Forth Ports. The short-term benefits to Forth Ports that would come from licensing fees and the securing of a complete supply line under its control, from the Russian Baltic to the far east, would be considerable, but in the medium to long term those benefits are far outweighed by the risks. The plan is opposed by every party in the Scottish Parliament, by every local authority, by every environmental body and by the public. When the inevitable spillage occurs, there will be a huge public backlash against the company. There will probably also be a legal claim against the company as the instigator of and policing authority for transfers.As well as running in the face of mounting opposition among the public and parliamentary and other public authorities, Forth Ports is contravening the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 by threatening European protected species. It faces penalties on that count. In addition, Fife Council is threatening legal action against the company if it proceeds with the plan. It is known that Forth Ports is likely to be the target of takeover bids from international corporations and syndicates, as it is the only remaining significant public trading port company. Who will be responsible when there is a spillage? Who will be the owners and directors of the company?I appeal to the committee, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive not to allow the plan to proceed, to implement the legislation that is necessary to prevent it and to demand that Forth Ports applies to the Scottish Parliament for a licence, in view of the threat that the plan poses to European protected species. As a resident of Scotland and a Forth Ports shareholder—like four other members of my family—I appeal to the company to remember its duty of care and to withdraw this dangerous, highly contentious proposal in the interests of Scotland and of its environment and coastline. I call on all members not to run the risk of converting the great, beautiful Firth of Forth into the oil of Forth.