 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 4277, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, on protecting marine life during unexploded ordnance removal. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-and-speak buttons now as soon as possible. I call on Beatrice Wishart to open the debate for around about seven minutes, Ms Wishart. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to members for taking an interest in this debate tonight. I also thank the minister for attending on behalf of the Scottish Government. I would like to thank her for her time when we met a few weeks ago to discuss this matter. Whether through the provision of food, energy or fascinating wildlife, the coast and seas of Scotland have for centuries been bountiful. As we continue to expand the use of our seas, we are met with increasingly difficult challenges that not only risk human lives but the very environment that we rely on. There are an estimated half a million unexploded ordnance items, or UXOs, in waters around the UK, many in the areas designated for offshore wind farms. Those munitions have posed a risk for decades, with numerous examples of unexploded bombs, torpedoes and shells being hauled up in fishing nets. I well remember an incident many years ago, when a trawler hauled up a torpedo off Fair Isle and came into Lerwick Harbour, and I am sure that the crew of the Lerwick Lifeboat remember it too, because two fishermen were lost as a consequence of dragging up a torpedo. As we continue to build more infrastructure at sea to help to meet our net zero targets, the sea bed must also be surveyed and cleared, and encountering those UXOs increases the risk to us and the environment. They are usually cleared by high-order detonations, where a counter charge is placed next to the unexploded munitions, and both are exploded, creating a large underwater blast. High-order detonations are thought to be responsible for affecting the auditory system of marine animals, and that can impact animals up to 30 kilometres away from a blast. The explosions also leave craters in the sea bed, where the remnants of toxins and explosives scatter through the water and can enter the food chain. However, there are alternatives to high-order detonations at sea, and militaries and navies across the world use low-order detonation by deflagration processes. Indeed, the Royal Navy has used the technology since the early 2000s. The alternative low-order detonation is less disruptive, reduces acoustic output by 20 decibels, and the affected area is reduced to 750 metres. After the UXO is made safe, what is left can be removed from the sea bed by remotely operated underwater vehicles. The Scottish Government is awaiting analysis from a Danish navy trial of low-order deflagration, which was conducted earlier this year. I would be grateful if the minister could let us know in her closing remarks what the timeline is for the findings to be known, and if policy changes are envisioned how long they will take to put in place. I became an orca species champion when I was elected in 2019, and I am pleased to say that I continue to be the champion in this Parliament. We learn more about fascinating animals and other marine mammals every day, not least through the many reports on Shetland orca sightings Facebook page. What we do know is that marine mammals rely heavily on their auditory systems and that their intelligent and social creatures harm to those auditory systems can disrupt navigation, feeding and communication, while noise trauma can cause permanent hearing loss and is thought to be responsible for leading to mass strandings. I am very grateful to join the member's contribution. Has anyone studied the impact of exploding ordinance on commercial fish stocks or spawning grounds this year, where, in any event, would the minister address that in closing? I think that there is concern, although I have focused this debate primarily on orcas and citations. A report into the 2011 incident at the Kyle of Darnes, where 39 long fin pilot whales became stranded, led to 19 deaths and revealed that noise from munitions and disposal operations in the area at the time was the probable cause of the strandings and deaths. As we see the stress, climate change is placing on our natural environment, is it not our responsibility to ensure that, as we develop more at sea to tackle the climate crisis, we also ensure that the same expansion is not further damaging populations of marine mammals and other sea life? Could the minister confirm if it is the Scottish Government's intention to end the use of all high-order detonations for UXOs discovered? I appreciate that emergency situations can suddenly arise, but new ways of clearance should be the preference for the environment and human safety every time. I believe that the minister is aware of my concerns about ensuring that Marine Scotland is well resourced in order to carry out its pivotal role in safeguarding what happens in our seas. Along with many other responsibilities, the body issues licenses for the clearance of unexploded munitions in Scottish waters. Will it be able to fill this role, as well as ensuring that those with licences are using the least damaging methods? If Marine Scotland is busy now and with offshore wind developments rapidly advancing, how can the Government ensure that it is keeping pace with developments and new technologies, as well as ensuring enforcement of UXO licences in real time? Transparency is vital in a regulated approach to new technologies and without it, how do we advance or improve them? The expectation of the Scottish Government and other UK regulators who signed up to the joint position statement last November is that developers prioritise low-noise methods, but that statement is non-binding. I believe that Scotland could lead the way and be at the forefront of new industries and the associated novel techniques to mitigate impacts to Scotland's marine environment. I would be keen to work with the Scottish Government to create a position that is binding and enforceable to help to protect sea life and marine mammals. In concluding, I would like to thank the stop sea blast campaign for the resistance and for coming to Parliament last month to hold an event to highlight this important topic. I would like to thank the MSPs who came along to find out about UXOs and their impact on the marine environment. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate Peter Swisher on securing it. Increasing development in the marine environment is leading to the discovery of a greater number of undetonated munitions. Clearance of unexploded ornaments is commonly undertaken by high-order detonation, as Peter Swisher described. It is a controlled explosion. It leads to loud blasts and it disturbs protected marine mammals. I agree with Peter Swisher that those blasts cost a huge welfare concern to marine life and to our natural marine environment. Since 2019, I have been raising my concerns over levels of unexploded ornaments that are washing ashore across beaches and coastal areas in Dumfries and Galloway. Although exact figures are not available, the Coast Guard and the Royal Navy Bomb Disposal Unit has reported that the number of unexploded ornaments that are washing ashore is increasing. While the exact reasons for that remain unclear, there is expert opinion that suggests that it may be due to a combination of sea levels rising, increasing offshore projects such as the construction of offshore wind projects and increased marine traffic. Bofors Dyke is a national deep water trench located in the north channel of the Irish Sea between Ireland and Port Patrick in the south west of Scotland. It is also widely understood that at the end of the Second World War, instead of taking the surplus unexploded munitions to dump them directly in Bofors Dyke, which was approved as a dump site, often the weapons were dumped outside or around the Dyke site to save money and time. It is therefore a little wonder that we are now discovering more unexploded ornaments washing ashore. According to the MOD, over 50,000 tonnes of explosives are disposed of in Bofors Dyke just off the coast in the Irish Sea. In July 1945 alone, 14,500 tonnes of five-inch 130mm artillery rockets filled with phosphine gas were dumped. In addition, according to documents from the Public Records Office, approximately two tonnes of concrete encased metal drums filled with radioactive laboratory waste and luminous paint were dumped in the Dyke during the 1950s. I have previously contacted the UK Government's Secretaries of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Defence to ask whether a risk assessment of the stability of Bofors Dyke and around the site has been carried out so that constituents across the region can be assured of its safety. I have sought assurance that there are no future plans to use the Dyke site as a dump site in the future. Unsurprisingly, other than one response from the MOD indicating that they believe that Bofors Dyke is to be safe and that it poses no threat, I have had no response from the Scottish or defence secretaries and therefore repeat my calls for Bofors Dyke to receive a full safety inspection. That would not only reassure constituents, it would also protect our marine environment as RSPB's director and McCall has herself shared concerns over the impact of undersea explosions on sea life. Alternatives to high-order detonation are now available to the commercial market. Some have developed in a military context or they have been developed in a military context but not used commercially while others have been developed purely for industry use. Those alternatives do require the use of explosive material to effect clearance but in much smaller volumes compared to the donor charges required for high-order detonation. Alternative methods cause lower noise levels, including reducing the impacts to the marine environment. I agree with Beatrice Wishart that her use is welcome and I would ask the minister to do all she can to press the UK Government to make use of these alternatives a standard practice. I repeat my calls on the UK Government to carry out a full safety inspection of Bofors Dyke and ask the minister to press the UK Government to use proven alternatives to high-order detonation as well. I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this matter to the chamber and giving Parliament the opportunity to speak on the subject. We absolutely should do all we can to protect the welfare of our marine wildlife, which is subject to so many challenges at this time, including from the impact of unexploded bombs. As we have heard, it is estimated that there are around 100,000 tonnes of ordinance in UK waters equating to almost half a million bombs, mines and shells left over from the first and second world wars. Interestingly and worryingly, much of this ordinance lies buried in areas that are now being designated for potential offshore wind construction, something that the Scottish Government is anxious to develop and expand in the coming years if we are to meet net zero emission targets. It is welcome news that some wind farm developers and energy companies are seeking alternative methods to clear unexploded ordinance, and many require contractors to offer low-order defligration as a process that can burn out a bomb and the likes without detonation. In this process, a magnesium cone is fired at the munition, causing explosive content to ignite and burn out from within without damaging explosion, which results in significantly lower noise emissions. It is a largely unknown fact that noise levels are only dependent on the size of the counter charge and not on the size of the explosive tested. However, low order is not standard practice, and the high order method is still commonly used. Of course, it is worth mentioning that marine planning and protection is a devolved matter to the Scottish Government, which means that if it falls within the responsibility of ministers in Scotland to regulate on this issue, the use of explosives within the UK marine licensing area requires a licence under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, part 4. In Scotland, the body responsible for licensing is Marine Scotland. In November 2021, Marine Scotland signed a joint position statement, which included the line, low-noise alternatives to high-order detonations should be prioritised when developing protocols to clear UXOs. However, as we have already heard, it is non-binding, and high-order techniques are similar and are still very likely to continue to be used to clear unexploded ordinance. I recognise the significant impact that underwater noise from ordnance clearance can have on vulnerable marine species, which means that we have to tackle the matter delicately and with great care. Campaigners such as Stop Sea Blast Group have rightly highlighted that. As I understand it, Crown Estate Scotland operates under a framework document that is set out by the Scottish Government, and among other responsibilities, manages and leases the seabed within 12 nautical miles of Scotland. Under taking surveys of potential sites for offshore and wind development, I know that unexploded munitions are often found, which need to be cleared. To clear such munitions, developers must apply for a licence from Marine Scotland. Specialist companies are then hired to carry out the work within the terms of the licence granted. We should all agree that any clearance methods used have to be saved and effective without causing any damage to marine wildlife. The UK Government supports the development and use of lower-noise alternatives than the high-order detonation, which is a traditional method. That is something that campaigners want to see happening in Scottish waters. The decision to prioritise the use of low-noise alternatives is, I believe, a welcome step forward and something that I hope the Scottish Government will take into future considerations. Previously, it said that it is awaiting the results of trials conducted by the Danish Navy before deciding on any future legislation. While it is important that all scientific data is taken into account, it is clear that alternatives such as low-order detonation, which can reduce noise output by several hundred times compared to the large blast, should be encouraged. Everything possible should and must be done to protect our marine wildlife and environment as a matter of course, in order to avoid a repeat of the incident that we are aware of with the Kyle of Dunes in July 2011, when 19 whales died. We must do as much as we can as soon as possible. I thank Beatrice Wishart for securing this important debate today on protecting marine life during unexploded ordnance removal. I also want to pay tribute to the work that stop sea blasts continue to do to raise awareness of this issue, including the informative event that they held in Parliament last month. It is clear that the scale of this issue should not be underestimated. As a result of the two world wars, there is now over 100,000 tonnes of unexploded ordnance in the UK's waters. As we continue to develop our offshore energy infrastructure, there will be a greater need to remove unexploded ordnance from the seabed. However, as we have already heard, unexploded ordnance is currently removed in a highly disruptive way to marine life and habitats due to the use of high-order detonations. As others have already explained, this is having a particularly harmful effect on marine mammals who rely on sound for navigation, communication and feeding. It is not just wildlife that is affected. The use of these high-order detonations also harms marine habitats, with explosives leaving craters in the seabed and damaging the seafloor. That is why we must urgently look at the use of low-order technologies in unexploded ordnance removal so that we can protect marine life and habitats. We know that these low-order technologies work. A UK Government-funded study found that low-order technologies reduce noise emissions and physical damage to the seabed. Crucially, those technologies are supported by a range of marine protection organisations such as Whale and Dolphin Conservation. Given the damage caused by high-order detonations and the evidence of viable alternatives, I believe that the time is now for concrete action from the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland. The Scottish Government has a national marine plan. That should be updated to include support for a shift to the use of low-order technologies in unexploded ordnance removal. Marine Scotland has signed up to a UK-wide regulatory statement. That signals a shift towards favouring the use of low-order technologies, but it needs to be made binding. Marine Scotland already has licensing conditions for ordnance removal, but they are outdated. Those conditions must be updated to ensure that developers prioritise the use of low-order technologies and ensure that high-order detonations are subject to tighter restrictions. I believe that there is another issue that must also be addressed through a change to licensing conditions. Most unexploded ordnance removal work is carried out by private companies on behalf of offshore developers. Given the risks associated with the use of high-order detonations and the removal of unexploded ordnance, I believe that there should be a clear obligation on employers to guarantee workers' rights and safety. I am calling on the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland to commit to exploring the introduction of a new marine licensing condition that ensures that employers adhere to established employment rights and health and safety legislation. Today's debate relates to the role that Marine Scotland plays in managing our seas. I would like to conclude by touching upon an on-going dispute involving its fisheries protection fleet. Up to 80 marine Scotland workers face the prospect of having a below inflation 2 per cent pay rise imposed on them by the Scottish Government. As Unite the Union has highlighted, imposing a pay award against the wishes of a workforce could constitute an illegal inducement and leave the Scottish Government in breach of collective bargaining arrangements. As well as taking the urgent action that is needed on the issue of unexploded ordnance removal, the Scottish Government must also engage with Unite and the Marine Scotland workers to deliver the fair pay rise that they deserve. I thank Beatrice Wishart for lodging this important motion and securing this afternoon's debate. I also thank her for hosting the parliamentary event on this topic last month. I was not able to make that, but I did have some very interesting and helpful follow-up conversations with EODEX and others about the Stopsea Blasts campaign, hearing about the pretty catastrophic impacts on citations and other marine life that most current commercial disposal mechanisms have and the alternatives proven low-order deflagration that Beatrice and others have so clearly described. I appreciate that in this chamber we are used to, or at least getting a little more used to, a fair amount of noise and disruption during business. Sometimes some of us might struggle to hear because of this disruption, but mostly we deal with it. Imagine if we used our auditory systems for navigation, for communication, for feeding, for staying alive. Without the system we would be completely cut off from our fellow creatures. We could not eat, we could not travel anywhere safely. In fact, we would have no idea where we were, what dangers or threats were nearby or anything about our surroundings. We would be essentially helplessly vulnerable. What if we were near an explosion that took out our auditory system completely? Within two kilometres of the blast it is almost certain that we would die because of the pressure waves caused by the explosion. Research shows that a complete kill zone of between zero and 50 metres, but an almost certain death zone of up to two kilometres from the blast site. Up to 10 kilometres away we would suffer permanent threshold shift, PTS, or permanent damage to our hearing. Up to 20 kilometres away we would suffer temporary threshold shift, TTS, temporary hearing damage. That might be enough to distort our feeding and communication to such an extent that the trauma is overwhelming and the consequences result in permanent damage. Beyond 20 kilometres there may still be some long-term behavioural impacts as a consequence of the trauma. To put this in perspective, if we were all citations in this chamber today, a blast at Haymarket station would kill us. A blast at Edinburgh airport would render us all with permanent hearing loss. We would become disoriented, hungry, traumatised. We would likely die. That is exactly what happened to the 19 pilot whales who beached themselves and died at Carl of Dorness as Beatrice Wishart and others have highlighted. We have a responsibility to act to ensure that we are not complicit in the deaths of citations and other sea life, to ensure that we do not just stand by and accept the release of toxins and the destruction of our sea beds that result from high-order deflagration. I am interested to hear what the minister will say in her closing. In addition to the questions and points raised by others this evening, I hope that she will provide an update on what requirements the Scottish Government is able to make of BP, Shell, SAC and other energy operators who undertake deflagration in Scottish waters now, especially in the north-east coast. That is perhaps especially important given the Scotland licences that these companies have and the work that they need to do in preparation for the development of the offshore wind farms. As part of that, I would also ask the minister what, if any plans, there are in place to ensure that proven alternatives to high-order deflagration will be used. The stop sea blasts campaign and others are clear. The so-called low-yield deflagration is not the same. It must be low-order deflagration and it must be proven to work, not hypothetical. In closing, I thank Beatrice Wishart once again for bringing this important topic to the chamber and thank the stop sea blasts campaigners for all that they are doing to raise awareness and act to protect marine species and ecosystems. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Chapman. I now call on Mary McCallan to respond to the debate minister for around about seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My thanks as well to Beatrice Wishart for lodging this motion on what her and I both agree is an important topic. As she said, Ms Wishart and I met to discuss the issue some weeks ago. I know that it is one that she cares very much about in his campaigning for it and I was sorry that I was not able to make the parliamentary event regarding it. I also thank members for their contributions this afternoon, many of which have focused on the importance of a healthy marine environment. The Scottish Government's vision for our marine environment is a clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse one that is managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and of people. As members have pointed to today, our marine environment is increasingly important to our environmental, social and economic wellbeing. We must manage this increasingly busy space fairly and crucially safely, and I think that Ms Wishart referred to how dangerous this challenge can be, indeed fatal in some circumstances. We know that offshore wind in particular will be critical in our journey to net zero. We must seize the opportunity for our climate and for our green economy of the future, but we must do so in a way that predicts our waters, our marine wildlife, which ensures the health and safety of maritime workers, as Mercedes Valalba rightly pointed to. As members have said, the vast majority of unexploded ordinance is discovered when offshore wind developers come to prepare their sites for development. They have to be safely disposed of to allow construction works to commence. It has to be effective, it has to be safe and it must be as environmentally unobtrusive as possible. I know that Liam Kerr asked about commercial fisheries. I will focus my remarks on offshore wind as the motion does, but I would like to reassure him that licence conditions require that, if any dead fisher reported from the activity that this comes and is reported straight back to Marine Scotland. We are taking action to meet those objectives of safety and effectiveness. We do that through licensing processes and by collaborative working with other regulators and statutory nature conservation bodies. I would like to highlight exactly what the Scottish Government is doing today, as a number of members have asked me to. As regards licensing, in line with policies set out in our national marine plan, we are committed to reducing the effects of man-made noise and vibration on marine species, especially those that are sensitive to such effects. Before starting any UXO clearance on an offshore wind farm site, a developer must apply to Marine Scotland for both a marine licence and for a European protected species licence. Those two licensing regimes are underpinned by legislation and they require offshore wind developers to use UXO clearance methods, which produce the least underwater noise. When applying for those licences, developers must consider any satisfactory alternatives to meet their objectives of clearance, and they must have the least environmental impact. To further reinforce that commitment, the licences that we issue contain the binding conditions that I have been asked about, which mean that all possible opportunities to undertake UXO clearance using low-noise techniques must have failed before licences can consider the use of a higher-order detonation. Of course, we know that, as evidence develops, higher-order detonation is still sometimes required for human safety reasons, although we are watching as evidence develops on that. The robust framework that I have set out today will give members assurance that low-noise techniques are prioritised where practical, effective and safe. Beyond what we are doing in the licensing space, we are collaborating. We know that, to make the challenge of reducing underwater noise resulting from increased development in the marine environment, we must work with other regulators and statutory nature conservation bodies. We must do that to support the use of alternatives to high-order detonation. That is all of our goal. That is why, together with colleagues in DEFRA, in Bays, in the marine management organisation and NatureScot, we have signed that joint interim position statement, which sets out our collective position. Put simply, that position is that low-noise alternatives should be prioritised over higher-order detonations. However, clearly, as contributions have made clear today, those are serious matters with substantial safety and environmental implications. Moreover, alternatives to high-order detonation are a relatively new approach in a commercial context, and because of those two factors, we have to be sure that they are effective and safe. Early trials of low-order deflagration techniques show that they can result in much reduced underwater noise, which brings obvious benefits for acoustic impacts on marine wildlife. Further trials of techniques have taken place off the coast of Denmark. Those trials commenced on 22 January this year, after a slight delay owing to Covid, and six World War II mines have been cleared. Measurements were taken at a range of distances during this project to characterise sound outputs, and seabed and surface samples were also collected. I am particularly interested in the findings of this report, because, importantly, they took place in North Sea conditions and have a really strong applicability for us in that regard. The data from this trial has currently been analysed by scientists and will be made available as soon as possible. Of course, when that information is made available, it will inform our decision making and decision making across the UK, I expect, on alternative technologies. Beyond the scientific research that I have just outlined, the Scottish Government takes an active role in developing an evidence base to ensure that best available science will always underpin the planning and regulation of developments that are contributing to our low-carbon future but are doing so in a sensitive environment in which we must protect. Our Scottish marine energy research programme is playing a significant part of that. We also operate an array of acoustic readers across the east coast of Scotland, which, for almost a decade, have been measuring underwater noise before and during offshore wind farm construction. I am glad that the motion highlights and that members have asked for a call for new guidance from Marine Scotland. I am pleased to say that a review of our current consenting and licensing guidance for offshore renewable energy is being undertaken and the updated guidance will reinforce our position surrounding that effort to reduce underwater noise levels. However, mindful of time in conclusion, the Government is committed to ensuring that the deployment of Scotland's huge offshore wind potential materialises in a way that is sustainable and respects the marine environment and which, crucially, is safe to those people working in our marine environment. Our on-going evidence-based collaborative work, including with regulators and nature conservation bodies, will help us to deliver that. We have a robust framework that already prioritises low-impact clearance of UXO, and we are committed to considering evidence of new techniques as they emerge, always being sure that they are effective, safe and as unobtrusive in our environment as possible.