 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 4581 in the name of John Finnie on ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Cromarty and Murray Firths. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on John Finnie to open the debate around seven minutes, please, Mr Finnie. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I can also thank colleagues for signing the motion, particularly my friend and colleague Claudia Beamish, who has secured and ensured that the motion enjoyed cross-party support. The motion talks about congratulating Cromarty Rising. A number of members are in the gallery tonight. They are an outstanding community organisation, as evidenced by their opposition to the ship-to-ship transfer of oil in the Murray Firth. To my mind, that is real politics. Politics has generated more than 100,000 signatures on a petition to the Secretary of State at UK level. Of course, I have garnered the support of 27 community councils. A number of people are involved in it. I would like to mention my immediate colleagues, Ann Thomas and James McKessack, who have been clearly active in that. There has been significant interest being prompted by that. The matter is now live at the Petitions Committee. I also like to thank all those who sent briefings and lots of information. Some of it is highly technical and I am not a technical person, so I will just give you two very small bits. Two tonnes per second pumped between the ships. Therefore, any assessment that is based on a one-ton spill is not credible as a maximum spill volume to determine impacts anywhere, least of all in a special area of conservation. The application that we are talking about came from the Cromarty Firth Port Authority. It is a trust port. I certainly own the statement. I cannot fully understand the roles and responsibilities of a trust port. I have posed a number of questions to the Government about that. However, we must have regard to the national marine plan. We must also consult. It was responsible for consulting beyond the immediate confines of the Cromarty Firth. It is into the Murray Firth, because the proposal is related to the open sea. It failed spectacularly. 27 community councils were opposed, and there was next to no engagement from the Cromarty Firth Port Authority. It is fair to say that ship-to-ship transfer of oil has taken place within the confines of the Cromarty Firth for decades. The motion makes it clear that there is no opposition to that. That is in the relative safety of a port tied to a key with all the well-documented backup. This is a rescheduled debate. I have to say the day before the last debate that I got an email from the port of Cromarty Firth saying, and I quote, "...the port is working with nigg's owners to bring the terminal back into operation." That is very good news, and hopefully it obviates the need for them to pursue the transfer at sea. It is important to say that there is no live application at the moment. The previous application was returned undetermined last summer. However, the proposal was that it takes place in the open seas of the Murray Firth. That is an EU-Natura 2000 special area of conservation for bottlenolds dolphin and the proposed Murray Firth special protection area for a wide range of seabirds. Roles and responsibilities are very important. That is not a party political issue. Indeed, it would be very unfortunate if it became such. However, the minister will understand that, certainly, my immediate colleague here shares the wish to have all decision making in regard to this taking place in Scotland. However, it is at the moment a decision for the Maritime Coast Guard Agency. It is a UK body. The SNH is the only statutory consultancy and clearly there is a role for Marine Scotland. Those are Scottish bodies and clearly there is a role for the Scottish Government. Ministers have repeated the claim that the Scottish Government was not formally invited to comment. The Cromarty Firth Port Authority's agent sent Marine Scotland and others a copy of the application and a letter explaining how and by when to make representation to the MCA. The press line, subsequently used by the Scottish Government, was and I quote, the Scottish Government was not aware of being directly approached by the UK Government during the consultation. That is misleading and disingenuous, minister. The words appear to been deliberately chosen so that the statement could be defended as literally and strictly collected. Given that Marine Scotland was not directly approached by the MCA rather by the Cromarty Firth Port Authority's agents and by a letter of formal consultation by the Harbour Master, the Scottish Government could and should have brought serious environmental and non-environmental risks to the attention of the MCA. The Scottish Government must obviously act responsibility within the existing framework and maritime matters, of course, have a wider obligation. We have to be good neighbours. In relation to that proposal, I asked in May of last year the Cabinet Secretary to ask the Scottish Government what assessment of risk to the marine life, including orcas, it has made if the proposed ship-to-ship transfers in the Murray Firth. That was answered by the Cabinet Secretary who said, the Scottish Government has no functions in relation to the ship-to-ship oil transfer licenses. This is a matter reserved to the UK Government and we will continue to progress for devolution of those powers to Scotland. Most certainly, minister, that is an answer, but it is not an answer to the question posed and that is disappointing. There is nothing to do with us. It is no way to deal with an important issue like this. Thousands of people in Scotland, indeed thousands around the world, made their views known to the UK Government and they were not contacted by the UK Government. The campaigners know that the Scottish Government agency was contacted. Environment is a devolved matter and perhaps the minister can outline the responsibilities that he believes the Government should take in relation to that. I received an email that said, and I quote, the on-going ping-pong between Scottish ministers and the Secretary of State around the devolved and reserved parameters of this issue, the tracks from the underlying obligation under the European Habitat Directive. The Scottish and UK Government should act to prevent such risky activity in such a sensitive location by ensuring proper implementation of the Habitat Directive. That is a view that I share. However, I welcome an apparent change of tone where the First Minister recently said that she was unconvinced, quote, by the safety of ship-to-ship oil transfer in the Murray Firth. Minister, you will know that we have been here before and this was in 2007 with transfers in the forth and my colleague Mark Ruskell will talk about that. At that time, one of your predecessors in office said, even a scintill of environmental risk is unacceptable, and that is the position that I hope you would adopt now. The proposal will create no new jobs. It put at risk the marine life of world significance and the most important industry in the tourism industry. In the Murray Coast, that brings in income of 108 million per annum, employing 2,600 people, one in 10 of the population. As a comparator, perhaps people will reflect in the name that they will know, the Brair disaster in Shetland, which took six years to recover from that. There is a comparator that I would like to put to you, Minister, and that is the situation where energy is a reserved matter, but everyone knows there will be no nuclear power stations in Scotland because the Scottish Government will utilise the powers that it has under the planning legislation to ensure that they do not go ahead. That is the approach that I would encourage you to take. In the short time that there is for the debate, I might be moved to some final points. I hope that you will take the opportunity to respond to the various issues that I have raised on behalf of constituents. Day-to-day operations involving transferring crude oil between ships at anchor at this location are highly likely to cause disturbance to bottlenose, dolphin and other European protected species, EPS. That would equate to an offence under the conservation natural habitat regulations 1994. That would require any transfer operation to be undertaken legally, would require a licence under regulation 44 of those regulations, an EPS licence. Scottish ministers in the shape of Marine Scotland are the body that would issue that licence, and it is evident that tests for that licence cannot be made without breaching the EU habitat directive. I respectfully ask the minister that you regained the vigor that the Scottish Government had in 2007 when the fourth was at threat. You have the power to stop this now. Please use the existing power over the environment to evidence and resist any threat to our precious Murray Firth, marine and wildlife, our coastal communities and the thousands of jobs that depend on it. Please confirm an EPS licence won't be issued and thereby stop ship-to-ship transfers happening in the Murray Firth. Our marine life and our coastal communities deserve no less. We now move to the open speeches, and I remind all members that during debates, even members' debates, they should always speak through the chair and not directly to each other. I call Marie Todd to be followed by Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Firstly, I would like to apologise to the chamber. I have another engagement this evening, so I will not be able to stay and hear the contributions in what I am sure will be an excellent debate. I want to start by thanking my colleague John Finnie for securing this debate on ship-to-ship transfers, a subject that is of such interest to so many of our constituents in the Highlands and Islands. All of us, I am sure, have been contacted by constituents from throughout the region. Communities are concerned about this proposal all the way up the east coast from Murray, up to Tain and all parts in between, such as Nairn, Inverness, the Black Island and Invergordon. The potential environmental impact of the venture presents serious concerns, and it is at the heart of my constituents' worries about ship-to-ship oil transfer. If the marine environment is damaged as a result of ship-to-ship oil transfer, local fishing will be harmed and the knock-on effect on tourism in the whole area could be disastrous. Those factors must be taken into account. On this occasion, the environmentalists are joined in their concerns by many people living and working in the communities on this coast. The case against this application has been made by organisations such as Cromarty Rising and local councillors such as Craig Fraser and Liz MacDonald. I cannot be the only politician in the chamber to have received many hundreds of emails and indeed personal visits from Craig Fraser. He has done an excellent job in taking this campaign forward on the Black Isle and in the wider area. With support from members of the local communities, I would like to praise them all for their work on this issue. With regard to the environmental risks, I will acknowledge that the chances of something going wrong are small and that, generally speaking, those ship-to-ship transfers are a relatively safe process. The issue here is that if something were to go wrong in this particular marine ecosystem, the consequences would be catastrophic. What many of us cannot understand is why ship-to-ship transfer at sea is being proposed at all. Ship-to-ship transfer already happens in this area. It happens already at Nigg with the ships tied up at shore. The risks are undoubtedly greater at sea, so why are the communities being asked to take those risks? What are the benefits? Those firsts are already industrialised, which brings millions of pounds to the local economy and supports jobs. Those are things that we really need in the Highlands and Islands. There is little opposition to industrial activity in general in this area. However, we all agree that sustainable development, with the contribution of all stakeholders where marine ecosystems are managed for the benefit of all, is something that we need to work towards. That is an issue that people care passionately about. I can see that when I speak to people in the Highlands and Islands about that and the people who have made the long journey down to Edinburgh today to listen to this debate and to demonstrate their opposition to ship-to-ship transfers at this Parliament. Unfortunately, none of us here in this chamber have the power to resolve this matter because it is a reserved issue. Only the UK Government can do that. So far, its response to that has been extremely disappointing. The process of resolving the issue has taken far too long. As has been mentioned, the Scottish Government does not even need to be consulted on the decision despite having responsibility for environmental issues. I am sorry, but I have no time, Mr Finlay. Many of us in the Highlands and Islands believe that the UK Government does not understand the needs of local communities. I support calls to devolve the powers over this area. I am glad that the Scottish Government will press the UK Government on that. I hope that those powers are devolved swiftly to make sure that local voices are heard and responded to and that the transparency that we pride ourselves of in this chamber in this Parliament can be brought to this matter. I call Edwin Mountain to be followed by Angus MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to refer members to my register of interest. I would also like to thank John Finlay for bringing this debate and allowing us to discuss it. Before we look at the specific petition, I would like to point out that oil transfers have been taking place in the Cromity Firth safely for over 30 years. Those transfers have been undertaking using the jetty at Nigg. The petition relates to a different proposal, which is subsequently withdrawn. The petition is based on a Cromity Port Authority application for ship-to-ship transfers in an area of the Murray Firth, which it had jurisdiction. After reading John Finlay's motion, I am concerned that the member has reached a conclusion regarding ship-to-ship transfers in the Cromity Firth Port Authority area outside of an actual proposal. I remind the Parliament that there is no current proposal, nor is there much chance that there will be one before October 2017 at the earliest, and that is not a given. With my background in land and fisheries management, I always look at proposals with a careful eye. My natural reaction, surprisingly, is to be conservative. With that in mind, I would always adopt the precautionary principle in relation to matters that may affect the environment. Thus, when it comes to looking at ship-to-ship oil transfers, my default position is to question the need for them. I also automatically look for evidence to any potential negatives. My research has indicated that there are regular ship-to-ship transfers in Shetland, and indeed there were a significant amount of transfers at Nigg, but that has and continues to take place when ships are anchored to jetties. I therefore have to ask if it is the secure birth that reduces the risks. I did look for evidence to support the claim that oil spills were a real danger, but my research indicated that in the last 10 years, oil spills from ship-to-ship transfers are rare. I looked around the whole of the UK, and it seems that transfers are quite common in some areas, but it seems that in the last 10 years there have only been three recorded spills. If I have time towards the end, I will see if I can bring you in. That would suggest that ship-to-ship oil transfers are relatively safe. Indeed, I would like to point out one fact that I think we should all remember, and that is in relation to the fourth replacement crossing. As constructed, it gives me huge concerns. If there is a spill on the oil on the bridge, it would all enter the furth, as drainage from the bridge is unfiltered and directly discharged into the furth. However, let me be clear. I understand that there will always be risk, and it is right that we consider whether the risks are acceptable or unacceptable. I am also told that there are other regulations in place to help to prevent oil spills from taking place. For example, the 2010 shipping regulations were introduced to ensure that ship oil transfers were conducted safely. Those regulations gained support from a number of organisations, such as the WWF, RSP Scotland, Well and Dolphin Conservation, to name but a few. Looking specifically at the application, I will remind Parliament that, in January 2017, the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency asked the Cromarty Firth Port Authority to withdraw and resubmit their application. The reason that the Port Authority was asked to resubmit was because of the lack of evidence on volatile organic compounds and their potential impact on ecosystems, a reasonable and good decision based on the precautionary principle. I understand that, since that date, there has been a legal challenge to the existing consent for ship-ship transfers at NIG. I also understand that that has been successfully defended by the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency. If the Cromarty Firth Port Authority are to submit a new application, I ask that they listen to the local community councils, Cromarty Rising, RSPB and Dolphin Watch to hear their concerns and make sure that they address them. If they cannot address them, they should not resubmit that application to conclude, Presiding Officer. When it comes to ship-ship transfers, I do not feel that we have heard sufficient evidence. I believe that we as MSPs need to wait to hear evidence once a further consultation has taken place, and perhaps we can revisit the debate. However, having said that, let me be clear that the lack of information at the moment means that I find ship-ship transfers in the Murray Firth a difficult proposition to support and not one that I can do. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be contributing to this debate today, although you might be wondering why an MSP that is representing Falkirk East is taking part in a debate on an issue 200 miles away. I have some form on the issue. Back in 2006-07, as a councillor representing Grangemouth on Falkirk Council, I, along with others, successfully campaigned to force forth ports to reconsider their plans for ship-to-ship oil transfers on the first of fourth. At the time, our SNP-led administration at Falkirk was also opposed and it became an issue in the 2007 hollared election campaign when Annabelle Ewing incidentally was our candidate. Thankfully, in the face of significant opposition, forth ports saw a sense and withdrew their application. I also have an interest in the issue as deputy convener of the petitions committee, where we have a live petition against the current Murray Firth proposal, which has been submitted by Greg Fullerton on behalf of Chromarty Rising. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate and thank John Finnie for ensuring that it came to the chamber for discussion. As I referred to a minute or so ago, the issue of ship-to-ship oil transfers first appeared on my radar in 2006-07, when Melbourne Marine Services proposed to introduce ship-to-ship oil transfers approximately 3.4 nautical miles south-east of Meadow in the first of fourth. At that time, the communities around the fourth coastline and the Scottish Parliament both took strong stances opposing the oil transfers, given the negative environmental impacts that they would have on marine life in and around the fourth. Such a strong stance resulted in Melbourne Marine Services aborting their attempt. Given that earlier success, I would therefore encourage colleagues in this place and the Scottish Government to take similar action now to ensure that necessary power is in place for environmental protection of our seas, protection of the tourism industry and that there is an independent check and balance on the operation of our trust ports. My constituency of Falkirk East is home to some of the first of fourth's most environmentally sensitive shorelines around Bones, Grangemouth and Eirth. My concern from a constituency point of view is that, should ship-to-ship oil transfers be allowed in the Moray First, there is no guarantee that discussions about conducting those oil transfers in the fourth would not be renewed. Ship-to-ship oil transfers have extremely negative impacts on the environment, as we have already heard, in those areas through the emission of carcinogenic volatile organic compound, and the possibility of an oil spill with the possibility of approximately two tonnes of oil spilling every second is that it does not bear thinking about. The negative impacts of ship-to-ship oil transfers could result in catastrophic destruction for the local marine life, such as the protected bottlenose dolphins in the Moray First and more. Additionally, given the geographic layout of the Moray First, there is not proper infrastructure for a disaster relief port authority team. Rather, the site for the ship-to-ship oil transfers is just a kilometre from a rocky coastline that Greg Fullerton refers to as a disaster waiting to happen. When the Cromedy First port authority submitted an application to the maritime and coastguard agency for a licence for ship-to-ship oil transfers, there was no strategic environmental assessment conducted. That means that there has been no consideration of the special protection for birds and bottlenose dolphins in this area, whose environment would be negatively affected if not entirely destroyed by an oil transfer spillage. Of course, the Scottish Parliament would better be able to protect the environment in those areas if we were given the devolved powers over the licence application for ship-to-ship oil transfers, as we have been requesting since 2014. Instead, the Scottish Government, Marine Scotland and SIPA are left with only the power to protect the environment to the best of their abilities in the wake of Westminster's ill-considered decision. I urge the Scottish Government to consider implementing an independent oversight of the Cromedy Port Authority to ensure that local community and port stakeholders are given better representation and transparency, as there is a concern out there that trust ports are policing themselves. As I understand it, 27 Highlands and Islands Community Councils, seven NGOs and 100,000 community members have signed a petition against the ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Murray Firth, yet the Cromedy Port Authority seems to have paid no attention. I realise I'm running out of time, Presiding Officer, but if I could just quickly say, it's worth noting that the Port Authority receives its funding and is owned by private companies, an issue that's highlighted by the fact that the Cromedy Firth Port Authority has refused to attend public meetings, as I understand it, and I've only been to one privately held meeting where meeting minutes were not allowed to be recorded. As John Finnie has already mentioned, ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Murray Firth would bring no new jobs to the Cromedy Community, only environmental risks and uncertainty. I would urge the Scottish Government not to support the licence application and to take every step that it can to protect the Murray Firth marine life, and I would also urge the Scottish Government to once again request that the UK Government considers providing Scotland with this devolved power so that we can control the environmental impacts in our own country, rather than just react to them. I feel that I'm getting taken a terrible advantage of here. Thankfully, it's been cross-party. Can we try and pull it back a wee bit? Claudia Beamish, followed by Kate Forbes. I want to start by thanking John Finnie for bringing this issue to the Scottish Parliament and for his informative speech. Are coastal and marine environments globally renowned for their dramatic beauty? Marine tourism is an expanding sector that John Finnie has highlighted the local facts about, and I want to highlight a few national ones for Scotland-wide. It's fantastic that Scotland is able to offer a plethora of options, attracting nature lovers, thrill seekers, families and those who simply want to relax. The sector is valued Scotland-wide at £360 million in 2014, a huge boon for coastal communities and economies, especially in the Highlands and Islands. Whatever floats your boat in the marine tourism sector, a clean and diverse marine environment is the linchpin. Nature-based tourism contributes £127 million a year, but any marine activity would be damaged by a diminished environment, whatever its source. The Cromity and Murray Firths are, as we've heard, areas of environmental significance. Both play host to a number of protected seabirds such as shags and grebes, also to grey seals and harbour porposes, and a pot of bottlenose dolphins are a favourite for visitors and residents of the Murray Firth. In fact, the two Firths are special places for wildlife, and they fall under a number of environmental protection designations, designated as EU Natura 2000 special sites of conservation, special protection areas and the Cromity Firth is a site of a special scientific interest for intertidal mud and sandflats. On-going research highlights some of the areas that are significant for blue carbon, which I know the minister and myself have been pushing for through the climate change plan. Already, those unique areas are under pressure from the effects of our changing climate and other recognised threats to marine ecosystems. In my view, the additional risk of ship-to-ship transfer needs very careful assessment indeed. Even a small accidental oil spill could have a devastating impact on those habitats and it would undo the climate mitigation progress of blue carbon as well. This debate is a valuable way of highlighting the range of concerns and some opposing community views. Cromity Rising has worked hard, as we've heard, in defence of those habitats, and the campaign has the support of 27 community councils and the testament of the journey that people have made today also speaks volumes. Not only is there the petition to the UK Secretary of State for Transport, is there a listening ear there? There is also, of course, the petition before our own Parliament. Those community groups feel that they have not been consulted, that questions surrounding the proposal remain unanswered. They highlight the insufficient assessment of the first biodiversity habitats and people in relation to spills, volatile organic compounds and the economic impact. While the licences for those transfers remain reserved, we rely on the Secretary of State to consider the environmental impacts and not to proceed if there are those adverse impacts. RSPB Scotland has highlighted to me that, in its view, the Cromity Firth Port Authority's proposal fails to meet the habitat's directive tests, which are statutory, as there is insufficient information available to enable the decision to be taken and to ensure the integrity of wildlife sites. I also understand that the Port Authority has, and it argues, worked to address the use of concern. There are concerns from them and some local residents in the locality that the Port Authority should be considered for the local economy. However, that does not detract from the fact that the decision, although it is, of course, reserved, must be fully assessed. It has not been fully assessed yet, so, under a new application, it must be fully assessed. It is interesting that John Finnie has also highlighted, which I did not know until his speech, that the Port Authority is working with NIG to see whether there is a possibility of a jetty transfer, which would make much more sense and give better protection. My own view is that this application, if resubmitted, would be a risk too far. With a picture of people speaking for too long and my forgetting to set the clock for Ms Beamish, my apologies for that. Therefore, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8143 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. May I ask John Finnie to move such a motion? The question is, are we agreed to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes? Thank you. Therefore, we shall. That is agreed. I call Kate Forbes to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank John Finnie, too, for securing this important debate today. I support many of my constituents on the Black Isle, many of whom are in the gallery today, and seek to represent their concerns in opposing ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Murray and Cromarty Firths. That is an area of key significance with rich wildlife and a marine environment. Indeed, it is an EU-designated area for bottlenose dolphins. Villages like Cromarty at the end of the road, as it were on the Black Isle, rely on tourism, particularly eco-tourism. It is a place that draws in visitors and residents alike because of the riches and the wealth of the natural environment. As Mary Todd highlighted, there is one big question at the heart of this debate, and that is why. Why risk it? Are there really any benefits that are worth those significant risks of allowing ship-to-ship transfers in the Murray and Cromarty Firths? Although I did not don a dolphin costume, I was pleased to join the Cromarty Rising rally outside Parliament in January, and I was also pleased to support the group as they submitted their petition on ship-to-ship oil transfers and trust port accountability to the Public Petitions Committee in March. It is clear that that is a complex subject, and the expertise among those in Cromarty Rising has really helped to bring that to the fore and raise the profile of that issue. Many legitimate issues have been raised. The Public Petitions Committee has written to the Scottish Government and other relevant stakeholders like Marine Scotland, and I look forward to reading their responses to the petitioner's pertinent questions and hope that some answers will be given when the committee picks up the petition again later this month. It is clear that the initial application did not meet the standards that are expected, and there is no current application. John Finnie has already alluded to it, but there was a mathematical conundrum at the heart of the application. When Briggs Marine, a reputable and respected marine services company, conducted an assessment of another ship-to-ship proposal in another part of Scotland, they stated that the maximum oil spill would be the ship's entire load, and for the Murray and Cromarty Firths, we are talking 180,000 tonnes of crude oil. However, at the stroke of a pen, that figure was reduced to one ton in the application. That is no doubt partly what prompted the First Minister to say a few months ago that, on the basis of the evidence so far, the Scottish Government was unconvinced that ship-to-ship oil transfers could or should take place without causing risk to the environment, particularly to bottle-nosed dolphins. She continued, and I quote the Scottish Government. Here is the concerns of those communities, and we will do anything we can to make sure that they are heard by the Marine Coast Guard Agency while campaigning for the issue to be devolved. I am grateful for the member taking intervention, and she will be aware of the concerns of her constituents about the unexploded munitions that Rose Markey recently washed up there. I understand that, given its naval background, that is the case at the proposed anchorage point. Does she share my concerns that, at the very least, she should be part of the assessment and a formal done by the appropriate people? Kate Forbes? Yes, I understand where John Finnie is coming from. I am aware of those issues, and I think that the key in all of this is that all facts need to be on the table when looking at those issues and nothing should be sneaked through without proper consultation. Proper consultation with the Scottish Government means a proper formal consultation in terms of asking for the Scottish Government's view on all of those issues in an effort to enable what Nicola Sturgeon clearly asks for in terms of the issues and concerns of local communities being listened to by the Marine Coast Guard Agency. Can I finish with a word of advice to any prospective developers out there? It is a principle that can equally apply to other planning applications, be it in the middle of the water or in dry land. As the MSP for Skylach Abernbarnoch, I am passionate about small Highland communities having a voice when it comes to decisions being taken on their doorsteps. Chromarty Rising has certainly made their voice heard, loud and clear. It is incredible that more than 100,000 people and the number keeps rising have signed a petition on a 38-degrees website. Whatever the issue and whatever the outcome, developers, planners and decision makers must not neglect to engage with local communities and listen. I am not against ship-to-ship transfers per se, but in the right place with the right scientific evidence. On both counts, I feel that the application, the former application for the Chromarty and Murray Firth, has not met the high standards that we should impose on any development in an area of national environmental importance. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Gail Ross. I thank John Finnie for securing this topical and important debate. On average, 20 ship-to-ship oil transfer operations occur at various places around the world each day. In Scotland, they take place at Scapa Flow in Orkney, Nyg in the Chromarty Firth and Sullenvaux in Shetland and have done for many years. The port of Chromarty Firth applied for a licence to do such transfers in five new locations within the harbour area. A group called Chromarty Rising presented public petition PE01637 with over 100,000 signatures from people across the region and the world to Chris Grayling opposing the application. Like others, I welcome them to the chamber and, as the motion and indeed Kate Forbes just said, getting so many signatures is an extraordinary achievement. The motion today also suggests that the locations are completely unsuitable for such operations. Of course, that is predicated on an environmental analysis in which something goes wrong, because logistically, the locations may well be suitable, although I note that the withdrawn proposal showed to see was quite shallow at the proposed anchorages. The suitability for bigger ships, which would presumably be the only ones that make it viable, has to be questionable. I also note that there is a war grave under the proposed site, which I think John Finnie was alluding to in his intervention. Since the 1980s, the port of Chromarty Firth has been involved in the safe handling of oil tankers, with an estimated 250 ship-to-ship oil transfers being made where. That is 175 million barrels of oil equivalent, safely transferred into tankers and shipped to global markets. It is not new technology, it is not new processes, but it is good for the economy. However, accidents can occur, and we must consider what would happen if ships were to collide during transfer, the impact of any ballast water being discharged and any potential oil spills. The Brayer incident in 1993, which was alluded to earlier, and the two sullen vaux spills in 2009 show that it can happen. Following the Brayer incident, a UK Government inquiry made a number of key recommendations aimed at improving safety and minimising pollution, the thrust of which were subsequently adopted. Then, the merchant shipping ship-to-ship transfers regulations were introduced to ensure that transfers are carefully monitored and well regulated. Those were supported by a number of significant NGOs, including RSBB Scotland, Wales and Dolphin Conservation, Hebridean Wales and Dolphin Trust and the Marine Conservation Society. Robust operational procedures and mitigation measures are also in place to help to prevent accidental spills during ship-to-ship transfers, including checking weather conditions, carrying out safety checklists of all equipment, pre-meetings with the relevant parties to agree a transfer plan, use of a qualified STS superintendent to oversee the transfer and transfer between ships undertaken using industry standard certified hoses. Only when all procedures have been followed does a transfer take place. In the unlikely event of an oil spill, an oil spill contingency plan, which was approved by the MCA, is in place, which mitigates against environmental impact. According to the international maritime organisation, ship-to-ship transfers are low risk and can be carried out safely where due regard is given to the various regulations. However, the chromaty and Murray first are a beautiful and vital part of Scotland, and I accept the motion's reference to environmental significance. They are home to rare species and habitats, and particularly in relation to tourism are an extremely valuable part of the Scottish economy, none of which must be adversely impacted by any actions, including ship-to-ship transfers. Deputy Presiding Officer, if another licence application is submitted, the views and concerns of stakeholders and local residents must be valued and a full consultation with communities take place. It is imperative that there is full involvement from the MCA and CEPA so that we can strike the right balance between economic growth and job creation for the Highlands, whilst maintaining the highest standards of environmental protection and sustainability. I call Gail Ross to be followed by the last of our open debate speakers. That will be Matt Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would also like to welcome and pay tribute to the people in the gallery who have travelled such a long way, including some of my former colleagues from Highland Council and those watching at home for a focused and passionate campaign. Thank you for all your correspondence and information. I would also like to thank John Finnie for bringing this debate to the Scottish Parliament. Presiding Officer, after so many speakers, I do not need to go into why we are here, because we know why. It has been said that ship-to-ship oil transfers happen every day, perfectly safely all over the world. This we know and this is not in dispute. Ship-to-ship oil transfers in an area of such high environmental significance, however, are extremely controversial. This prospective application has raised concerns among the communities on all sides of the Firth, and that is the focus of today's motion. Oil transfers, as has been said, have been carried out in the Cromarty Firth for a number of years, but are the relative safely of the neggetae, with ships tied up. Unfortunately, that is no longer feasible, but I also got the email to say that the port of Cromarty Firth is exploring that option further, and that is to be welcomed. The difference with the operation that is being proposed is that there would be a transfer of crude oil in open waters with ships at anchor close to the shore and right on the breeding ground of a pod of bottlenose dolphins in an area of significant environmental importance. This area of my constituency holds a hugely valuable ecosystem, and I cannot impress enough how important this environment is to the local community, its significance in the marine science world, and to Scotland—not just the local economy, but to Scotland—as a tourist destination. In December, hundreds of people gathered on the beach at Nairn to protest at the plans, and 27 community councils from all around the Firth have opposed it. Businesses, residents and organisations have all voiced their concerns about the proposed application, and they currently feel that they are not being listened to, despite the port insisting that it is listening, consulting and engaging. The port of Cromarty Firth has to take on board all of the concerns from the community, from the RSPB, from the whale and dolphin conservation, and it is not just about an oil spill. The Scottish Wildlife Trust, SNH and SEPA have raised concerns about biosecurity, ballast discharge, recovery of beached oil, tidal flows and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland are also worried about the environment and tourism. All of those organisations are concerned about the contingency measures and the consequences of spills or fumes harming the fragile ecosystem of the area. I do not want to see cetaceans being euthanised because of an accidental spill—it would be devastating. As it stands currently, we await the new application to see how or indeed if it addresses the concerns of the communities, and I feel very strongly that the port and the community have to work together on this. There has to be an appropriate assessment under the European Environment and Habitat Directive. That is a vital part of the application that was lacking first time around. In conclusion and with your permission, I quote from a letter sent and reply to the letter that Kate Forbes and I sent to the Department for Transport in January, which clearly states that the Scottish Government will be informed of the final decision before it is made public. It is a reserve matter. It is a decision to be made by the MCA and the UK Government, but I fully support the call for the Scottish Government to have the full powers of devolution over all oil and sea transfer licences, which, as I said, remains a reserve matter. We need this power and we need it now. I call Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleague John Finnie for bringing forward this important topic for debate here tonight. It certainly brings back memories from 2006 when we had the first ship-to-ship oil transfer members' debate in this chamber, brought forward by Robin Harper. There are, of course, some differences and some similarities between the issues and also the members, but certainly at that time ship-to-ship oil transfers were the biggest environmental threat facing Scotland, with communities on every side of the forth rising up against the threat to their environment and their livelihoods. It was not just communities around the forth who voiced concerns. Communities around Scotland, including ironically those around the Moray Firth, recognised the forth proposal as a trojan horse for a surgeon oil transfer as an open water around our coasts. There was the concern about harbour authorities with deep conflicts of interest between their profit-making desires and their environmental duties. There was confusion about the fuzzy boundary between Westminster and Holyrood powers, and there was frustration by lack of action from the then Scottish executive when they had clear devolved responsibilities to defend our precious environment. The question is, what exactly has changed since then? It seems very little. The Smith commission failed to resolve the Scottish Parliament's clear devolved powers on the environment with those reserved on marine transport, so the fuzzy boundary remains. We still have no planned approach across the British Isles as to where it is appropriate, if anywhere, to carry out those transfers in open water rather than in the protected confines of a harbour. Meanwhile, the failure of the Westminster Government to even consult the Scottish Government on the live review of the ship-to-ship oil transfer regulations makes an absolute mockery of the shared governance arrangements that we have. Who knows? Maybe the Secretary of State for Transport took Marine Scotland out of his address book when they failed to respond to the original licence application for the chromaty transfers in 2015—a grave error in my view. What is clear is that, under any constitutional settlement that we could think of in this chamber, there has to be a better way to manage our shared seas, the economic opportunities and the environmental responsibilities that come with it. In response to the fourth debacle, the fresh Scottish Government under Environment Minister Richard Lockhead in 2007, who I do not think is here at this debate tonight, amended the regulations to ensure that ministers are able to direct competent authorities to properly assess the wide-ranging risks to protected habitats. The law change for those who can remember it was much heralded by the Scottish Government at the time, but now when I ask a written question on the use of these beefed-up powers, the answer is that they cannot use them. So why bring them in in the first place, especially under the argument at the time that this change would be used to get a grip on an ambitious oil transfer industry? I wonder now what other powers are apparently redundant, minister. Is it the case that whenever a dolphin protected under EU law is going to be disturbed by oil transfers, then the Scottish Government is no longer required to sanction this? Are we retreating from our hard-won protections for nature? There are many questions still to be answered, especially around the role of SNH. I wish the Petitions Committee well in exploring them and hope that the current petition will be passed on to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for further forensic examination. In concluding, Presiding Officer, Cromity Rising and their community should be applauded. They are Scotland's standing rock. We in this Parliament must now rise to their challenge and find a way to protect our environment, otherwise we will go back to square one again in this chamber in another decade. I call Paul Wheelhouse to respond to this debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank John Finnie for bringing the question of ship-to-ship transfers to the debating chamber and providing me with the opportunity to congratulate Cromity Rising, as he did, for getting more than 100,000 signatures on their petition to the Secretary of State for Transport. A significant achievement in its own right, and I agree with members who have highlighted that point. I take to heart the very real concern of communities who live around the Moray and Cromity First over the application from the Cromity First Port Authority to undertake ship-to-ship transfers of crude oil at sea in our Moray Firth. The point that has been made by a number of members at stake is not the ship-to-ship transfers, but the manner in which they are being proposed to be done in open waters, which has raised concerns with a number of members across the chamber. However, as John Finnie and Kate Forbes have stated, the First Minister made our position clear on 12 January, and that has not changed. Based on the current information, we remain unconvinced that ship-to-ship oil transfers can or should take place anchor in the Inner Moray Firth without an unacceptable risk to the marine environment, in particular to the special area of conservation for bottlenose dolphins. However, I have to make absolutely clear, for it is something that does need to be made clear, and I am pleased that a number of members have highlighted this, that the Scottish Government has no powers over the decision-making process for any application for oil transfer licenses, and I will try to set out some of the background to that. The regulations under which such applications are considered is a matter that is currently reserved to the Secretary of State for Transport. As Angus MacDonald set out in 2007, there were concerns over the risk to the environment from a similar plan in the Firth of Forth. At that point in time, the regulatory regime for ship-to-ship oil transfers was lacking in its entirety. As a consequence of our action, the UK Government implemented the merchant ship-to-ship transfers regulations in 2010. The introduction of those new regulations put in place a process designed to ensure that the consideration of future applications would be publicly accountable. It also created provisions to ensure compliance with environmental impact assessment requirements and the EU Habitats Directive. Whilst we pressed for action and succeeded in getting better regulation of the activity, the UK Government failed to devolve responsibility for Scottish territorial waters to the Scottish Government. To be absolutely clear, the regulations currently do not provide any formal role for Scottish ministers in this matter, even for applications in our own waters. We are not even recognised as a consultation body as per section 2 of the 2010 act. John Finnie I am grateful for the minister accepting intervention. Would he care to comment in my analogy about nuclear power stations minister? Are you saying that there is absolutely nothing that SEPA SNH in Marine Scotland, the marine plan has no relevance to any of this? Is that the position? That is a dereliction of duty, as I would see things. Paul Beithas I take the point that Mr Finnie is making, but in the case of whether there is planning consent for new nuclear power stations, the Scottish Government, ultimately the local authority in Scottish Government, is the planning authority in that respect. In that respect, in terms of the role that the Scottish Government has in this process, we do not have planning powers in relation to this particular case, and it is the MCA itself that does it. I am going to explain a little bit more about our approach to this, and hopefully that will be helpful to Mr Finnie. As I said, the decision whether to issue a ship to ship oil transfer licence in the Scottish territorial waters is currently reserved to Secretary of State for Transport, as many members have acknowledged under the terms of the act. The Scottish Government will of course continue to press the UK Government for devolution of this important function for Scottish waters. That broader consideration of whether the function should be devolved does not resolve the current issue in the Murray Firth, of course. However, there are some things that can be done to ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport has held fully to account in the decision making process. First, we can insist that the Secretary of State for Transport takes full account of the statutory advice given by Scottish Natural Heritage, who is the only Scottish body currently recognised by the regulations. I am aware that the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has also provided advice, and I would hope that that should also be taken into account by the Secretary of State for Transport. Secondly, and importantly, we can continue to press the Secretary of State for Transport to, at the very least, formally invite the Scottish Government to respond to a revised application. That would enable us to provide our view regarding the extent to which relevant environmental legislation has been complied with. Thirdly, we can call upon the Secretary of State for Transport to listen to the concerns raised in the petition, as well as to the heartfelt protest of the local people that are represented here in the gallery who have been making their opposition known both here and on the beaches of the Murray Firth. It has also become apparent that the Secretary of State for Transport has recently undertaken a light-touch review of the regulations. I am sorry to say remarkably, given the well-documented interest in such matters on the part of the Scottish Government again, they did not think it necessary to inform or even consult the Scottish Government in that review. Needless to say, we are very disappointed at that mystifying emission by the Secretary of State for Transport. Our feelings on the matter have been made absolutely clear to him and I stress that. I will, indeed. Gail Ross. Can you outline if the local authorities have any say in the proposed application? Paul Hill has. As far as I am aware, the only formal consultation body in relation to the legislation as it stands is SNH. Clearly, local authorities will have expressed a view, I am sure, in relation to the proposals. Again, I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board legitimate views of local stakeholders. However, in relation to the governance of trust ports, which has come up, the trust port model is held in high regard by ministers, the industry and members of this Parliament. That support was clearly demonstrated through the approval of the Aberdeen Harbour revision order and the Harbour Scotland Act 2015. Trust ports are statutory bodies in their own right, and their constitution requires them to ensure that the harbour facilities are fit for purpose and are secured for future generations. There are no shareholders, and any profits made must be returned to the harbour for this purpose. That means that trust ports are operating within a commercial and often competitive environment, and it is for their boards to ensure that they operate effectively in this way, but also ensuring that they are complying with the power set out in the legislation. Although there are no shareholders, there are a wide range of stakeholders, and we expect trust ports to take their views into account. Those stakeholders will vary from port to port, but will certainly include the port users, the local authority and the local communities. I have made clear that, regrettably, the responsibility for this reserve matter rests with the Secretary of State for Transport, not Scottish ministers. However, I assure members that we will continue to make best efforts to ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport is held to account in a decision making process, and I suggest that all stakeholders do exactly the same. I will ensure that any Scottish Government response to a future application highlights the need to comply with environmental legislation and echoes the many concerns raised today by members across the chamber and the concerns raised by Scottish natural heritage and local communities. I trust that the Secretary of State for Transport will listen and determine the matter for the good of Scotland, its vibrant coastal communities and the precious marine environment that we all rely on. Members in the chamber could not have been clearer about the importance of wildlife tourism to the local economy, clearly concerns around SSIs, as Claudia Beamish has set out, and concerns about the issues about potentially creating a precedent for other estuaries around the coast of Scotland, including the Firth of Forth, as raised by my colleague Angus MacDonald. I hope that the Secretary of State listens to the points that have been raised today by members across the chamber from all parties and thinks very carefully about the application when it is subsequently submitted. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.