Ministers Dazed and Confused Over Oil Transfer Powers
Thu., February 22, 2007. 15:26.
Law must change to give ministers more power
Mark Ruskell
The need for Executive ministers to ensure that they - and not the company Forth Ports - are the final arbiters on the Firth of Forth oil transfer proposal is more urgent than ever, Greens said today. It follows Greens' co-leader Robin Harper's challenge to Jack McConnell at First Minister Questions today urging him to intervene following revelations that one of the companies involved, SPT Marine, was responsible for a 35,000 gallon oil spill in 1995. (1)
McConnell appeared to contradict deputy environment minister Sarah Boyack in claiming that SNH will decide if a licence is needed for the oil transfers. Ms Boyack had previously told the Environment Committee that it is Forth Ports that decides if a licence should be sought. (2)
When challenged today to urgently intervene in the matter, Mr McConnell replied that Forth Ports would be "guided by the advice of SNH in particular in relation to the Habitats Directive for example" and that "if SNH decides that FP need a licence in relations to some aspects of that decision, then that decision will be referred to ourselves."
Green MSP Mark Ruskell has led the campaign to stop the transfers. He said, "There is confusion and inaction at the heart of the Executive's response to the oil threat. We need clarity on the Executive's existing powers, but ministers also need to change the law to give them the final say rather than unelected, unaccountable companies such as Forth Ports plc. Greedy corporations are running roughshod over the environment while Labour and LibDem ministers refuse to step in and protect Forth communities."
ENDS
Notes
1. See http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/id/5609/title/Forth_Oil_Transfer_Company_039_misleads_039_Parliament_On_Oil_Spill_Record.html
2. Extracts from official report on meeting of Environment Committee, February 7, 2007: column 4097, bold added: Mr Ruskell: We have heard this morning about the licensing of activities that disturb European protected species. I am trying to get clarity about the exact process and the involvement and responsibility of the Scottish Executive in it. As you said, Forth Ports is the competent authority. Is it correct to say that, if Forth Ports makes an appropriate assessment and determines that the activity will not have a significant impact on protected species, it does not have to ask you to decide whether a licence is required? Sarah Boyack: I understand that that is correct. Forth Ports may have to defend the decision, should someone not agree with it. Mr Ruskell: Thank you for that clarification. If appropriate assessment has been concluded and there are differences of opinion between SNH and Forth Ports, at the end of the day Forth Ports will make the final decision on the assessment. If you and your advisers shared SNH's view that there would be damage and that a licence should be applied for, but Forth Ports, which is the competent authority, said that there was no problem, what legal responsibility would you have? Sarah Boyack: That is a theoretical question, because we are not at that point. Earlier in the meeting: Eleanor Scott: If ship-to-ship transfer goes ahead and is subsequently found to be in breach of the habitats directive, what would the consequences be? What would be done to whom as a result of the directive having been breached? Iain Rennick: I guess that, ultimately, the Executive would bear the responsibility and infraction proceedings could begin against the United Kingdom Government. Eleanor Scott: So although the Executive has not had a role in deciding whether the proposal goes ahead, it would be the body that would be found to be in breach of the habitats directive. Iain Rennick: That is my understanding.
Contact the Scottish Greens' press team on 07909 933 074.