Emails cast doubt on Scottish Government's public statements

The Scottish Government has claimed that it has not been consulted over the plan but documents released under Freedom of Information reveal that Marine Scotland, the government body responsible for the nation's seas, had been approached by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), which was considering the application.

Departments at Holyrood also consulted on the plans with discussions over what position ministers should take in which serious environmental concerns were raised.

Officials prepared four drafts of a public statement, only for it to be blocked by a senior civil servant.

Ministers were not being briefed initially.

HIGHLAND port bosses have revised plans to seek a licence for ship-to-ship (STS) oil transfers in an environmentally sensitive area after the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) rejected their initial application.

Cromarty Firth Port Authority (CFPA) was forced back to the drawing board after the MCA told it to undertake a “full public consultation” on the application first made in 2015.

In a statement, the MCA said: “The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has directed Cromarty Firth Port Authority to withdraw the application made in 2015 and submit a new application.

The identity of individuals and even departments have been redacted, but the Cromarty Rising campaign group say there is enough to demonstrate officials were eager to be supportive of the port authority’s application.

This despite it being a major departure from established practice of transferring oil between tankers securely tied alongside nearby Nigg jetty. The port authority’s plan was, and still is, for it to be done between vessels at anchor in open water , at one of the most important locations for dolphins in Europe and close to other designated conservation sites.

The issue of whether the Scottish Government had been consulted was raised in the House of Commons in February 2016 by Ian Blackford, SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, who had been told “The Scottish Government is not aware of being directly approached by the UK Government during the consultation on the Cromarty Firth, oil transfers.”

But a letter from Sir Alan Massey, MCA Chief Executive on April 4 2016, makes clear the MCA’s view was that the Scottish Government in the form of Marine Scotland had indeed been officially consulted, and early.

Sir Alan Wrote “On December 9 2015, the day before opening the public consultation, the CFPA application was sent directly to Scottish Government officials at Marine Scotland, SEPA, SNH, the Highland Council and the RSPB in order to seek their views," The others responded but there was no feedback from Marine Scotland. Sir Alan said when contacted by the MCA on February 11 2016 Marine Scotland said "they had seen the application information but did not intend submitting a response.”

The internal documents show that in fact there had been a busy exchange of emails between officials from the beginning of January 2016 onwards, about what the Scottish Government’s position should be.

On January 8 one specifically says “Scottish Ministers have been asked to comment on the application and SNH will be responding in due course..”

It also suggests any official line is supportive of the plan by saying “We note this application from CFPA who, like other Scottish Harbour Authorities have a successful track record in safely undertaking this type of operation for many years.”

But it goes on to say responsibility lay with “The UK Government through the MCA”, clearly accepting the MCA was acting for UK ministers.

However it also underlines “I should add we haven’t been to ministers on this.”

On January 25 Marine Scotland was ready to respond. The then Cabinet Secretary for the environment Richard Lochhead was advised to remain neutral. The 'line' was to be that the CFPA application was an extension to what was being done already.

But the next day a change was announced: “I have discussed with [REDACTED] at P and H (ports and harbours) and, in line with much of what is said, she has advised that we don’t respond, and that this is in line with what we’ve have now established as an SG line. It would seem inappropriate to proceed with a response."

Duncan Bowers of Cromarty Rising said: "The FOI clearly shows that not only were Marine Scotland consulted but also that they put a significant amount of work into preparing a response to the consultation. One document alone contains 160 pages of email transcripts pertaining to the matter. Many of the concerns raised by Marine Scotland back up the concerns Cromarty Rising have been highlighting for the past 15 months.

"These concerns have effectively be buried by Scottish Government officials with Scottish ministers, MSP, MP's and the public being misled."

But a Scottish Government spokesman said: “These documents do not support the claims which have been made, The Scottish Government was not consulted by the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to Port of Cromarty Firth’s original application.

“However, we expect to be invited to respond to a revised application. Our response to the UK Government will reflect the strong views expressed by local communities. On the basis of the current information, Ministers remain unconvinced that ship to ship transfers should take place.”

John Finnie, Highlands and Islands Green MSP said

“These disclosures indicate a serious malaise at the heart of government. It’s vital we understand exactly who knew what and when and, if information was withheld from Ministers, who sanctioned it, why and what action the Scottish Government proposes.

“I will be raising this matter again in Parliament and hope to have some clarity on these matters in advance of my Member’s debate which will be scheduled for early next month.”