The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-04277, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, on protecting marine life during unexploded ordnance removal. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes reports that there are 100,000 tonnes of unexploded ordnance in waters around the UK, which are relics of the first and second world wars; recognises that the presence of bombs, mines and shells in the waters around Shetland and the whole of Scotland pose potential obstructions to offshore projects; understands that the current common method of disposing of these devices involves powerful explosives that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, a statutory adviser of the UK and Scottish governments, acknowledges can be very loud; notes the concerns of campaigners that this can seriously disrupt and threaten marine mammals, which use sound to find food, socialise and navigate, and can suffer hearing loss, other physical damage, and death as a result of loud sounds; further notes the reports that connect clearances with mass strandings; acknowledges the campaign for the adoption of available low-impact methods of disposal, such as low-order deflagration, which it understands have the support of Whale and Dolphin Conservation and other organisations; notes the calls for new guidance from Marine Scotland and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and what it considers as the potential benefits of this for low-impact disposal methods and enhanced protection of marine life, and highlights the event that was hosted in the Scottish Parliament informing MSPs about the issue in April 2022.
17:10
I thank members for taking an interest in this debate, and I thank the minister for attending on behalf of the Scottish Government and for her time when we met a few weeks ago to discuss this matter.
Whether through the provision of food, energy or fascinating wildlife, for centuries, the coast and seas of Scotland have been bountiful. As we continue to expand the use of our seas, we are met with increasingly difficult challenges that risk not only 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 United Kingdom, many of which are in the areas designated for offshore wind farms. These 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. I am sure that the crew of the Lerwick lifeboat remember it too, because two fishermen were lost as a consequence of dragging up that torpedo.
As we continue to build more infrastructure at sea to help meet our net zero targets, the sea bed must be surveyed and cleared. Encountering UXOs increases the risk to us and the environment. They are usually cleared by high-order detonations, where a countercharge 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 systems of marine mammals, and they can impact on animals up to 30km away from a blast. The explosions also leave craters in the sea bed, while the remnants of toxins and explosives scatter through the water and can enter the food chain.
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 process is less disruptive, reduces acoustic output by 20 decibels and the affected area is reduced to 750m. After the UXO is made safe, what is left can be removed from the seabed by remotely operated underwater vehicles.
The Scottish Government is awaiting analysis from a Danish navy trial of low-order deflagration that 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 be 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 a champion in this Parliament. We learn more about those fascinating animals and other marine mammals every day, not least through the reports on the Shetland orca sightings Facebook page. We know that marine mammals rely heavily on their auditory systems and that they are intelligent and social creatures. Harm to these auditory systems can disrupt navigation, feeding and communication, and noise trauma can cause permanent hearing loss and is thought to lead to mass strandings.
I am enjoying the member’s contribution. Can she tell me whether anyone has studied the impact of exploding ordnance on commercial fish stocks or spawning grounds? In any event, will the minister address that in her closing speech?
I think there is concern, although I have focused this debate primarily on orcas and cetaceans.
A report into the 2011 incident at the Kyle of Durness, where 39 long-finned pilot whales became stranded, leading to 19 deaths, revealed that noise from munition disposal operations in the area at the time was the probable cause of the strandings and deaths. As we see the stress that climate change is placing on our natural environment and we develop more at sea to tackle the climate crisis, is it not our responsibility to ensure that that expansion does not further damage populations of marine mammals and other sea life?
Could the minister confirm that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to end the use of all high-order detonations for UXOs that are 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.
The minister is aware of my concerns about ensuring that Marine Scotland is well resourced to carry out its pivotal role in safeguarding what happens in our seas. Along with many other responsibilities, the body issues licences for the clearance of unexploded munitions in Scottish waters. Will it be able to fill that 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 enforcing UXO licences in real time? Transparency is vital in a regulated approach to new technologies. Without it, how do we advance or improve them?
The expectation of the Scottish Government and other UK regulators who signed up to the unexploded ordnance clearance joint interim 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 am keen to work with the Scottish Government to create a position that is binding and enforceable to help protect sea life and marine mammals.
I thank the Stop Sea Blasts campaign for its assistance and for coming to Parliament last month to hold an event to highlight this important topic, and I thank the MSPs who came along to find out about UXOs and their impact on the marine environment.
17:17
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and congratulate Beatrice Wishart on securing it.
Increasing development in the marine environment is leading to the discovery of a greater number of undetonated munitions. Clearance of unexploded ordnance is commonly undertaken by high-order detonation, as Beatrice Wishart described, which uses a controlled explosion that leads to loud blasts and disturbs protected marine mammals. I agree with Beatrice Wishart that such blasts cause a huge welfare concern to marine life and to our natural marine environment.
Since 2019, I have been raising my concerns over the levels of unexploded ordnance items that are washing ashore across beaches and coastal areas in Dumfries and Galloway. Although exact figures are not available, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Royal Navy bomb disposal unit have reported that the number of unexploded ordnance items washing ashore is increasing. While the exact reasons for that remain unclear, expert opinion suggests that it may be due to a combination of sea levels rising, increasing offshore projects such as the construction of offshore wind turbines and increased marine traffic.
Beaufort’s Dyke is a national deepwater trench located in the north channel of the Irish Sea between Ireland and Portpatrick in the south-west of Scotland. It is widely understood that, at the end of the second world war, instead of surplus unexploded munitions being dumped directly in Beaufort’s Dyke, which was approved as a dump site, the weapons were often dumped outside or around the site to save money and time. It is therefore little wonder that we are now discovering more unexploded ordnance washing ashore.
According to the Ministry of Defence, over 50,000 tonnes of explosives are disposed of in Beaufort’s Dyke. In July 1945 alone, 14,500 tonnes of 5-inch, 130mm artillery rockets filled with phosgene gas were dumped. In addition, according to documents from the Public Record Office, approximately 2 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—the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Defence—to ask whether a risk assessment of the stability of Beaufort’s Dyke and the area 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 as a dump site in the future.
Unsurprisingly, other than one response from the MOD indicating that it believes Beaufort’s Dyke to be safe and to pose no threat, I have had no response from the Scottish or defence secretaries and, therefore, I repeat my calls for Beaufort’s Dyke to receive a full safety inspection. That would not only reassure constituents but protect our marine environment. The RSPB’s director, Anne McCall, has shared concerns over the impact of undersea explosions on sea life.
Alternatives to high-order detonation are now available on the commercial market. Some alternatives have been developed or are being developed in a military context and are not used commercially, whereas others have been developed purely for industry use. Those alternatives require the use of explosive material to effect clearance, but in much smaller volumes than the donor charges required for high-order detonation. Alternative methods cause lower noise levels, which reduces the impacts on the marine environment. I agree with Beatrice Wishart that their use is welcome and I ask the minister to do all that she can to press the UK Government to make use of those alternatives as standard practice.
I repeat my calls on the UK Government to carry out a full safety inspection of Beaufort’s Dyke and I ask the minister to press the UK Government to use proven alternatives to high-order detonation.
17:21
I too thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing the debate to the chamber and giving the Parliament the opportunity to speak on the subject.
We absolutely should do all that 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 ordnance 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 that ordnance lies buried in areas that are now being designated for potential offshore wind construction, which 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 for clearing unexploded ordnance, and many require contractors to offer low-order deflagration as a process that can burn out a bomb and the likes without detonation. In that process, a magnesium cone is fired at the munition, causing its explosive content to ignite and burn out from within, without a damaging explosion, resulting in significantly lower noise emissions. It is a largely unknown fact that noise levels depend only 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.
It is worth mentioning that marine planning and protection is devolved to the Scottish Government, which means that it falls within the responsibility of ministers in Scotland to regulate on the issue. The use of explosives within the UK’s marine licensing area requires a licence under part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. In Scotland, the body responsible for licensing is Marine Scotland, and in November 2021, it signed a joint position statement that 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 or similar are still likely to continue to be used to clear unexploded ordnance.
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 Blasts have rightly highlighted that.
As I understand it, Crown Estate Scotland operates under a framework document set out by the Scottish Government and, among other responsibilities, it manages and leases the seabed within 12 nautical miles of Scotland. I know that unexploded munitions are often found during surveys of potential sites for offshore wind development and they need to be cleared. To clear such munitions, however, 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 method used has to be both safe 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 that is the traditional method. Campaigners want to see that happen in Scottish waters, too.
The decision to prioritise the use of low noise alternatives is a welcome step forward and I hope that the Scottish Government will take it into consideration for the future. It has previously 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 deflagration, which can reduce noise output by several hundred times compared to the large blasts, should be encouraged.
Everything possible should and must be done to protect our marine wildlife and environment as a matter of course to avoid a repeat of the incident in the Kyle of Durness in July 2011 when 19 whales died. We must do as much as we can as soon as possible.
17:26
I thank Beatrice Wishart for securing this important debate on protecting marine life during unexploded ordnance removal. I also pay tribute to the work that Stop Sea Blasts continues to do to raise awareness of the issue, including the informative event that it held in the Parliament last month.
It is clear that the scale of the issue should not be underestimated. As a result of the two world wars, there are now more than 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, but, as we have already heard, unexploded ordnance is being removed in a way that is highly disruptive to marine life and habitats because of the use of high-order detonations. As other members have already explained, that 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 high-order detonations also harms marine habitats, with explosives leaving craters in the seabed and damaging the sea floor. That is why we must look urgently at the use of low-order technologies in unexploded ordnance removal to 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, it is now time for the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland to take concrete action. The Scottish Government has a national marine plan, and it 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, which 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.
There is, however, another issue that must be addressed by 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, 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 will adhere to established employment rights and health and safety legislation.
The debate relates to the role that Marine Scotland plays in managing our seas, so I will 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 needed on unexploded ordnance removal, the Scottish Government must engage with Unite and the Marine Scotland workers to deliver the fair pay rise that they deserve.
17:30
I thank Beatrice Wishart for lodging an important motion and congratulate her on securing the debate. I also thank her for hosting the parliamentary event on this topic last month. I was not able to attend that event, but I had some very interesting and helpful follow-up conversations with Eodex and others about the Stop Sea Blasts campaign. I heard about the catastrophic impacts on cetaceans and other marine life that most current commercial disposal mechanisms have and the proven alternatives, such as low-order deflagration, that Beatrice Wishart and others have so clearly described.
In the chamber, members are used to—or, at least, we are 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 system for navigation, communication and feeding—for staying alive. Without this system, we would be completely cut off from our fellow creatures, we could not eat and 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 2km of the blast, it is almost certain that we would die because of the pressure waves caused by the explosion. Research shows a complete kill zone of between 0m and 50m, but an almost certain death zone of up to 2km from the blast site. Up to 10km away, we would suffer permanent threshold shift or permanent damage to our hearing. Up to 20km away, we would suffer temporary threshold shift or temporary hearing damage, but 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 20km, there may still be some long-term behavioural impacts as a consequence of the trauma.
To put this into perspective, if we in the chamber were all cetaceans, a blast at Haymarket station would kill us and a blast at Edinburgh airport would render us all with permanent hearing loss—we would become disoriented, hungry and traumatised and we would likely die. That is exactly what happened to the 19 pilot whales who beached themselves and died at the Kyle of Durness, as Beatrice Wishart and others have highlighted.
We have a responsibility to act to ensure that we are not complicit in the deaths of cetaceans and other sea life. We must not 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 the minister’s closing speech. In addition to responding to the questions and points raised by other members this evening, I hope that she will provide an update on what the Scottish Government is able to require of BP, Shell, SSE and other energy operators who undertake deflagration in Scottish waters, especially in the North Sea off the north-east coast. That is especially important given the ScotWind licences that those companies have and the work that they need to do in preparation for the development of offshore wind farms. What plans are in place to ensure that proven alternatives to high-order deflagration will be used? The Stop Sea Blasts campaign and others are clear: so-called low-yield deflagration is not the same; it must be low-order deflagration and it must be proven to work—not just hypothetical.
In closing, I thank Beatrice Wishart once again for bringing this important topic to the chamber and I thank the Stop Sea Blasts campaigners for all that they are doing to raise awareness and for taking action to protect our marine species and ecosystems.
17:35
I thank Beatrice Wishart for lodging the motion on what we agree is an important topic. As Ms Wishart said, we met to discuss the issue some weeks ago and I know that she campaigns on it and cares very much about it. I am sorry that I was not able to make the parliamentary event. I also thank members for their speeches, many of which have focused on the importance of a healthy marine environment.
The Scottish Government’s vision is for a clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse marine environment that is managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people. As members have pointed out, our marine environment is increasingly important to our environmental, social and economic wellbeing. We must manage this increasingly busy space fairly and safely. Ms Wishart referred to how dangerous the challenge can be—indeed, it can be 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 protects our waters and marine wildlife, and ensures the health and safety of maritime workers, as Mercedes Villalba rightly noted.
As members have said, the vast majority of unexploded ordnance is discovered when offshore wind developers come to prepare their sites for development. Unexploded ordnance has to be safely disposed of to allow construction works to commence. Such work has to be effective, safe and as environmentally unobtrusive as possible.
Liam Kerr asked about commercial fisheries. I will focus my remarks on offshore wind, as that is the focus of the motion, but I assure him that licence conditions require that if any dead fish are reported from such activity, that is reported straight back to Marine Scotland.
We are taking action to meet the objectives of safety and effectiveness, through licensing processes and by collaborative working with other regulators and statutory nature conservation bodies. I will highlight exactly what the Scottish Government is doing, as I have been asked to do so by several members.
On 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 a marine licence and a European protected species licence. Those two licensing regimes are underpinned by legislation and require offshore wind developers to use UXO clearance methods that produce the least underwater noise. When applying for those licences, developers must consider any satisfactory alternatives to meet their objective of clearance and those 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 licensees can consider the use of high-order detonation. Of course, we know that high-order detonation is still sometimes required for human safety reasons, although we are watching as evidence develops on that. I hope that the robust framework that I have set out will assure members that low-noise techniques are prioritised where practicable, effective and safe.
Beyond what we are doing in licensing, we are collaborating. We know that to meet 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 to support the use of alternatives to high-order detonation. That is the goal of all of us. That is why, together with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Marine Management Organisation and NatureScot, we have signed a joint interim position statement that sets out our collective position. Put simply, that position is that low-noise alternatives should be prioritised over high-order detonations.
However, as members have made clear today, these 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 greatly 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 2022, after a slight delay owing to Covid, and have resulted in six world war two mines being cleared. Measurements were taken at a range of distances during the project to characterise sound outputs, and sea bed and surface samples were also collected. I am particularly interested in the findings of this report because, importantly, the trials took place in North Sea conditions and have a strong applicability for us. The data from the trial is currently being analysed by scientists and will be made available as soon as possible. When that information is made available, it will inform our decision making—and decision making across the UK—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 the 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 that we must protect. Our Scottish marine energy research programme is a significant part of that. We also operate an array of acoustic recorders 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 the call for new guidance from Marine Scotland—members also asked for such guidance. I am pleased to say that a review of our current consenting and licensing guidance for offshore renewable energy is being undertaken. The updated guidance will reinforce our position surrounding the effort to reduce underwater noise levels.
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, respects the marine environment and, crucially, is safe for the 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 UXOs. We are committed to considering evidence of new techniques as they emerge, always being sure that they are effective, safe and as environmentally unobtrusive as possible.
Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate.
Meeting closed at 17:43.Air ais
Decision Time