HL Deb 16 October 1995 vol 566 cc573-5

3.9 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have received from the Norwegian Government any indication of how long Norway will allow the Brent Spar offshore installation to be moored in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction under the terms of the Exchange of Notes dated 7th July 1995.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)

My Lords, the Norwegian authorities gave their permission for the Brent Spar to remain moored in Erfjord for a period of one year from the date of the original agreement on 7th July 1995. If Shell UK Limited requires an extension, it will need to seek the agreement of the Norwegian authorities.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. Because this giant storage buoy ended its working life four years ago and is liable to start breaking up, is not an early decision needed on its disposal, time already having been lost by the misguided and misinformed campaign by Greenpeace, although the deep Atlantic will probably prove still to be the best and safest option?

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, Brent Spar is at present in relatively shallow water; it is safe and not subjected to any of the stresses of weather. What is important is that the right decision on its disposal should be taken. Our view was that on a case-by-case basis the most appropriate was deep-sea disposal. If Shell UK Limited comes forward with a proposal or any proposal is put to it for another means of disposal, we shall want to be satisfied that it is at least as good as the originally proposed deep-sea arrangement.

Viscount Waverley

My Lords, what will happen to the Brent Spar if Norway does not give an extension to the safe anchorage licence?

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, there is still some time to go before July of next year. As the noble Viscount will appreciate, Shell UK Limited has been very open about the proposals which it is prepared to consider. Indeed, it is inviting a further round of suggestions. It has received proposals for anything from a floating casino to a reef in the North Sea to provide cover for fish. It will be for the Norwegians and Shell UK Limited to come to an agreement if it is felt necessary to have an extension. Shell is properly asking anyone who has a better solution to come forward with it now. Clearly something will have to be done with Brent Spar in the fulness of time.

Lord Ezra

My Lords, while the question of the Brent Spar is a matter of immediate concern, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is only one of a number of cases of this sort which are likely to arise in the future? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to address the whole problem?

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, we must not exaggerate the scale of the problem. Something like three-quarters of the platforms to be found in the North Sea are likely to be entirely removed and probably disposed of on land. That is because most of them are to be found in the shallow part of the southern North Sea. We have no doubt whatsoever that the only way to approach this matter is on a case-by-case basis. We should not have a broad policy. As regards Brent Spar, the clear conclusion of a deep-sea disposal was the right one. I believe that that is the right way to approach the matter. In the past we have taken the views of other signatories to both the Oslo and Paris Conventions. I believe that we were right to approach this case in the way we did.

Lord Haskel

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that keeping the public in the dark over the negotiations between Shell UK Limited and the British Government has meant that the emotive arguments were much easier to harness, to the eventual disadvantage of both Shell UK Limited and Her Majesty's Government? Does not the Minister further agree that transparency would have avoided all that?

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I cannot accept for a moment that there has been any lack of transparency. In fact, before the decision was taken all the governments who were signatories to the conventions were advised. No one offered any objection to the proposed disposal agreed to by the United Kingdom Government and Shell UK Limited. It was only after Greenpeace occupied Brent Spar that attitudes changed. The noble Lord may have seen in an editorial in The Times last week that it was described as "environmentalist" headbutting by Greenpeace. I believe that, when one has regard to the cavalier disregard which Greenpeace had for scientific measurement of what remains on Brent Spar, that assessment was a touch generous.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, since Brent Spar is neither a platform nor a rig and has no comparable duplicate in the North Sea, does my noble and learned friend agree that its eventual disposal should not be a precedent for platforms which are mostly steel towers without residues? As we are a maritime nation, and as we expect to be kept informed, can encouragement be given to the media to identify marine structures correctly, as would be done in distinguishing a liner from a battleship, a ferry or a fishing boat?

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely valid point. That is why I believe that our approach of taking this matter on a case-by-case basis is the only correct one. I am not aware that there is any proposal to dispose of anything similar to Brent Spar. As my noble friend said, some of the structures are steel and others are concrete. We need to look at each individual case. What is clearly important is that because of what happened over Brent Spar the option of deep-sea disposal should not be rejected. All the sound reasoning that led us to the conclusion that it was the right one remains. I believe that my noble friend will be aware that the Research Council's advice to us has been that, even if Shell UK Limited miscalculated as regards the extent of the contamination by 10 times, the effect on the sea would nevertheless have been negligible.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that under no circumstances will the Government allow the Brent Spar platform to be brought to British shores if there is any danger either to those who will dismantle it or to those in the area where that is to happen, including the environment of the area? I hope that the noble and learned Lord will confirm that it is still the Government's view that the platform is disposed of in deep water in the North Atlantic, because I believe that that is the best solution and always was.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I am very glad to agree with the noble Lord. If there were to be disposal on land there would be risks to the workforce dismantling the structure. That appears to be the present advice. One of the most significant risks will be mildly radioactive scale deposits on the insides of the tanks. If they were to dry out and be released into the atmosphere as dust, I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that the risk would be not only to the workforce but to other people as well.