HC Deb 12 February 1957 vol 564 cc1232-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich)

Ever since I became Member of Parliament for Harwich in 1954, just three years ago, I have been troubled by complaints about damage to property caused by explosions from Shoeburyness and Foulness Island. I have asked several Parliamentary Questions about those explosions and have had considerable correspondence, not only with the Ministry of Supply but with the Atomic Energy Authority also.

There are two establishments in the area, one at Shoeburyness under the Ministry of Supply and one at Foulness Island under the Atomic Energy Authority. Sir Edwin Plowden, writing to me on 11th March, 1955, informed me that those ranges are shared by the Atomic Energy Authority and the Ministry of Supply, and are used for essential tests and experiments with ordinary weapons, ammunition and explosives.

In view of the continued trouble that we are having, I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to assure me that that slightly ambiguous statement "and are used for essential tests" does not include atomic explosions, however small. I know that an assurance was given by the Lord President of the Council in the House of Lords on 7th April, 1954, that no nuclear explosions were taking place, but in view of the continued use of the ranges by the Atomic Energy Authority and the damage that is being done on the north-east Essex coast, I should like an assurance on that point from my hon. Friend.

Nevertheless, nuclear explosions or not, my constituents are being continually worried by explosions coming from either Shoeburyness or its vicinity. They are certainly more than just explosions coming from 6 in. guns using ordinary ammunition. Sometimes no immediate effect whatever is felt. Sometimes a ceiling falls down, a wall is cracked, a picture falls down, as one did in my house the other day, or glass is broken or a roof damaged; but in the end, over a considerable period, harm is being done to property in my constituency. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the trouble that his predecessors have taken to send inspectors to inquire about the effect of the explosions, but although compensation has been given, in the opinion of those who suffer it by no means fully compensates them.

I know the Ministry's case. Its technical advisers have said that it is unlikely that the defects covered by the claims were originally due to vibrations from explosions. I would point out, however, that if a building is on a site of clay or clay mixture and has stood for many years solid and sound, but since the beginning of violent explosive vibrations in the area has become fractured and has suffered as a result of these vibrations, such damage should be repaired. In such a case compensation should be paid by the Department responsible for the damage, to enable repairs to be carried out.

We do not ask for much—only no explosions without full and speedy compensation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this question of compensation again. The surveyor acting for some of my constituents advised them to accept the amount of compensation, under protest, there being no alternative. Unfortunately, the damage from explosions still continues. Now we are having complaints again, and it seems that we shall begin a paper war, upon which the consciences of the secretaries at the Ministry of Supply seem to thrive, but which, alas, does not help the claimants very much. I doubt whether some of them wish to go through again the tedious business that we have had with the Ministry of Supply in the past. Indeed, I do not see why they should do so.

Damage, nevertheless, is being done and I have no doubt that while some people are complaining others are suffering in silence, despairing of getting anything done but yet feeling much aggrieved by the attitude adopted by the technicians and advisers of the Ministry of Supply. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably shrug off the question of compensation that I have raised by asserting that the victims were adequately and speedily compensated. In the majority of cases that is not so, but even if compensation has been adequate in a few cases, I suggest that that is now not the chief point of contention. A situation has arisen in which I must demand the immediate cessation of these explosions. When the Parliamentary Secretary looks through his files he will see that over the last year these explosions have been causing a great deal of public nuisance, to say the least.

In view of the increasing power of modern explosives, these explosions should either be stopped forthwith or should be transferred to an area where they do no damage to property. We do not want the islands off the mouth of the Thames to be turned into minor Christmas Islands. If the explosions are allowed to continue and to increase, they will, from the structural damage that will be caused, certainly hurt the amenities of the north-east Essex coast. I ask the Minister to consider these points very carefully. His decision will mean a great deal to the people living on that coast.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison (Maldon)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for raising this matter, because it is one that has been worrying me and my constituents for a very considerable time. We live closer to Foulness and Shoeburyness than do his constituents. Though I must admit that we have not suffered quite as severe damage as have people who live in Clacton, Frinton, and St. Osyth, probably because our houses are not built on sand, these explosions have caused a great deal of nuisance and trouble to people who live at Latchingdon and Burnham.

I ask the Ministry to consider most carefully whether it is essential that it should continue to use these two islands as a testing range. In any event, I hope that the Ministry will try very hard to limit the size of the explosions. We had an example the other day where a mine that had been found in one of the docks was taken away and exploded just off that area. There have been other very large explosions that have shaken the whole of the area, not only opposite Shoeburyness and Foulness but farther away in the Harwich area, as we have already been told.

If it is absolutely essential that this testing range should continue, I hope that some simplified method of claiming for damage will be possible. There comes to my mind one case in particular where it has been extremely difficult to allocate to the Department concerned responsibility for certain explosions. It is extremely difficult for the small householder who has suffered damage and who may not wish to worry his Member of Parliament with details of it to try to ascertain which is the Department responsible for the cracking of the ceiling or the walls or supports of his house.

My main reason for intervening is to express the hope that the Department will, first, try to limit the size of the explosions. If these wretched disturbances must continue, I ask that at least the procedure for claiming damages should be simplified, and that the Department will be deeply sympathetic with those people living in that beautiful and remote part of Essex, who did not dream when they first went there that they were going to find themselves in the midst of an area which was subject to high explosions, shattering the peace of that lovely area.

11.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor)

First, I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) for giving me notice of the main points that they intended to raise in the Adjournment debate.

I can well understand why they wish to raise the matter, because for several years the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich have pressed him to bring to the notice of the Ministry of Supply their complaints relating to the activities of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Ministry of Supply on the ranges at Shoeburyness and Foulness. As I shall explain later, I do not think that our activities there have caused serious damage or nuisance, but nevertheless it is understandable that people in the vicinity should from time to time be anxious about these explosions and that sometimes they feel irritated that they should be subject to such disturbances.

I should say at once that we cannot carry out much of the essential development and testing required by the defence programme without causing some disturbance to some members of the community. It is well known, for example, that with the advent of supersonic aircraft, problems have been caused by the so-called supersonic bangs, although the Ministry has, I think, striven successfully to reduce disturbance from that particular source.

It is worth pointing out that it is not only defence work which produces inconvenience for the citizens. Many civil activities produce noise and nuisance to the ordinary public. For example, when we develop a new airport there is much disturbance for those living in the vicinity of the new airfield. Yet I am sure that my hon. Friends, and their constituents, will appreciate how important it is to continue with the type of testing which is undertaken on these ranges, providing that we take all reasonable measures to reduce disturbance by paying —and I emphasise this—satisfactory compensation, whenever real damage is caused to property. I am sure that they would not wish, nor would their constituents, to hamper the essential work of our defence programme.

It has been suggested this evening that the Government should put a stop to work at Shoeburyness and find an alternative site. But I must point out that the Shoeburyness and Foulness ranges are really irreplaceable. There is no other area in the country where the natural facilities are better, and over the years a considerable amount of money has been expended on the development of those sites. The Shoeburyness range has been there for generations, and it cannot be replaced within the United Kingdom. At the same time, I can assure my hon. Friends that when we are contemplating new facilities, in addition to those which already exist, we do consider whether they can be efficiently provided on other ranges. On some occasions, they have been set up elsewhere; but a large amount of important work must be done by the Atomic Energy Authority and by the Ministry of Supply on these two ranges.

Having said that, I should like to make it quite clear that the explosions are not made indiscriminately. It is normal practice to pay attention to the direction of the wind and general meteorological conditions so that the risk of damage is reduced to the absolute minimum. On the rare occasions when night firing takes place, the local police and other bodies are warned so that they may reassure people who inquire. In addition, notices are placed in certain local post offices.

While talking of the precautions taken, I would give this further assurance. I have been asked about the type of the tests and I can say that there are no nuclear explosions from these ranges.

Mr. Ridsdale

That includes atomic explosions?

Mr. Taylor

By nuclear explosions. I mean explosions which would release fissile material into the atmosphere. All the explosions are of the conventional type and gun ammunition, and in this connection reference has been made to the reply given in another place by the Lord President of the Council on 7th April. 1954. The Lord President then said: The Foulness Range has been used over some years by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, for experimental work with ordinary conventional high explosives. The work is an essential step in the development of atomic weapons. The explosions are also used to study the effects on model structures and so provide valuable data for those forms for Civil Defence. I can say definitely that no nuclear explosions have been or will be made, nor will experiments be made with fission products or any other hazardous radioactive material."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 7th April, 1954; Vol. 186, c. 1134–5.] I will now turn to the question of compensation and make a few comments on the number of claims received. I think that I can show that our activities have not resulted in any major disturbance to the local public. In 1956, for example, the number of claims was only 33, of which 17 were found to be unsubstantiated. Since April, 1955, claims for damage have been handled by the War Office land agent at Colchester on behalf of both the Ministry of Supply and the Atomic Energy Authority.

With regard to procedure in the case of claims, normally the aggrieved party writes to the superintendent of the Shoeburyness range making his complaint. The superintendent maintains a detailed record of firings and explosions, and when he receives a complaint he sends it, together with the firing programme for the day in question, to the local War Office land agent. An inspection is carried out and. if it is established that damage is wholly or partly due to our activities or to those of the Authority, an offer of an ex gratia payment is made.

Every effort has been made to treat each case on its merits. The inspections which are made often show that many of the defects which are alleged to result from our activities are probably the consequence of the type of construction or are caused by land settlement. As my hon. Friends will realise, it is often difficult to judge how much of the alleged damage can fairly be assumed to be the result of our activities.

I have looked into the history of these cases over the last two years, and I find that there has not been a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed over the way in which the War Office and my Department treat the claims. I acknowledge that sometimes it has taken several months before a decision has been reached on a particular claim, but that is more or less inevitable in view of the inspections and inquiries which have to be made.

I readily accept the contention that we should pay fair compensation when it has been proved that the damage has resulted from our activities, and I am quite willing to make arrangements for the examination of any cases where dissatisfaction has been expressed. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich that it is our policy to try to settle all claims fairly and that if he will let me have further details we will look at them in that light. Of course, we must bear in mind that it is public money that is being paid out, and there must be reasonable proof that the damage has been caused by explosions on the ranges.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends that everything possible will continue to be done to minimise disturbance from the activities on the ranges at Shoeburyness and Foulness. I am unable to contemplate ceasing this work or moving it elsewhere. It would be an enormous undertaking so to do. I cannot in this reply give my hon. Friend details of the expenditure, even recent expenditure, on these ranges, but if he would like to speak to me about the matter later, I could convince him, I think, without any doubt, that to attempt to remove the ranges to another site or sites is absolutely out of the question.

However, we shall continue to do our best to treat such claims as come from the constituencies of my hon. Friends with strict fairness. I hope that they will cooperate with my Department to that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.