"TORREY CANYON" (Hansard, 4 April 1967)

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the shipwreck of the "Torrey Canyon". I apologise for the length of the statement.
Hon. Members will have seen the White Paper, Command 3246, laid before the House today. This gives the sequence of events, the record of decisions taken by the Government, and sets out the main questions on which action, both national and international, should be taken, issues to which the Government are giving urgent attention.
Hon. Members who have had time to study the White Paper will have seen that from the day of the disaster the Government's prime objective was to keep to a 39 minimum the amount of oil fouling the beaches in the West Country and, indeed, along the South Coast and Bristol Channel. At the same time, oil having started to pour out from the moment of the shipwreck, the spraying of detergent on the discharged oil began that day and was intensified from the Monday onwards.
The Navy was on the job from the Saturday onwards and took operational control so far as the Government were concerned of all questions affecting the ship itself. From the Sunday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy co-ordinated the conduct of the operation with the Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth, and I cannot pay sufficient tribute to the work of the Navy—and of my hon. Friend—in a situation unprecedented at any time in any part of the world.
Determined to do everything possible to limit the discharge of oil from the ship, the Government, with all the expert technical advice available to them, decided that it was right to give the salvage company, highly skilled and expert in these matters, an opportunity to get the ship off the rocks during the period of the very high spring tides due from the Thursday following the shipwreck. While there were inevitably doubts about whether the salvage company could succeed in this task, I am sure that we were right in this decision and in the massive help given by the Admiralty to the salvage authority. Every alternative method was most carefully and urgently analysed in the light of all the information available from such previous occurrences as had any bearing on the situation.
Clearly, the best course, if it had been feasible, would have been to pump off the oil into shallow draught coastal tankers close in to the reef. Quite apart from the extreme difficulty and hazard in the weather conditions of that week, it was physically impossible to pump off the oil, because the ship's pumps were out of operation and a naval survey showed that no tanker of sufficient size could get near enough for the operation to be reasonably safe.
With the very high explosive content of the oil gases on the ship, no operation of an engineering character involving friction 40 and the possibility of sparks could have been attempted. It would have been quite impossible to place generating equipment on the ship and to secure it in position and to do all other necessary repairs and adjustments required to get the ship's own pumps into operation. The tragic explosion which led to the death of the captain of the salvage team confirms the hazards which rightly influenced the minds of the naval authorities. Equally, operations to examine the damage under the ship by naval divers could not be carried out because the oil would have blocked the breathing apparatus and caused suffocation.
Another possibility considered from the outset was that of setting fire to the oil in the ship. As the White Paper makes clear, a previous case where a tanker had caught fire in the Persian Gulf provided a serious warning here in that after more than two months little more than half the oil on the tanker had caught fire and the rest of the cargo was, in fact, sold as crude oil when the fire died out. For the rest, a tarry residue of the kind most feared on holiday beaches was the main outcome of the fire. Moreover, the fire itself might well have blown out the sides of the ship and released a lot of unburned oil long before there was any chance of its being burned.
The course which was ultimately taken, once the hope of salvage had disappeared, was that of opening up the ship by bombing and attempting to set the oil on fire. The oil was in 16 separate tanks and the steel deck of the vessel itself was nearly 1½ inches thick. The risk we faced from the outset was that we would have opened up the ship and released up to 90,000 more tons of oil without any guarantee that it would be set alight and destroyed. On Sunday, 26th March, while the international salvage experts were still hopeful of floating off the ship on the high tides of the Monday or Tuesday, gales broke the tanker into two and then, on the following day, into three sections.
In these circumstances the Government took the decision to bomb the ship—not, of course, with the idea of destroying it, but of setting the oil on fire. Even so, this was a great gamble. Although scientific experiments on an inland lake with 1,000 gallons of Kuwait crude had been successful in burning the oil without any noxious residue, experiments made 41 on the sea with the same fire-raising methods, on an 8 square-mile patch of floating oil near Wolf Rock, failed to set the oil on fire. This appeared to rule out the hope we had had that when the ship was opened up and the oil poured out it could be immediately fired on the sea.
Despite the very great risk involved, the decision to bomb the ship went on and just before 4 o'clock on the Tuesday afternoon the ship was bombed by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, and the fire maintained by R.A.F. aircraft dropping tanks of aviation fuel. As the House knows—and those of us who witnessed it were filled with a high sense of relief—the oil was, in fact, set on fire, though here again, despite every effort to keep the fire going with incendiary weapons, the fire died away and further bombing attacks were necessary in the next two days to destroy the last remaining tanks which had oil in them.
Meanwhile, almost from the time the ship struck the reef, operations with detergent, in which local fishing vessels played an important part, were put into force. These were supplemented by many other forms of attack on the problem as the oil reached the beaches.
The White Paper sets out in detail what has been done, and I am glad to see that hon. Members for the area concerned have joined with local authorities in the tributes paid to the leadership shown by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and other Departments concerned and the tremendous work done by all the Service Departments, and by the units of the Army and Royal Marines who engaged in the task. This was a successful improvised partnership between the Government authorities and the local authorities, with very successful calls on local authority services and on local civilian volunteers. It is right that I should pay tribute to the great resilience and vigour of the individual local authorities in the area. In addition, great efforts have been made by the erection of booms to keep the oil away from estuaries and harbours and to protect, so far as this was possible, marine life.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I turn to the lessons that must be drawn from this disaster. With tankers increasing in size, the possibilities of shipwreck or collision pouring perhaps hundreds of thousands 42 of tons of oil on to our beaches—or on to those of other countries—is one which requires urgent international action. Many hon. Members would have been surprised to find that the Seven Stones Reef was not within British territorial waters. That did not and has not deterred us in any action we considered right. Equally, we made clear our refusal to allow the ship, if it was towed off the rock, to be brought into British territorial waters.
We are now urgently considering the proposals which are to be put before the meeting of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation to ensure that new international regulations and any necessary changes in international law and practice can be pressed on with the urgency which is required. Without waiting for international agreement we are also considering any action which lies within our own control, including control of the routes taken by these giant tankers and other ships carrying potentially dangerous cargoes into British ports. The old concept of territorial waters is not enough. In addition, all possible scientific aspects of the problem are being further examined in the light of our own experience and the lessons we have learned during these past 17 days.
Equally, the question of legal liability and insurance must be considered both on a national and an international basis. While, during the fight to keep the oil off the beaches, we did not wait to settle matters of finance, compensation or legal liability, the Government now are urgently considering the question of the claims which must be pressed on behalf of the high cost falling on the taxpayer and the claims of local authorities. The House would wish to know that the Government have already instructed the Treasury Solicitor to inform the owners' solicitors of our intention to institute proceedings against them for damages.

§ Mr. Heath
On this side of the House, we should like to join the Prime Minister in the tribute which he has paid to the Services, local government, the voluntary organisations and voluntary workers for all that they have done and are still doing in this emergency. We should also like to express our sympathy and understanding with those who have suffered hardship or damage as a result of this 43 accident, and we shall certainly support every effort which is being made by the Government to alleviate it.
The Prime Minister will be aware that the whole country—all parts and not only the South-West—are gravely concerned about the consequence of any future occurrence of a similar kind, and what action the Government will take about it, on which, I think, the White Paper is somewhat vague.
Will the Prime Minister now undertake to set up a Select Committee of this House, or both Houses if he so wishes, to examine the consequences of the grounding of the "Torrey Canyon" and the effectiveness of the action taken by the Government so that Parliament itself can indicate what action it believes ought to be taken to deal with the future?

§ The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said and for the tribute which he paid both to the Services and to local authorities and for the sympathy which he expressed. We are very urgently studying what are the lessons, nationally and internationally. When those studies have been taken a little further it will be our intention to report to the House. Then, I think, will be the right time to consider whether a Select Committee, to consider our findings and any other proposals which may be put forward, should be set up, but, certainly, the Government will wish to welcome all the help which the House can give in dealing with what is not exactly a new threat, but a threat always there on an international scale, and of which we have recently had this tragic experience.

§ Mr. Heath
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said that he will consider appointing a Select Committee and indicated certain timing, but I should have thought that after this incident he would have accepted that there is very grave urgency about these matters and that a Select Committee could perfectly well be making its inquiries and coming to a decision at the same time as the Government were also studying the problem. Will he therefore re-examine the question of timing from the point of view of urgency?

§ The Prime Minister
We will certainly consider this. If there is to be any kind 44 of inquiry, a Select Committee or any other, it is important that it should have made available to it as quickly as possible not only details of our own experience, but also the lessons which we have drawn, and we are very hard at work on that.
I was not quite sure from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's question whether he has now abandoned the attacks on the Government which he made last week. I assumed from the tone in which he spoke last week that we should get a Motion of censure, but if that is not now his position, then I believe that the first thing is that there should be discussion between the usual channels to arrange a debate on this very important issue.
We shall propose that the debate shall take place as soon as possible so that the combined advice of all right hon. and hon. Members will be made available. Perhaps in that debate the question of what form of further inquiry is most appropriate could be outlined.

§ Mr. Heath
Perhaps the Prime Minister will read what I said last week, which was to call for exactly this sort of inquiry into the whole question. As the Prime Minister himself only last Friday emphasised the importance of Select Committees in Parliamentary procedure, surely it would be better to have this matter examined in detail.

§ The Prime Minister
This matter could, I think, be satisfactorily discussed in the debate which we shall now arrange through the usual channels. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's comments last week were designed to be helpful and contained a great deal of well-meant retrospective advice on what we ought to have done earlier, and I am sure that the House will want to consider the right hon. Gentleman's advice expressed on that occasion as well as any information that we can give to the House.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
As the Prime Minister said that this disaster raises unprecedented problems in international law, may I point out that it also involves unprecedented questions in the law of contracts, the law of torts and insurance law? Will he, therefore, have them considered, for the benefit of those ordinary citizens who have suffered 45 damage in this disaster, by a committee of expert lawyers whose training fits them for this technical task?

§ The Prime Minister
Although this was a disaster, and we are all deeply concerned about what happened, I am not sure that that particular proposal would commend itself to the House, particularly since I can inform my hon. and learned Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been on this job almost from the day of the shipwreck and has been considering all the legal aspects involved. I gave to the House in my original statement part of the result of his consideration.
Certainly, we intend with regard to the law, to liability and to insurance matters, to pursue this internationally. But it is more than probable that action may have to be taken on a national level. It would also include, I think, some of the wider aspects of the maritime practice. For example, I do not know whether we can wait for the usual time for getting an international convention ratified to make sure whether ships of this size, carrying potentially dangerous substances, should be free to approach our shores in any way they choose and should not be proceeding from many miles out on routes laid down by the Admiralty.

§ Mr. Murton
In his statement and in the White Paper, the Prime Minister paid tribute to what local organisations have done. Would he consider a grant, first, to fishermen and, secondly, to those people who are concerned with the conservation of wild life, to help them in the most vital work which they have to do?

§ The Prime Minister
These questions are being considered. I have said that we are instituting proceedings hi view of the high cost to the taxpayer. The question of pollution is being carefully studied and I should not like to make any pronouncement or commitment on that at this stage.

Dr. Dunwoody
Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents of differing political persuasions have been deeply disturbed that this problem might be dragged into the party political arena? May I ask him to accept the appreciation of my constituents of the very prompt and effective action of the Government, of the Armed Forces, of the 46 local authorities and of all the other organisations and individuals who are helping to solve this very difficult problem?

§ The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. It was certainly my impression, when I attended a meeting called by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government of all the Cornish local authorities, irrespective of politics, or regardless of politics, that there was great appreciation of the line that had been taken. Certainly, the local authorities themselves did a tremendous job, not least some of the smallest ones, those which formed a group on the Lizard peninsula and showed the way, because they had to deal with the problem first.
Also, I should like to say how much encouragement was given by hon. Members of all parties who went into the problem with so much vigour and energy and expressed their appreciation of what the Government were doing.

§ Mr. Bessell
I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that matters of detail should be left till the general debate. Meanwhile, may I ask him whether he is aware that my constituents are extremely grateful to him and to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the dynamic work which was done? May I also ask him for an assurance that if there is any revival of contamination, the present efforts of the Government will not be relaxed?

§ The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman. The present efforts are continuing. What happened in Newquay yesterday shows what happens when oil, apparently flowing past, gets deposited in a serious form on the local beaches, in this case on the Newquay beaches. The work on booms is being intensified to protect harbours and estuaries. The fleet of fishing and naval vessels is still at work, trying particularly to deal with oil outside the ports and harbours. The work of the Services is continuing. Till the danger is past—and this could be many weeks away, because of the habit of this stuff piling up for months afterwards—I know that the efforts of the local authorities will not be relaxed.

Dr. Bennett
One thing which seems incomprehensible is that no attempt appears to have been made to put a 47 demolition party on to this tanker in the fine weather at first so that, without prejudice to any salvage operations, all the tanks could be connected up to demolition charges. This would have saved the uncertainty of aerial bombing if the ship had to be demolished. Furthermore, in the House, only a month before this disaster, we were told that no public money was available for fighting oil that was driven ashore. Are we now to understand that the Government have changed their mind?

§ The Prime Minister
This was a national disaster which could have imperilled all our beaches, not merely in the West Country but further afield. The tourist trade in the areas concerned represents more than £100 million of expenditure a year and the Government were right, regardless of expense, to go into this job from the first night. The first £½ million was committed by the Ministers concerned on the Sunday night.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about what might have been done, of course all these things were very fully considered, in the light of the most expert technical advice from the salvage chiefs of the Admiralty itself as well as the oil companies and the rest, and of the naval advisers on this question. It shows the difficulties of making judgments at a distance from the operation if one has not been in touch with the conditions on the ship. It would have been a most dangerous and hazardous operation to have done what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
This ship was a floating bomb. A single spark could have caused an explosion. We were advised that even to knock a nail into a piece of wood with a hammer might have caused an explosion which might have blown the unburnt oil out without setting fire to the oil.

§ Mr. Rowland
Is the Prime Minister aware that the great majority of people in the country, presumably not excluding the editor of The Times, will be greatly pleased by the assurance given in the White Paper that at no time were legal or financial considerations inhibiting the Government's action?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. At no time, if we had decided that action contrary to normal inter- 48 national law and practice were required, were we inhibited from doing so. The timing of the spring tides was material. We listened to the expert advice to see whether the vessel could be floated off. We were doubtful, local opinion was doubtful, and many people at the Admiralty were doubtful and less optimistic than was the salvage company.
It was decided at the meeting in Culdrose that if they could not float it off by Tuesday, the last day of the spring tides, then more drastic action would be needed, but at no time were we inhibited by the thought of possible financial claims against us or by considerations of national or international law. It is right that this should be said.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what decision has been made in respect of the request by the South West Travel Association for a grant of £50,000 to undo a lot of unjustified scare publicity which might have the effect of frightening people out of booking their normal holidays in the South-West unless the situation can be rectified by prompt and effective action?

§ The Prime Minister
I believe that a small grant is being given for the purposes of publicity. When my right hon. Friend and I met the local authorities this point was raised with us, and from the outset I made clear that I am not cancelling my holiday in that part of the country, and my right hon. Friend said the same.
There has been a great deal of publicity correcting the, I think, alarmist reports which appeared during the first few days. The number of cancellations has, I think, substantially dropped off and a lot of people who have the wisdom to enjoy holidaying in the West Country are now snapping up the accommodation which has been cancelled. In the light of the great progress which has been made during the last three days in clearing the beaches which looked as if they would be spoilt for years to come, cancellations are quite unjustified.

§ Mr. Nott
The Prime Minister has said that all the expert advice was considered. Could he tell the House whether the advice of British Petroleum or Shell was considered with regard to the feasibility of firing this tanker in the early 49 stages and, if so, what advice they gave to the Government?

§ The Prime Minister
The oil companies were brought into consultation, I think, on the first night. They have great expertise on many of these questions and perhaps the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question enables me to put into more correct perspective the statement which appeared in one of the Sunday Newspapers. B.P. issued a Press statement on 3rd April saying: We spoke to the Government authorities on the Sunday after the 'Torrey Canyon' grounded and suggested that if she could not be refloated, and they were satisfied regarding the legal considerations, she should be fired. This is a very different story from the one we read during the weekend, that they suggested the immediate firing. We followed this advice on when we should have a go at refloating with the spring tides, but we did not concern ourselves, as B.P. did, with the question of the legal considerations.

§ Mr. Murray
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people outside this House view with distaste the Opposition's attempt to pour troubled waters on the oil? Would he say whether the committee that is co-ordinating the efforts to clear the oil will continue in being for some time just in case there are any further disasters of this sort?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. The committee—both the headquarters committee and the local organisation—are being kept in being. As my hon. Friend knows, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government have been assigned particular areas. As soon as danger appears in any of the areas they will immediately take charge of operations there with the local authorities and the Service Departments, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did, under the direction of my right hon. Friend in Cornwall last week.

§ Mr. Emery
Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the local authorities in Devon, which did so much on their own prior to the Government stepping in, did not receive any written communication from the Government until at least 10 days after the ship had run on the rocks?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy had a meeting with them before the period referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The greatest danger at the time—a lot depended on the conditions of the winds—was on the Cornish beaches. During that period of the weekend after the shipwreck, we feared that the oil would pour in great quantities on many of Cornwall's loveliest beaches and the priority was given there. But, at the same time, the machinery was set up for dealing with the Devon beaches if the oil spread.
All the local authorities were kept posted daily with the position, and the Press and television every night had the maps showing where the oil slick was. We were ready to move in, but we had to give priority to Cornwall. That was a risk, and this turned out to be right. So far as I know, Devon local authorities are not suffering from oil. If they do, they will be able to benefit from the great experience of Cornish local authorities, some of which have already been over to help them and tell them how to handle it.

§ Mr. Molloy
I am sure that the question of compensation will loom very large in the eyes of the British public. Can my right hon. Friend say that the local authorities and those who have suffered damage or cost in preventing damage will be consulted and helped by the Government in their efforts to obtain justice for the damage which the country has suffered?

§ The Prime Minister
I have said that the Government have already instructed the Treasury Solicitor to notify the owners' solicitors of our intention to institute proceedings. We are considering the whole question of what compensation local authorities will be entitled to. At this moment, I would not like to make pronouncements about individuals or individual interests. I think that it would be right for them to consult their own legal advisers to see what the position is.
We certainly intend to press our claims thoroughly. One of the difficulties under present international insurance law is the very low ceiling put on third-party insurance—if that is the right phrase here—and this is one of the things we want to consider urgently for the future.

§ Sir D. Renton
Pending international agreement as to the movement of tankers, will the Prime Minister do all he can to persuade the oil companies, that is, those in this country and those sending oil to this country, to desist from using very large tankers, bearing in mind the very great hazards of operating in our narrow seas?

§ The Prime Minister
I should make clear that the oil companies offered their full co-operation from the outset and have offered their co-operation on all matters of scientific research for the work of the Government inquiries to which I referred earlier. We shall not wait for international agreement to the question of approach to our shores.
On the question of the larger tankers—I do not go as far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman does, but that will be considered—I think that the answer is that from many miles out they must follow routes laid down for them by the Admiralty. The fact that this particular ship happened to be so far to the right is a matter for inquiry. I think that most people who know those waters could have plotted a better route for it. We shall have to ensure that these routes are followed in the future.

§ Mr. Whitaker
Will my right hon. Friend consider a study of the feasibility of destroying the navigational hazard of the Seven Stones reef by explosives?

§ The Prime Minister
That has been considered. Some of us who saw the bombing wondered whether it would happen as a by-product of the bombing operation. But it is an enormous area of very hard granite, and, short of a nuclear explosion, which might produce other hazards and which would have to be of enormous scale, I very much doubt that what my hon. Friend has in mind would be feasible.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Does the Prime Minister's answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) mean that he rules out the proposal to go for international limitation on the size of tankers? He referred in his statement to their increasing size. In view of the difficulty of handling them, and the great trouble which results when a large tanker has a disaster, will the Prime Minister at 52 least consider putting this proposal forward?

§ The Prime Minister
I did not rule it out. I replied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this matter would be considered. But most urgently, because there are already ships of very large size afloat, we must consider national as well as international action to deal with the control of routing of tankers approaching our shores. This is a matter under our control; we can refuse them access if they refuse to follow routes laid down by the Admiralty.

§ Mr. Maxwell
Will my right hon. Friend consider making available to other Governments the bitterly bought scientific and technical experience which we have obtained so that, if any similar accident occurs elsewhere, they may benefit from it? Further, will he bear in mind that, in addition to requiring tankers to go by particular routes which the Admiralty lays down, we should improve the training for tanker masters as it has been conclusively proved that their present training is insufficient?

§ The Prime Minister
We have already been giving information to other countries. For example, the French Government, who are very much concerned that the oil might reach their shores, have sent over a mission and we have given them help. If the oil does strike France, we shall send people with experience, perhaps including local authority people, to show how it can best be handled. Our knowledge on this subject has come to us the hard way and we intend it to be made available to all other countries where the hazard might occur. We would deal with this through the work done under the international maritime convention to which I referred.

§ Mr. Sandys
In view of the limited effectiveness of detergent and fire, will the Prime Minister urgently consider the desirability of fitting a number of tankers with pumping equipment specifically designed for sucking up oil off the seas?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir, and some have this; but I do not think that it would have worked in this case because all the pumps were put out of operation by the damage to the boiler-house.

§ Mr. Sandys
That is a different point. I was asking the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be desirable, as part of an emergency service, to fit some tankers with special pumps specifically designed for this task.

§ The Prime Minister
I am sorry; I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. This is already being done for clearing up the existing oil slick. It is one of the experiments being carried out, and further research will go into it.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the limited value of detergent. Obviously, it has its limitations, but it has been surprisingly effective. The quantity of oil reaching the Cornish shores has been very much reduced by the action taken by the 53 naval vessels and trawlers, which had quite a big effect on the floating oil before it got there. The detergent has been highly efficient on the beaches themselves.
A tribute ought to be paid to the work of the Government research laboratory concerned, the Warren Springs laboratory, then, I think, under the control of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), for its research some years ago into the use of detergent for this kind of disaster. The detergent has been more effective than many people would have thought, but it could not, of course, do the whole job when there were 50,000 or 60,000 tons of oil floating about on the sea.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Is the Prime Minister satisfied that there are sufficient stocks of detergent available, particularly of the non-toxic variety for use in estuaries?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes. Sir; production has been continuing and distribution is continuing, with airlifts and all the rest. There was a problem, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) knows, in respect of Newquay yesterday. Newquay had had very large quantities and had used—probably rightly, I think—most of those quantities in trying to keep the oil away from the beaches, so that there was virtually none left when it hit the beaches. But Newquay is getting detergent delivered now, and I am satisfied that we have enough detergent for present foreseeable requirements.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Wilson
I endorse the Prime Minister's praise of the local authorities for the good work which they have done, but will he consider increasing the grant which has been made to them to 100 per cent, as some of the inland ratepayers feel it a bit of a hardship that they should have to shoulder part of the burden of a national disaster when their immediate interests were not affected?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government have been very generous with the 75 per cent., their agreement that all expenditure going beyond a 2d. rate would be met by the Government, and the free supply of detergent. Considering that the scale of the operation was unknown, we might easily have been letting the Treasury in for the expenditure of very many millions of pounds, but it now looks as though the figure will be smaller. I do not think that it would be right to go as far as the 100 per cent, grant which the hon. Gentleman suggests. The local authorities have shown great willingness to co-operate, and I am sure that they would feel it right that, within the narrow limits left to them, they should make a contribution.

§ Sir J. Hobson
As there is limited liability, will not the effect of the Government's claim be greatly to diminish the value of anyone else's claim?

§ The Prime Minister
We have given notice of our claim. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, liability is limited and much too tight having regard to the damage which is possible here, but we are considering the damage done to the local authority interests and perhaps other interests concerned, with the idea that, when the claim is mounted, we can consider how far we could put in claims on their behalf as well. I would not at this stage like to pre-judge what we would do about local authority claims or individual claims. To use a phrase which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably fault, we have slapped in our writ right away, and we shall consider, within the limitations, how that should properly be spread.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must protect the business of the House.