HC Deb 22 May 1972 vol 837 cc1186-96

12.39 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

The hour is either late or early, depending on how we look at it at this time of the morning, and I am mindful that the House has had a long and arduous day, primarily debating aspects of industrial policy.

Early in the debate on the Industry Bill the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said that while that Measure had a national connotation it necessarily assisted constituencies other than his own. The subject I wish to raise is the regional implications of the development of port facilities at Maplin. It might be thought that for a Scot residing, as I do, in an area of extensive port facilities and coming from an area fairly far removed from the South-East it would be difficult to link this exercise in the South-East of England with the regional policy of the United Kingdom Government. It would be wrong to suggest that this was a debate on the siting of the third London Airport. However, it is obvious that I should take that decision as the initial basis for my debate.

I refer specifically to the words of Professor Colin Buchanan in his advocacy of what was then called Foulness as the site for the third London Airport. He was careful to point out in paragraph 37 of his note of dissent from the rest of his colleagues on the Roskill Commission that he spurned the concept of related seaport facilities. He said: Perhaps I should add that my recommendation of Foulness is in no way involved with the various schemes for associated seaport and industrial development … Indeed, whilst I think that the airport could and should be allowed to attract a certain amount of specialised enterprises into the vicinity, I have seen it as an advantage of the Foulness site that its physical limitations would prevent an enormous growth that could prejudice the objectives which have been pursued for many years under the distribution of industry policy. That policy, under Governments of all political colours, is basically as enunciated in the Barlow Committee Report, which suggested that the metropolis was already over-congested. We should relate the metropolis here to the areas of the South-East generally.

From Professor Buchanan there was a firm "Yes" to the airport's being sited at Foulness, but a fairly resounding "No" to the concept of an adjacent seaport. But I want to put the following point in contradistinction to his view. If there had been no decision to site an airport at Maplin, the concept of an adjoining seaport would have come to nought, and the regional policy implications which I share with the Professor would have been avoided.

It might be thought that I was being unfair to the Department of the Environment if I suggested that it was not alive to the dangers of a proliferation of industry at Maplin. In a statement on 2nd February, the Secretary of State for the Environment said: It is too early to take decisions about promoting a large industrial estate as part of the Maplin complex. It would create very real regional problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1972: Vol. 830, c. 446.] That is agreed, but we are entitled to some information about what is in the process of being created at Maplin. It is all very well for individuals and organisations to indicate to the nation at large and to Ministries that all they want is certain types of development, and that expansion in other areas should cease or not take place.

The Port of London Authority is quite clear about its intentions. After the Minister's February statement, it indicated that the first phase of its plans for the development of a seaport at Maplin would be an oil terminal capable of discharging two tankers and two unit load berths. We are told that in order to create the oil terminal it will be necessary to dredge a 34-mile deep-water channel initially to a depth capable of taking tankers of a size of 250,000 tons deadweight fully laden with a draught of 65 feet or more. Later, the authority avers, the channel might with further dredging be capable of taking ships of 500,000 tons deadweight with a draught of between 75 and 85 feet.

We have some figures for the cost of dredging. We are told that it might be in the region of £12 million and that we might be capable of offsetting some of that cost in terms of the land reclaimed. But that is an initial cost. What will be the recurrent annual cost of dredging and keeping the channel clear for ships of the very largest magnitude? That is a matter about which the House needs to be aware before it allows this type of development to take place under the 1964 Harbours Act.

From the point of view of the Port of London Authority, it is clear that dredging will take place and that a good deal of land will be reclaimed. It is the intention of the authority to commence dredging next year. What is more, these operations are manifestly associated with the airport development. I understand that the land required for the airport will be in the region of 10,000 acres. It we examine the intentions of the Port of London Authority and its associates, the total area that they might wish to reclaim could be in the region of 30,000 acres.

That is the long-term view, and it may be exaggerating the position. When the Under-Secretary replies, his views will be welcome. But my major criticism of the Government is that they are allowing the Port of London Authority and other organisations with which it is and has been associated to do evil in terms of regional policy by stealth.

I am sorry that I have not given the Secretary of State for Scotland notice of this. I thought that, even at this late hour, a Scottish Minister would have seen fit to be here to listen to the debate—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was in the House in connection with Scottish legislation until a few moments ago and may well be in a position to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying at the moment.

Mr. Douglas

I accept that. What I have to say is already on record. I shall not be saying anything about which the Secretary of State is not already aware.

From my point of view the most naive observation on this matter came from the Secretary of State for Scotland in a letter to me dated 17th May when he said: The primary purpose of the Port of London Authority's proposals to provide a new terminal at Maplin is to replace existing facilities which they have and in particular to relieve the present congestion of tanker traffic in the Thames. That may or may not be contentious from the Minister's point of view and I assume he will agree with it or point out where his Department disagrees. A scheme of such magnitude would never be embarked upon just to produce a tanker terminal. The real aim is to generate in the South-East of England a Europort which will challenge Rotterdam. The industries which the Port of London Authority would wish to establish alongside these tanker terminals on the land it already owns might generate employment for up to 70,000 people.

This would require a back-up in terms of population of 350,000. If we add this to the estimates given for the employment potentialities in the airport we get a figure not far off 750,000 people. I recognise that I am being somewhat futuristic and it might be a long-term trend. Today we have had a long and interesting debate on regional policy relating to the Government's Industry Bill. If regional policy is to be meaningful at all, this growth of population adjacent to an area already over populated cannot be in tune with any regional policy.

The Secretary of State for Scotland is foolish to suggest that he does not think that there is conflict between the de- velopments at Maplin and the future use of deep-water facilities in Scotland. It is absolute nonsense to make that assertion.

Let me put the following points to the Minister. What is the existing capacity of the oil refineries to be serviced by the new terminal? That information ought to be available. I am not talking of the future capacity but of the existing capacity. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is correct in his assertion that the terminals are catering only for existing refineries and to relieve tanker congestion, what is the capacity of the refineries at Canvey Island and elsewhere?

Secondly, how many 250,000-ton tankers will be needed per annum to cater for the existing output? Thirdly if the Government are so concerned about congestion in the Thames, what are their views about congestion in the Channel? We know that new measures have been taken by the operation of separation zones. What are the implications for Channel safety of the expansion of Maplin and Rotterdam to take 250,000-ton deadweight tankers, each port having to embark on expensive and possibly environmentally damaging dredging to sustain its competitive position? I consider it something of a miracle that we have had no damaging Channel collisions recently. It is our responsibility, and if we allow the growth of Channel traffic in these large vessels. bearing in mind the difficulty of bringing vessels of such sizes to a stop, we are loading up trouble for ourselves.

We are seeing the development of port facilities in traffic lanes which are already congested. Although the Government are trying to devise separation zones, these very large vessels have a tremendous way with them and it takes a great deal of time and distance for them to be brought to a halt or to reverse their engines.

Some of this could be excused if we had only one area in use for industrial development purposes. The report by Sir William Halcrow and Partners to the National Ports Council in 1968 identified 10 such sites. After various changes in policy on the matter, we are given to understand that there is still in existence a MIDA study group to assess the likely long-term needs of bulk processing industries for coastal sites adjacent to deep water". I understand that it is still part of the Government's policy to provide such sites.

May we take it that that study group has been consulted about Maplin? What is its views on the development of Maplin and on the potentialities of other sites? We in Scotland know that on the West Coast, at Hunterston, we have unique deep-water facilities which would not require dredging to take the largest ships, afloat or projected, in safe conditions. Also, the imaginative concept of Ocean-span would give us a land bridge with flexibility and space for industrial development in Central Scotland, linking the Clyde and Forth, with the Forth capable of taking ships of 250,000 tons deadweight.

One of the things which concern us in terms of regional policy is that oil has been discovered in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland and it will be ludicrous if we in Scotland find that within a few years crude oil is taken from a tanker terminal on the Forth and brought to Maplin by large vessels to be piped to expanded refineries in that area. If value is to be added to the product, consideration should be given as a first priority to expand refinery capacity in Scotland in a situation which could lead to a planned growth of an industrial complex.

If the Government's words on regional policy are to be translated into action, we require a firm assurance that there will be restriction on industrial growth at Maplin and that any proposals to have a steelworks or an oil refinery sited there will be firmly rejected.

12.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) has raised an important issue tonight. I give him the assurance that in considering a project of the size and importance of that proposed at Maplin, it is entirely right, and the Goverment accept, that we should take very carefully into account any regional implications of the project as a whole, including the airport, the proposed port facilities, and possible associated developments.

The project as a whole must be seen against the background that the Strategic Plan for the South-East recommended South Essex as a major growth area. The Government think this is right. But I agree that the project must also be considered in the context of our overall regional strategy. That is why we do not contemplate the development of primary industry at Maplin and why a careful watch will be kept on the growth of secondary industry, hotels, and other commercial developments which may follow the opening of the airport.

It may help the House if I clarify exactly what has so far happened in relation to the Port of London Authority's proposals to construct an oil terminal and a unit-load terminal at Maplin. I should emphasise that these proposals are the PLA's, and not, at this stage, the Government's.

In his statement on 2nd February last my right hon. Friend said that there was no objection in principle to a seaport development. The PLA was free to put forward firm proposals under Section 9 of the 1964 Act. Since then, the PLA has put forward specific suggestions covering both the oil terminal and the unit-load terminal, and on 26th April my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries told the hon. Member that we agreed in principle on an oil terminal. But I must stress the words "in principle". Up to the present, no authorisation has been issued.

The PLA fully understands that before the issue of any such authorisation can be considered it will have to put forward a detailed commercial case, supported by convincing evidence of a real need on the part of its potential customers. There is, therefore, no question of a port development at Maplin being allowed to proceed solely on the basis that we want to keep up with the Continental Joneses or want to rival Rotterdam. The Maplin seaport will stand or fall on strictly commercial merits.

Our agreement in principle on port development referred to in my right hon. Friend's answer on 26th April, was an interim step. It enables the PLA to proceed with further technical investigations and commercial negotiations—no more or no less.

Let us suppose as a hypothesis that the Maplin proposals were eventually authorised under Section 9. There is no reason to exclude similar developments elsewhere, whether in Scotland or in other parts of the country. Moreover, as the House will realise, the fact that the Government have already ruled out any primary industry at Maplin rules out by definition any prospect of the PLA's proposals being based on the thought of developing a Maritime Industrial Development Area at Maplin.

Mr. Douglas

I take it the PLA has been told of that view?

Mr. Griffiths

The PLA will read in HANSARD what I have said. It is aware of the Government's position, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance.

Maplin, therefore, in no way inhibits any proposals for port development or port-related industrial developments which may be put forward in respect of other locations. Any and all such proposals elsewhere will continue to be considered on their commercial merits. Indeed, I can tell the House that on the Forth, close to hon. Member's constituency, negotiations are at present in progress to construct an oil terminal to handle crude oil exports as a result of recent oil discoveries in the North Sea. Other sites around our coasts may also offer opportunities for large-scale port development—for example, Hunterston, which has the enviable advantage of deep water without dredging.

It is true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rejected proposals for a refinery at Hunters-ton for very good environmental reasons; but he also made it clear that the planning considerations which then argued against the immediate development of an oil refinery there would not necessarily always be valid, nor did he think these excluded a terminal to supply a refinery on an inland site. The Government are contributing to a Hunterston development company's feasibility study of the reclamation required to develop the full potential of the area.

Just as Maplin ought not, and need not, inhibit developments elsewhere, so Maplin's own advantages ought not to be lost to the nation. The site has some natural advantages—indeed it is, on the face of it, a perfectly logical place for the kind of development the PLA has proposed. The Thames is already one of the largest oil importing estuaries in the country.

The proposed oil terminal at Maplin would supplement or even supersede discharge facilities currently in use at several other points on the Thames, thereby promoting efficiency by concentration. It would provide berths for the discharge of very large tankers and would be connected by pipeline to the refineries on both banks of the Thames. Any new oil terminal there would involve the provision of a dredged channel some 34 miles long from the North Sea, but even this development would allow the use of 250,000 tons deadweight vessels, nearly double the size of the existing 130,000 tons deadweight vessels which can use the present Thames channels. Thereafter the channel could be dredged to take 500,000 tons deadweight vessels, as and when the need arises. The costs of dredging, both capital and revenue, are being taken into account in developing the economic case for the project. We also have in mind the fact that spoil from the dredging could be used in the land reclamation scheme for the airport.

On all this I am sure that I need not remind the House that the economies of scale throughout the world are leading to the use of larger tankers and, indeed, to bulk carriers of all descriptions as well as container vessels. There is therefore a growing need for ports to site their new facilities down river, near to deeper water. The new Seaforth dock on the Mersey, Bristol's new dock, and the Greenock Container Terminal are all examples of this trend—and Maplin would be no exception.

But a terminal for large tankers at Maplin would have other advantages. It would clearly reduce considerably the number of tankers moving further up the Thames. This should reduce the collision risks in the busy river and the risk of pollution. The transport of oil in larger quantities means that a smaller number of ships is needed. Maplin would therefore reduce to some extent the number of ships using the very heavy trafficked Straits of Dover.

These navigational matters, of course, are for the Department of Trade and Industry, but my Department is in close contact with the DTI, as, I understand, is the Port of London Authority.

Perhaps I should briefly mention the PLA's proposals for a unit-load terminal. These are not as far advanced as the proposals for the oil terminal, but the PLA has submitted preliminary ideas for a terminal catering for container traffic and unitised cargo of all kinds, including roll-on/roll-off. In this respect, the Maplin site has obvious advantages especially in relation to the EEC. Maplin to Antwerp is 145 sea miles; Maplin to Rotterdam is 142 sea miles.

But again I must reiterate that a full commercial case will have to be made out by the PLA before any scheme can be considered. And considering any such case we shall, of course, take fully into account all relevant factors, including, for example, the implications of North Sea oil and the effects of the Channel Tunnel if, as I hope, it is built.

From what I have said the House will realise that all aspects of the Maplin project are being very carefully considered. There will be a very thorough consideration of the PLA's proposals, both by my Department and by the National Ports Council, before any decision is taken to authorise development. In the meantime, other schemes elsewhere will continue to be considered on their merits, whether they be oil terminals, ore terminals or anything else.

I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing in Maplin which needs to give rise to fears that this great scheme of itself will detract from developments in Scotland, or anywhere else. Each and every scheme, wherever it deserves to be—and will be—treated on its merits.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past One o'clock.