HC Deb 29 July 1974 vol 878 cc253-61

2.47 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

On Monday 22nd July, in Bo'ness, West Lothian, it was discovered that part of the pipeline being laid between Grange-mouth and South Queensferry had been blown up. Who did it, how and why, we do not yet know. An organisation calling itself the Tartan Liberation Army claimed credit for that act. I refer to this incident because it is a portent of what can and could happen to vulnerable oil-related installations. After Flix-borough, nothing need be left to the imagination.

Since first class minds such as Professors Erickson and Thomson and Heriot-Watt have devoted a lot of time to the problem and since some of us spent last Tuesday at the Ministry of Defence under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy at a most worthwhile seminar, and since I believe that speeches on the Consolidated Fund Bill should be unselfishly terse, I shall confine myself to the following questions, of which I have given notice.

The first, is the question of ministerial responsibility. Currently there are at least 11 Government Departments involved. There are the Home Office and the Scottish Office, which are responsible for emergency services; the Department of Energy with oil responsibility: the Department of Employment with health and safety responsibilities; the Department of Industry with responsibility for equipment and supply; the Department of Trade with responsibility for specifications and regulations; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is concerned with the important issues of fishing; the Department of the Environment which has pollution and other responsibilities; the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office with a major interest; and, as always the Treasury.

It would be very easy to assume that there is necessarily confusion and to jump to the facile conclusion that a Ministry of Maritime Affairs should be set up. I make no such suggestion. There has been enough shuffling around, and the Civil Service cannot be mucked about any more. What is important is not that there should be a new Ministry but that responsibility should be clearly defined.

One suggestion hawked around is that either the Lord President of the Council or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should be given overall responsibility. I do not think that this is realistic, since anyone who knows Whitehall, as I do as the late Dick Crossman's PPS when he was Lord President, knows that the shoestring support that one gets is totally unsuitable for undertaking such a major national task. No. The job of leadership must be vested in one of the great Departments of State.

I therefore ask: do the Government accept that, for security on land, leadership should be vested in the Scottish Office and the Home Office, and, at sea, in the Ministry of Defence? If not, why not?

To those who shudder at the suggestion that the Ministry of Defence should be given overall responsibility for security and considerable powers in the North Sea, I make these observations. First, in the case of the "Torrey Canyon" the Navy took de facto charge. Secondly, such a task gives a rôle to the Navy which, while not as romantic as Indian Ocean patrols may sound, is of vital economic importance to Britain.

If the Navy were given responsibilities for security and for anti-pollution in the North Sea, would some adjustment be made to the accounting system, which would chalk up to defence expenditure work that really should be marked against a civilian appropriation?

A related question is whether the ratepayers are to undertake the cost of services at sea. Is it satisfactory that the Chief Constable of Aberdeen should be responsible for 27 oil rigs in his parish? I ask this question having told the Scottish Office on Thursday that it should obtain at first hand Chief Constable Morrison's concern about pinpointing executive responsibility for action in case of emergency.

On land, what consultation takes place about security with the contractors? I am told that there is very little consultation. Nor, I gather, has very much thought been given to security at the design stage of pipelines and other equipment. What are the Government going to do in view of the increasing technological competence of malefactors? Are orders to be placed for specially designed small craft? What consideration is being given to air-cushion vehicles? What thought is being given to the "little buggy" submarine, useful both for security and for anti-pollution work? What is to be done about standby vessels? I understand that at present these vessels have to seek refuge in bad weather, when they are most needed.

I understand that in the Gulf of Mexico and the Persian Gulf there have been major fires and major accidents. It is only a matter of time before a major incident takes place in the North Sea. Let us be under no illusions: we are dealing with a growth area in national priorities and what should be an expanding commitment of some permanence.

2.52 a.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat (Aberdeen, South)

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on bringing this matter before the House, even at this late hour. He has done something to make people face up to a considerable threat. In spite of the prominence this subject has received since a soviet vessel harassed the gas rig on 26th June, I have been depressed by the number of people, even in the House, who have refused to regard this as a serious threat. We should, therefore, perhaps be grateful to the Soviet Union for—possibly inadvertently—giving us this warning of what is certainly a growth area in national priorities, as the hon. Member put it.

Incidently I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what response has been evoked from the Soviet authorities, as I gather that representations were made to them either by the Foreign Office or by the Ministry of Defence, following the incident on 26th June. I shall be interested to hear what the Soviet authorities say their vessel was doing near the rig.

The hon. Member is making the House and, I hope, the country, face up to this threat. It is a military threat, perhaps, at one extreme. It is a terrorist threat. It is perhaps, a threat from any of the growing number of lunatic groups which seem to infest this and an increasing number of countries. Although it may seem to be difficult to hijack an oil rig, anybody who has been on an oil rig can well imagine that it would not be impossible to hijack one.

We are not talking so much about oil rigs as about oil pipelines. We are considering thousands of miles of pipelines which could be blown up. Often these pipelines are not adequately buried—pipelines on the bottom of the sea, for instance, might be only lightly covered. It costs £1 million a mile to lay a pipeline, and so we are talking about vast sums of money.

It has been estimated that within 10 years there will be 200 production platforms in the North Sea and 100 oil rigs. The cost of the oil rigs varies and no doubt will continue to vary, but we are talking about installations worth about £50 million at present prices, and it is vital that these are defended. We are also talking about what is probably this country's biggest single new asset—the offshore oil reserves—which will be worth at least £6,000 million a year at present prices within a decade from now.

We are talking about an asset that will almost certainly put our balance of payments into surplus within the decade. We are also talking about an industry that will need £500 million worth of fabrication work every year and £300 million worth of supplies every year. There is a vast financial interest involved.

We cannot gamble with such a great asset, and the threat to the security of oil rigs and production platforms can no longer be disregarded or dismissed. I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on the speed with which it has appeared to move since 26th June, but I am not sure that I can congratulate it on the speed with which it moved before 26th June. I wonder whether in the Minister's reply we might be told something about the Ministry's activities.

The Press has been awash with rumours. There have been rumours of conscription, but I do not think that that would be a sensible solution to the problems of security in these installations. I gather that a Ministry of Defence committee has recommended conscription. There has also been a recommendation that there might be a sea traffic control system, with fast patrol boats, marine commandos and helicopter bases up and down the East Coast of Scotland so that helicopters could fly out to oil rigs in emergencies if rigs were threatened.

There have been suggestions that a reserve force might be utilised. As the hon. Member for West Lothian has suggested, the vulnerability of onshore installations such as refineries must also be considered. It would be within the capacity of members of the TAVR to guard onshore installations. The Ulster Defence Regiment is doing this sort of work in Ulster, although the members of that force do not seem to enjoy it.

There have been requests, quite rightly, that oil companies must take stricter security measures on rigs, apart from defence measures which may be taken through the Armed Forces. We must consider whether we can link up a defensive system within NATO, particularly with the Norwegians, especially in the light of the fact that one of the reasons why the boundaries have not been drawn for the northern Norwegian shores is that the Norwegians have not been able to come to an agreement with the Russians, due to security problems. I am sure there are good reasons for our considering this matter within the NATO context.

The hon. Member for West Lothian also rightly raised the position of the police in all of this. As a Member for Aberdeen, I think it is unreasonable in present circumstances—it will become increasingly unreasonable—to insist that the Aberdeen city police force should be responsible for any matter of law and order that might arise on oil rigs hundreds of miles away—north-east of the Shetlands, for instance. It was originally a sensible idea that the supply base should provide the law and order, but most sensible people would now agree that it is outliving its usefulness and should be reconsidered.

We shall need more men and money to defend these platforms. A letter in the Scotsman on Saturday estimated the cost of any defensive system as £1,000 million. It is not sensible to try to cost a system at this stage, but that is not an outrageous figure. We should not try to use our existing forces to defend the rigs. The British Army is stretched enough as it is. The Secretary of State for Defence has referred the matter to the Defence Scientific Advisory Council, I understand, so we do not expect to hear any definitive plan tonight. I hope, however, that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give us some interim guidelines as to the Government's thinking and say when it is hoped that the council will report.

3.2 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown)

I am flattered by the attendance. I am sure that all hon. Members present have come to hear my interesting reply.

I always admire the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whose diligence in pursuing a variety of good causes is well known. I must confess that at three o'clock in the morning I find it difficult to be enthusiastic about anything. Hon. Members will forgive me if I do not reply to all the specific questions which have been raised, some of which are a matter of defence, rather than my narrower responsibility for law and order. There is a difference, I am told.

Mr. Dalyell

That illustrates the un-satisfactoriness of the position. My first attempt was to place this subject with the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Brown

My hon. Friend will appreciate that no one fights for the chance to reply to a debate at three o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Dalyell

That is a good answer.

Mr. Brown

I had better not pursue that. Some of the more important and immediate aspects are properly a matter for the Scottish Office.

The Vote under which this subject is debated refers to Measures taken by the Government to protect North Sea oil installations on land and sea. There is a difficulty in defining this area of responsibility. That is why I said that as far as law and order is concerned it is properly a matter for the Scottish Office. Ministerial responsibility is clear in the sense that it always is; that does not mean that it is effective or properly co-ordinated or could not be improved.

I accept that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that there should be yet another Department but he seeks the assurance, which I give him willingly, that the maximum attention will be paid to the co-ordination of facilities that are expected to be and are provided in this important matter. That obviously includes the Scottish Office and the Home Office on the law and order side. Some of the other questions are appropriate for the Ministry of Defence. The kind of naval vessels required and gereral security from any potential military aggressor are two obvious examples.

The views expressed at the seminar which was held at the initiative of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and to which the Chief Constable of Aberdeen was invited on the initiative of the Scottish Office, are an indication that these general matters have been taken on board.

Mr. Sproat

Was the conference called before or after the Soviet vessel harassed a gas rig on 26th June?

Mr. Brown

I am pretty certain that it was called before. The arrangements had been made before. In other words, it was not just a panic reaction to some sort of incident. There have been incidents with foreign vessels before. A vessel was supposed to have been on the Clyde the other day, and I am not aware that oil has been discovered there so far. We should not make too much of it, therefore. It is not likely to lead to an outbreak of war so far as I can see, and I hope I do not cause a diplomatic incident with that observation.

My hon. Friend's points are certainly relevant to the security of pipelines. I know that the Tartan Liberation Army is not represented in this House, but there have been two incidents and my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to a matter of great concern. Not only are oil installations tremendously valuable; they are dangerous. I do not think that anyone underestimates the problems of them or the temptations they present to any group of terrorists—and this is a world-wide problem—who are determined to cause the maximum havoc and dislocation in any community.

At my initiative, and before the result of the ballot of speakers and subjects on the Bill was known, I arranged to be in Aberdeen during the next few weeks. I have already made arrangements to have informal discussions, partly for my benefit, with interested parties on this subject, including the Chief Constable of Aberdeen.

The question of what happens on the rigs and some of the associated problems is related to the ports from which the supplies are sent. It may be that with the increasing numbers of oil rigs that provision will need to be reviewed. In any case it will need to be reviewed under the reform of local government, and the indications are that we shall probably be doing something about it before May 1975. The problem will be given urgent attention.

I can only thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this important subject. It is a matter of concern to his constituents because of the local incidents and I assure him that, as always, the Scottish Office will give it urgent and efficient attention. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that I have covered all the points raised.