HC Deb 25 May 1979 vol 967 cc1405-18

1.45 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)

The short debate that we are embarking on concerns a very different problem from that raised in the previous debate. I wish to raise the issue of the proposed construction of a large petrochemical industrial complex in Fife on or near the north coast of the Firth of Forth. The buildings will be sited in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) and Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay). My concern is the prospect for jobs arising directly from the construction of those buildings and from the industrial spin-off which we hope will occur when the project has got under way.

The current level of male unemployment in neighbouring Cowdenbeath has been well over 20 per cent. for a considerable time and I therefore have a large vested interest, as have the workers whom I represent, in the project going ahead as quickly as possible.

It may help if I fill in a little of the background to this matter. Since the 1950s, the area of Moss Morran, which is the relevant part neighbouring my constituency, has been recognised as a possible industrial site with potential to accommodate large-scale industrial development, but the site has not had any formal development plan recognition.

Since the early 1960s there has been interest in the site from time to time in connection with oil refining, petrochemical development, heavy engineering, bonded warehousing and the like, but only since the development of the Brent oil field, which produces oil and gas, has interest been expressed in the site by Shell Expro and other oil companies. In July 1976, Shell Expro contacted the Fife local authorities to discuss its proposals. It had originally chosen Peterhead as the site for its natural gas liquids plant, but it soon became evident that, for various reasons, the site was not suitable.

Concurrently with the inquiry by Shell Expro for the NGL plant, Esso Chemical Limited discussed with the Fife local authorities the potential of Moss Morran to accommodate an ethylene cracker. In order to get maximum advantage in terms of jobs from the siting of the ethylene cracker at Moss Morran, it was vital that the two projects went together because the cracker would attract further petrochemical industries using the ethylene, which in turn could attract other plants using their products—what is called downstream development. That is most important in the view of the local authorities for the job potential in an area which is desperate for such longterm employment potential.

From the outset, the local authorities realised that there would be safety and environmental hazards and they made clear that the two plants should be considered together and their effects evaluated, along with those of potential downstream development. The overall longterm implications for the Moss Morran and Braefoot Bay sites could then be determined more effectively.

Decisions were made in November 1976 by Shell Expro and in January 1977 by Esso Chemicals to proceed to submit their planning applications. To ensure a rigorous and independent analysis of all the possible hazards, the local authorities briefed the chemical, engineering and scientific consultants, Cremer and Warner, in January 1977.

The NGL plant application was submitted on 20 January 1977, the ethylene cracker application on 24 February 1977, and the application for downstream development of the remainder of the site on 21 March 1977. A public inquiry into all those proposals was held in Dunfermline from 22 June 1977 to 21 July.

At that inquiry all the arguments for and against the proposals were put forward. The arguments for the proposals were naturally enough put by the oil companies and by the three Fife local authorities. Against them were the Conservation Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Forth Yacht Clubs Association, the Combined Action Group, the developers of Dalgety new town, the Gray Park tenants association and about 40 individual objectors.

There were certain neutrals, including the Forth ports authority, Cremer and Warner, the Health and Safety Executive, and various representatives of local political parties, including my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Dunfermline, who gave his own independent evidence.

Some of the objectors were vehemently against the proposals, on grounds that we can all understand. There can be no denying that the way of life of the inhabitants of Gray Park, Dalgety new town and the small community of Aberdour will be gravely affected by the development of the project.

When the public inquiry came down in in favour of the project, the objectors became even more vehement, angry and frustrated. They felt that, as my hon. Friend said at the inquiry, the balance was unfairly weighted against them. The Government should take on board for any future inquiry of this kind the fact that there is a heavy imbalance against objectors to such a scheme compared with those who are putting it forward.

I do not complain about the unceasing campaign of opposition ever since the decision was announced. It has been a skilful, costly, persistent campaign, and no doubt it was sincere. I do not challenge that for one moment. To underline what I have just said, it is vital that in whatever decision the Secretary of State makes the interests of the three communities that I have already mentioned—Gray Park, Dalgety Bay and Aberdour—and all the inhabitants of the area are constantly borne in mind.

Though I do not know how it might be done, it might be considered appropriate to have a written agreement from the relevant oil companies that inconvenience to any individuals caused by the development, through the necessity to move home, the fall in the value of their property or anything else, shall be a proper liability that the oil companies must be asked to bear. I do not think that the local authority should be asked to bear the costs of that inconvenience and any compensation that might arise. That is a proper burden to expect the oil companies to bear.

The Health and Safety Executive has been intimately involved with the matter from the beginning. It has reported on the possible hazards associated with the two pipelines to bring the natural gas liquids down from St. Fergus in the north to Moss Morran and the other line carrying gas for fuel to the Boddam power station near Peterhead. We are not concerned with that now. The executive came to the conclusion that dangers undoubtedly existed, especially in the case of the pipeline carrying the natural gas liquids to Moss Morran. Nevertheless, it came to the firm conclusion, based on all known evidence—it would not base its conclusions on anything other than the evidence known at the time—that the worst possibility was an accident once every 22,700 years.

I do not know how these so-called experts arrive at that calculation. I speak only as a layman in these matters, but I believe that only a fool would accept those figures at their face value. Equally, they cannot be dismissed with derision, as they have been by the objectors. The objectors are no more expert in these matters than I am. One must take the evidence as one finds it and as one can assess it.

The pipeline from the north to Moss Morran will be 220 kilometres long, which is roughly 140 miles. It will carry highly flammable materials under high pressures. It is obvious that any leakage from the pipeline could create a great danger of fire and explosion, which in certain circumstances could be devastating.

The executive considered a variety of circumstances in which such a leak or leaks might occur, with reference to the experience of oil companies with other pipelines. It came to the conclusion, as we all must, that there can never be absolute certainty that serious accidents will not happen. But that is the case in many facets of life. Sinking a coal mine, building a motorway, and all kinds of other projects carry that kind of hazard. It must always be measured against the prospective advantages to the nation, the local community and the general standard of living of the people. One must be set against the other all the time.

It is not my intention, nor am I qualified, to go into any great technical detail or engage in extensive comment on the findings of the public inquiry or the assessment of the project made for the Fife local authorities by Cremer and Warner or any other investigations. However, it is worth putting on record a quotation from the overall conclusions of the local authorities' joint report: Should the application receive approval there would be some loss of natural resources particularly agricultural land. A much greater loss to the community could however be that associated with the impact of the proposed developments on the physical environment at Moss Morran and more particularly at Brae-foot Bay. Of even greater significance would be the fact that the two plants with their marine terminal could be a major hazard. Had it been the case that the evaluation carried out by the consultants Cremer and Warner had shown that any aspect of the proposals would constitute an unacceptable risk to life and property there would be no alternative to recommending refusal of the applications. Cremer and Warner however consider that there is no reason to doubt that the plants and terminal can be designed, built and operated in such a manner as to be acceptable in terms of environmental impact and community safety. It is important to get that on record, in view of the campaign that has gone on ever since the closure of the public inquiry.

Since all those reports were produced, there has been additional information in respect, for instance, of radio spark hazards. I understand that these hazards, too, have been investigated by the Health and Safety Executive and dealt with satisfactorily. Having talked to certain people in the Ministry of Defence, I know that the Ministry has been very closely concerned and involved in connection with its radar and radio equipment on vessels going up and down the Forth and in various other capacities.

At this point I want to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland for the meticulous way in which he gave the fullest possible consideration to all aspects of this problem and was on the point of making his decision—within weeks, if not days—had the general election not intervened with disastrous consequences for him, for us and, I think, for the people of Scotland. However, that is in parenthesis. I do not want to engage in a party political harangue, but I thought that I ought to say that as an objective assessment of the situation.

The former Secretary of State was under considerable pressure from the impatient local authorities which thought that a decision should have come much earlier. My right hon. Friend was right to say "No. I want to be absolutely certain that as far as humanly possible all the relevant factors will be considered carefully and meticulously." That is what he did.

In the House on Wednesday of this week, the Secretary of State was asked questions by me and others of my hon. Friends. I may say that there was no conspiracy. It was a case of private initiative all targeting on the same issue. We are all deeply committed to getting a good and positive decision in favour of this project going ahead. But, in the circumstances, the new Secretary of State for Scotland was right when he said very fairly that he must have time to consider the documents and all the very complex information now at his disposal. We have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman taking his time on that. It is much too important a matter for a decision to be rushed.

But, against that, we in Fife have been patient and forbearing for a very long time. I have no wish to ask the Secretary of State at this juncture to give a specific date, but I hope that he can announce his decision—and I hope that it will be a favourable one—before, say, the end of July. I know that the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to this debate will not be able to be specific, but I hope that he will proceed with all expedition, because the longer the wait, the greater the danger of losing the project to Fife and to Scotland.

It is a massive investment of upwards of £400 million. I believe that it is an investment in the future of Scotland. There is no doubt that it is a high-risk investment, as all investments in advanced technology inevitably must be. It is of vital importance to the future of Fife and of my own constituency, ravaged as it has been over the past 25 years by the erosion of its coal mining base.

No objective person can make the charge that decisions on this matter have been taken hastily without full regard to the facts as currently they are known. All concerned—the oil companies, the local authorities, Government Departments and the independent Health and Safety Executive—have acted with a full sense of their grave responsibilities. No one has sought to minimise the possible dangers or to ridicule or silence or ignore the objectors, who take a contrary view. But I hope that I am not unfair in saying that they will be satisfied only with the complete abandonment of the project or its removal to some other site. If that were to happen, if there were to be any further undue delays in coming to a decision, the entire complex might be lost completely to Scotland and might even be lost to the United Kingdom. That cannot be allowed to happen. However important sectional minority interests may be, they cannot be paramount in this matter. The national interest and the interest of local people must in this instance be considered more important than the interests of any minority group.

Fife has suffered enough over the years from industrial depredation. The Fife mining communities have known and still know what it is to run risks of death, serious accident and injury at their workplace. Several members of the local councils now considering this project are miners or former miners who know very well the risks that will be run by the workers and by the people in or near this project. They know there could be all kinds of misfortunes. Nevertheless, they want, the three Labour Members of Parliament want, the three Labour-controlled local authorties want, the large number of unemployed in the area want and I believe the great majority of the local populace want an early and favourable decision to go ahead with this project with all speed.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I hope that he will not think that I am being patronising towards him if I congratulate him on the excellent way in which he presented the case.

Before I move to the main body of my speech, I might say that I gave notice to the Leader of the House that I intended to refer tangentially to an issue which confronts hon. Members who seek to raise matters in this House, especially matters of great complexity such as this one.

I am trying to promote, defend and elucidate the interests of my constituents. As my hon. Friend said, I attended the public inquiry. I have a huge file at home dealing with these topics. However, should I wish to transport that file to this House I should have no place in which to store it. I have no room, and no telephone. I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that, although it is an honour to be in this House, in the past—in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—Members of Parliament did not have to deal with issues of this complexity. Hon. Members cannot defend, promote and advance the interests of their constituents unless they are given adequate facilities.

Let me put it plainly to the Under-Secretary of State that the proposed development of these sites has been imposed upon us by nature. It is not one which we seek. Some people have said that it is Scotland's oil. Others say that it is Shetland's oil. Some, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), say that it is God's oil and that we ought to thank God for it. Almighty God in His infinite wisdom might have been a little more generous and not mixed up oil and gas in the ratios that he has, especially in the Brent field. The Brent field has a very high gas-to-oil ratio. Therefore, a number of choices are presented to the developers of that field.

That field, along with the others in the North Sea, was vital in the past, is vital at present and is essential to this nation in the future.

I do not know other people's predictions about the price structure for oil, but I am told reliably that the gate price for refining at Galveston at the moment is $25 or $26 a barrel. We are in the midst of a very severe crisis brought upon us by the machinations of certain countries in the Middle East which, rightly or wrongly, are looking after their own welfare. I would not take a bet with anyone that the OPEC price for oil would not be $30 a barrel by the end of this year.

We cannot afford to waste any of these resources. The alternatives for the companies involved—I am not a promoter of those companies and not necessarily a friend, although I have many friends in the oil companies—are to keep putting the gas back into the reservoir, which might destroy the reservoir, or impair it, to liquefy it offshore at huge cost, or to bring it ashore. The decision, taken some time ago, is to bring it ashore. The consideration before the public inquiry, as I said at the time, is to be convinced that the sites suggested for development by both Shell and Esso are unique—I underline the word "unique"—for their set of purposes.

I attended the public inquiry and went through those lengthy procedures. I congratulate the reporter of the time, Mr. Bell, and I also congratulate the legal side of the profession on the openness of that public inquiry. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has indicated, these public inquiries are biased, because Shell and Esso, the multinational oil companies, and the local authorities have access to resources that objectors cannot command. One cannot face the resources of the multinational oil companies and the local authorities with a collection of tea and coffee money in order to sustain an objection with counsel. It cannot be done.

I have, therefore, continuously been on the side of the underdog in relation to these public inquiries. We suggested in the Select Committee on Scottish affairs report that some form of legal aid should be given to objectors. I know the difficulties, but we should look at the matter because we shall face issues of equal, if not greater, complexity.

The public inquiry reported in March 1978. The Secretary of State said in paragraph 5: The Secretary of State has considered the Reporter's conclusions, together with all the objections and other relevant factors emerging from the evidence. There have also been numerous representations and submissions made since the report was received. None of these at present leads me to disagree with the Reporter's findings or recommendations, or to consider that the inquiry should be reopened. Subject to what I said in paragraph 9"— which deals with the hazards of sparking— he is proposing to accept the recommendation that outline planning permission be granted subject to conditions in respect of all three applications. That was in March 1978. This public inquiry is in danger of getting into the "Guinness Book of Records" as the longest running public inquiry on record. I have indicated the cost of delay. If the decision is to be "No", let us know it and the local authorities and the companies can make an adjustment.

I recognise and have great sympathy with the incumbent Secretary of State. He needs time to digest the multitude of papers and technical evidence before him. If he did not do that, he would leave the way open to objectors and others to take him to court on grounds not of planning law but of natural justice. He has to safeguard himself. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), when he was Secretary of State, took good care to examine all the evidence before him. But the time is now ripe, indeed overripe, to make a decision. I am proceeding on the assumption that the decision will be positive. If it is negative, the companies will have to look afresh at what they do with the gas and the gas fields. That will be very complex and costly for them. It will also be very costly and complex for the nation.

A decision has to be made reasonably soon. My hon. Friend has suggested a time scale—the end of July, I think. I do not think it is pressing the issue too greatly that we should know one way or the other by that time. If the decision is positive, what should people in the area expect? Nothing characterises the difficulties of political philosophy and outlook between the two parties more than this. If each individual is to pursue his own individual advantage, there is one conclusion. If one has to decide on the national advantage another conclusion may be required. The Secretary of State for Scotland has to look at the national position, taking cognisance of the impact on the community.

The objectors, rightly or wrongly, are asking what will be the impact on them as individuals and their families. They are perfectly at liberty, provided they proceed within the law, to do that. The nation has to say what is the advantage to the nation as a whole. The Secretary of State, speaking for the nation and the national interest, has to determine it.

The Secretary of State, when looking at the impact on the locality, especially in relation to hazard, spells this out in his letter of March 1978. He singles out the hazard and safety considerations. He says: A full hazard and operability audit to take account of the design and construction of the NGL feed line within the site, NGL plant, product pipelines and terminal facilities shall be carried out prior to the commissioning of the plant to the satisfaction of the planning authority in consulation with the Health and Safety Executive. Fortunately or unfortunately, events have moved on since then. We are entitled to repeat the words of Lord Rothschild: Comparisons, far from being odious, are the best antidote to panic. What we need, therefore, is a list or index of risk and some guidance as to when to flap and when not. I am asking that when the decision is made, assuming that it is positive, the Secretary of State should look at the recommendation in paragraph 29, consult the Health and Safety Executive and look at the safety and reliability directly of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. He should strengthen that recommendation and, if possible, get the maximum hazard analysis prior to the consideration stage. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reply positively.

2.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)

I begin by complimenting the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on raising this subject in a very fair and constructive fashion. He emphasised that, as in all planning matters, there are two sides to the case and he put forward the arguments and concerns for those on both sides of the issue in a fair and helpful way. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), who has an obvious constituency interest and clearly had strong feelings on the matter, even before he became the hon. Member for Dunfermline. The points made by both hon. Members have been of great help to me.

The fact that the two hon. Members have been so helpful makes it all the more regrettable that I have to be so sparing in the response that I make. As both hon. Members are aware, debate on an issue of this type, before the Secretary of State has come to a decision, places grave restraints on what can be said that will be of help to either hon. Member. Both hon. Members will know from their previous involvement in these matters that the position of the Secretary of State is a difficult one at this stage. When a planning application is before him, which is the position here, it would be improper for him to discuss the merits of the case with individual parties or in this House. I therefore cannot comment on much of what has been said. I apologise if that seems unhelpful, but it arises from the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State when deciding planning applications. He must behave with the same neutrality as a judge and cannot express views on a matter on which he has still to reach and announce a decision.

The hon. Members will, I am sure, be familiar with the broad history of these applications. Shell originally applied for planning permission for a natural gas liquids separation plant near Peterhead as far back as February 1976. A public inquiry opened into the application in May but was abandoned at the request of Shell when it reached the view that the cost of the harbour works at Peter-head would be exorbitant. Shell then applied in January 1977 to build the same plant at Moss Morran in Fife with a jetty at Braefoot Bay to ship out the product. The following month Esso applied for planning permission to build an ethane cracker on the same site to produce ethylene—a key petrochemical intermediate product. Esso also made an outline application for industrial development at Moss Morran.

The previous Secretary of State called in all the applications and arranged a public inquiry in June of 1977. The inquiry was a lengthy one. The reporter recommended to the then Secretary of State in November 1977 that planning permission should be granted for the petrochemical projects proposed by Shell and Esso. The then Secretary of State, having considered the report, announced in March 1978, on a provisional basis, that he was minded to accept the Reporter's recommendation to approve the applications subject to a substantial range of conditions. However, the then Secretary of State went on to say that, since the inquiry, a subject which had not been discussed at the public inquiry—the possible risk of hazard resulting from radio transmissions—had been raised. Before reaching any final decision the Secretary of State said that he would want to consider any representation which any of the parties wanted to submit to him on this issue. He gave the parties until the end of April to submit representations.

The Secretary of State then asked the Health and Safety Executive for its views on these representations. In July 1978 the Health and Safety Executive sent the Secretary of State a report compiled after the investigations of its specialist inspectors and setting out its conclusions and recommendations on radio transmissions. This report was then circulated to parties, who were given until 4 September, subsequently extended to 24 October, to comment. The further representations made led to the Health and Safety Executive carrying out further tests and research. The result of this further work was sent to the Secretary of State in March 1979 and circulated to parties, who were invited to make any further representations by 28 April. Clearly a considerable amount of time has elapsed since the pre- vious Secretary of State announced, on a provisional basis, the decision he was minded to make. However, it has been spent in the investigation by the Government's statutory advisers on safety of a complex issue which arose following the public inquiry.

I do not think that either hon. Member will complain about these exhaustive inquiries into the safety aspects. Both said that they realise the necessity.

All this material is now before the Secretary of State, who has been in office less than a month. I would say that the results of the election were not quite as the hon. Member for Fife, Central said. My right hon. Friend must accept the responsibility for any delay incurred over the past 22 days, but on any other delay it would be more appropriate for hon. Members to address the previous Secretary of State, who had all the factors before him.

However, my right hon. Friend appreciates the need for prompt decisions in all planning cases, especially those involving major industrial proposals. There will be no unnecessary delay in dealing with this or any other application. We recognise what has been said about unemployment and the other concerns felt by those who hold contrary views on this matter.

I cannot say when a decision will be made. The Secretary of State must carefully consider the material before him in relation to the planning applications in terms both of further procedure and of merits.

Clearly we accept the need for a decision. All points of view would welcome an early decision, so as to know the exact outcome of this application. I thank both hon. Members for what they have said and emphasise that there will be no unnecessary delay in reaching a final decision.