Floating Structures (Control) (Hansard, 24 February 1982)

§ Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to control the stationing of floating structures

When I originally applied to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill, I intended to introduce a Bill on a completely different subject. However, I have been overtaken by events and by an issue of overwhelming local importance that also has national significance.

There is a project to moor a tanker of 60,000 tons in the Solent, about one and a half miles from Cowes and about four miles from the mainland area of Fareham and Gosport. The project has been planned by a Danish consultant and is for a tanker to be used as a floating distrubution centre of liquefied petroleum gas. To understand liquefied petroleum gas, it might help to think of it as the type of fuel used in gas lighters. The liquefied petroleum gas—a mixture of butane and propane—will be brought from the Middle East about once a month in large tankers. It will then he put on board the floating distribution centre. It will be taken off the centre about three or four times per week by smaller tankers, which will then distribute it throughout North-West Europe.

It was envisaged that more than half of the LPG might go to Mobil Oil's cracker plant at Coryton in Essex. Not surprisingly, the proposal has raised a storm of protest in the area. Liquefied petroleum gas is highly inflammable. Accidents can happen. Only recently a large oil tanker went off course and ran aground quite near to the gas tanker's proposed mooring site. A collision between an oil or gas tanker and the moored liquefied petroleum gas tanker could result in a disaster of horrendous proportions. We can understand the emotion of those who have christened the proposal a "floating bomb".

However, in the interest of accuracy we must be fair to the scheme's proponents. Other LPG tankers use the Solent en route to Fawley oil refinery and about four or five LPG tanker movements take place each week. Reservoir gas tankers are used elsewhere in the world and I understand that there are three in use. The Solent project has been put together with proper regard for safety factors, and I make no criticism of the proponents of the scheme or of the British Transport Docks Board, which is responsible for the port of Southampton, in whose area the mooring site is located. They have consulted widely and I am satisfied that they are making detailed investigations.

The major oil company interested in the scheme—Mobil Oil—has been receptive to environmental and social aspects, and I can now inform the House that Mobil Oil announced yesterday that it has resolved not to participate in the project. The British Transport Docks Board is continuing its process of consultations. I understand that it will finish in about the middle of March. The board will then come to a conclusion and I think that it will conclude that no such scheme should go ahead.

If and when a decision is made not to proceed, a major point of law will remain. During discussions on the project, it became apparent that no Minister or Government Department had any power to prevent the mooring of a tanker and its use as a floating reservoir. The 862 proposal was to moor the tanker within the area controlled by the British Transport Docks Board. Had the proposal been to moor the tanker four or five miles further west—where the port of Southampton authority does not prevail—perhaps near the mouth of the Beaulieu river, no Minister or authority would have been able to prevent the project from proceeding.

There are some relevant Acts, but none directly prevents the continuation of the scheme. The Merchant Shipping Acts which deal with dangerous "goods" cover the carriage and storage of dangerous cargoes. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 gives general control over safety at sea and on shore. Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 allows the Secretary of State for Trade to control construction which might be a danger to navigation. However, in that case, the Secretary of State can control the project on the basis of the vessel's size, but not in respect of its cargo.

Therefore, there is no overall proper control other than that which may be exercised by a port authority. The port authority has a statutory duty to provide port facilities, but no statutory duty to give general consideration to environmental factors. There is no general planning control over ships and floating structures near land. There is no general environmental control at sea.

I oppose the storage tanker proposal because it threatens the general amenity of the area, and particularly the sailing activity which gives so much pleasure to participants and spectators alike, and which adds so much character to the area, making it attractive to both residents and visitors.

There is no general planning restriction that requires the environmental interest to be taken into account. That is why my Bill sets out a planning requirement for moored tanker ships and other floating structures near land analogous to the planning requirement for power stations on land. My Bill would allow a public inquiry to be demanded in appropriate cases, so that all environmental factors could be considered.

I am, of course, aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who I am pleased to see in his place on the Front Bench, to carry out an inquiry into the general co-ordination of regulations, in this connection. I accept that my proposed Bill is unlikely to become law, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it in the spirit in which it is intended—as a contribution to the discussion and a request from all Members of Parliament, local authorities and others in the area who are concerned that there should be legislation to give control in this respect.