HC Deb 25 February 1982 vol 18 cc1073-80

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

10 pm

Mr.Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

After the passions of party conflict in the Welsh debate, I assure the House that the passions about the subject that I am allowed to raise run as deeply. They are felt right across the board, regardless of party loyalty. I refer to the subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in his Private Member's Bill yesterday. I am glad to see that he is here this evening, together with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).

This is the first chance that we have had in the House to have a Minister present to respond to a matter of major concern in the Solent area, from Chichester to Christchurch. It has wide national implications. We look forward to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister.

The proposal that is causing all the concern is the one to moor and trade from a 900 ft. long tanker in the Solent, filled with a highly inflammable liquid. Not only is that vessel 900 ft. long, but it is surrounded by a 500 metre no-go area. The proposal has been made by Knud Jensen. Until the last few days, one of the intending users was Mobil Oil.

If the proposal were to go ahead, in the words of the director of the Southern Tourist Board, it could lead to the industrialisation of what is one of this country's most important sailing and recreational areas. That is not an exaggeration, as we are certain that if the proposal goes ahead there will be an unstoppable precedent for further development.

We are told that Mobil Oil is likely to pull out from the scheme. The promoter and others are trying to give the impression that the scheme is dead and the danger is over. That is not my information. Mr. Jensen was interviewed the night before last by Mr. Bruce Parker of Southern Television. Mr. Parker asked: What difference does it make to the operation now that Mobil does not want to have a part of the operation? Mr. Jensen replied: First of all it is not Mobil's scheme, it is my scheme, so I do not see that Mobil has any stake in my scheme. He finished th interview by saying: It is still a plan, so the plan will go ahead, yes. Therefore, I am by no means convinced that the threat is over.

The leader of one of the local authorities in the Solent area said to me on the telephone that it could be disastrous if we lowered our guard.

Mr. M. J. Fisher, the Government affairs manager of Mobil, told me on the 'phone that Mobil had Withdrawn from discussion of this particular scheme. He was unable to say that Mobil would not consider other schemes in future. He was unable to give an assurance that it would not use the facilities of the scheme if the facilities were provided elsewhere, but nearby. Mr. Fisher said in a letter that his company's position was as follows: Mobil would want to be certain that any environmental and social impacts of the scheme, eg public safety, recreational and sporting aspects, would be fully acceptable. Mobil Oil first entered into negotiations last November. The letter from which I quoted was dated 19 February 1982. Therefore, it appears that for three months Mobil Oil had not been convinced that the proposal was sufficiently damaging to the area or had environmental and social impacts that would be unacceptable to the Solent area.

Does anyone seriously believe that even oil companies can be that insensitive? Mr. Fisher says that I am being aggresive about this issue. If that is so, I wear the accusation as a badge of pride from the oil companies, as they are not exactly timid in protecting and promoting their own interests.

One might have thought it reasonable to assume that there had been full public discussion of this issue and that agreement had been reached with all the relevant local authorities, but that is not so. There has been a deliberate attempt for nearly a year to conceal the implications of the proposal from the public. There has certainly been a lack of adequate control.

If one accepts the undesirability of the proposal—I think that everyone in the Solent area does, with the exception of Mr. Jensen and his commercial allies—one must examine the wider aspects of the way in which this issue has come to the attention of the public and the way in which it can—or sadly, perhaps cannot—be handled with the law in its present state.

Not only is the law muddled, but the lack of clarity is used by oil companies to get their own way in a whole range of issues. Numerous Government Departments are involved. I have spent a few years in the house and every year, it seems, we have a battle. It is oil in the Forest, or the dredging up of fishermen's nets as companies explore for oil or spillage and pollution and even the mooring of redundant oil rigs.

I recall that during the passage of the Merchant Shipping Bill, Back Benchers on the Committee, of which I was a member, voted to a man for a proposal that would make oil companies, as owners of the oil, responsible for the results of any spillage at sea. It is unacceptable to many hon. Members that oil companies are allowed to override the law in many cases. So bad is the existing position of the law relating to offshore operations that I venture to suggest that if someone wanted to moor the QE 2 off the mouth of Lymington river and run it as a floating brothel there would not be sufficient powers to prevent that.

In answer to a question about the co-ordination of Government Departments my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an extremely helpful and encouraging reply. As part of that answer she said that she had asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the closer co-ordination of departmental interests in this problem. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be able to say something about that.

The Department of Energy is also involved. Perhaps the Minister will examine the oil drilling licence legislation in statutory instrument 1129 of 1976, for example, which gives the Department of Energy control over certain oil activities in the offshore area. There are inadequate powers for local authorities working in concert with the Department of the Environment to control these matters. I shall quote from letters from Three local authorities.

First, Mr. John Marshall, leader of Portsmouth city council, wrote: I need hardly say that the Portsmouth City Council is totally opposed to this project. We would wish to associate ourselves with any Group or Local Authority opposing the introduction of this floating bomb into so outstanding an environmental and sporting area. Secondly, the chief executive of the New Forest district council wrote to the British Transport Docks Board saying: The call for a Public Inquiry into the proposal should be most carefully considered to maintain public respect for decisions taken by the Board of a nationalised undertaking which is not accountable direct to the electorate. There is more, which I shall not read.

Thirdly, the chief executive of the borough of Christchurch wrote to me saying: the Council expect the Association of District Councils to ensure that any individual developments such as this one, if it eventuates, to not in any way become precendents. The sad fact is that local authorities do not have the power. Moreover, it is certain that this would become a precedent if it went ahead. The Department of Trade has certain responsibilities under the Coast Protection Act, but those powers generally relate to shipping matters, so the Department has no power to deal with this problem.

The Department of Transport is the sponsoring Department for the British Transport Docks Board, but the board's record of industrial relations in the port of Southampton does not give one much confidence in its negotiating abilities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will put the following questions to the British Transport Docks Board: should it not have a duty to consult adjacent local authorities? Should it not take note of public opinion? I also question the board's opinion on the safety of the proposal. If the operation is as safe as it makes out, why is it necessary to have a no-go area around the ship into which even Mirror dinghies cannot sail?

With regard to LPG, the New Scientist reported on 5 November 1981: What would happen if a cloud of liquefied gas escaped? On 11 July 1978, a road tanker carrying propylene gas from a nearby refinery passed a camp site at Los Lafraques, 150 kilometres south of Barcelona. The tanker sprang a leak, a white cloud spread over the camp site and caught fire. The heat was so fierce that watches and rings melted on the 200 charred bodies it left behind. That accident scared oilmen and fire experts. If a leak in a gas tanker can have such devastating effects, what would happen if the Canvey terminal went up in flames? The truth is that nobody knows precisely what potential for catastrophe these stores hold. If there is a problem on land, there is an even greater problem in the crowded waters of the Solent, where only recently a very large tanker ran aground close to where it is proposed to moor this tanker. If such a disaster occurred in the Solent, the outcome would be unthinkable.

New Forest district council health and safety personnel are not impressed with the Health and Safety Executive. Indeed, as they reminded me, these were the very people who advised them that Flixborough was safe.

There is alarm and anger in the Solent area. The Royal Yachting Association believes that The British Transport Docks Board (Southampton) intend to impose a safety zone around the LPG tanker, exercising powers conferred upon them by the 1847 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act … and the 1939 Southampton Harbour Act …both of which empower the Harbour master to give navigational instructions in the course of day-to-day management for the good order of navigation. We take the view, which view is endorsed by our advisers, that the Harbour master would not be entitled to preclude, even temporarily, vessels from navigating at all in an area extending a thousand metres across. So where are we? Public opinion seems to have frightened Mobil off, but Mr. Jensen is still pressing ahead. Perhaps as a foreigner he is unaware of the value that we in the Solent area place upon our national heritage. I do not know how people feel about these things in Denmark, but in my view England's heritage comes a long way ahead of what I can only describe as Danegeld. The problem requires urgent attention from the Government through the British Transport Docks Board. We need more power for local authorities and for the Government.

Finally, I received a letter today from the Lymington Society in my constituency, which says: It seems inconceivable that the British Transport Docks Board is in a position to foist this situation upon everybody, with minimal consultation. That is what has happened so far. It seems that it has those powers. We therefore call upon the Government urgently to remedy the situation.

10.13 pm
Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for giving me the opportunity to speak for a minute or two, as the tanker will be just a mile off Cowes and thus closer to my constituency than to any other. East Cowes town hall has never been fuller than it was when more than 200 people voiced their total disapproval of the scheme at a meeting last Friday.

I met Mr. Knud Jensen yesterday, and I support all that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington has said. Mr. Jensen is determined to press ahead with the scheme, which is purely for financial benefit, as he openly and honestly admits.

It is not quite true to say that the docks board is not consulting. It consulted the Isle of Wight county council public protection committee yesterday, and I believe that it met the Hampshire county council last week. My great moan is that it also stands to gain substantially financially from the project. That comes straight from Mr. Gravestock. How can it be judge and jury in its own House? We are all totally opposed to the proposal. We know that the fortunes of the docks board are at a low ebb because of all the strikes in the docks and it would obviously like the proposal to go through, but, it will ruin Cowes.

We are already in trouble, because there has been a threat to take the Admiral's Cup away from us. We have just had an announcement—thank God—from Mike Souter that he is about to invest £4 million to improve facilities at Cowes for crews visiting the premier yachting town in the South and to provide some industrial benefits. That money will not be invested and the island's economy will be desperately affected unless something is done,

Finally, the emergency officer, Colonel Appleton, said that his whole scheme for protecting the island in case of emergency would have to be changed if the proposal were accepted. We do not agree with the Det Norske Veritas adjudication. We could shoot holes in it and it is on its way to the Department of Transport. We are absolutely opposed to the scheme.

10.15 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

I welcome the opportunity to support briefly my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and I am grateful for the time that has been spared for this intervention. This has been an active week for South coast Members of Parliament. I was pleased to be a sponsor of the Bill introduced earlier this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I join my hon. Friends in expressing deep concern about the proposals that have been much publicised in recent weeks.

I represent a constituency near Lymington, one which has five substantial yacht clubs. Thousands of yacht owners take great pleasure in sailing not only in Chichester harbour but in the Solent. Their interests would be substantially curtailed and threatened by the existence of a 60,000-ton, 900-ft. tanker, which will be moored, which will cause a problem for amenities and which will be a substantial safety hazard. There is a serious difficulty, because we must strike a balance between a traditional and well-established right to moor off the British coast—the Conservative Party should not be anxious to interfere too much in that—and the busy traffic in the Solent with its recreational facilities and those provided by the surrounding South coast areas.

I stress that there is great anxiety and that I have received strong representations from the Royal Yachting Association, as well as from many constituents who have yachts and small boats and who are worried that the vessel will be a hazard to their safety and recreation.

I hope that the remaining legal points, which were well enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, can be resolved even if Mobil Oil decide not to go ahead, without recourse to major legislation. In this instance, we should like a reassurance that the pastimes and safety of all our constituents in the surrounding areas will be safeguarded. We seek to represent a proper interest and I hope that the Government will respond reassuringly.

10.17 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr.Kenneth Clarke)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for having raised such an important subject. He feels strongly about certain subjects and he was very hot under the collar tonight. I suspect that he accurately reflects the fact that many of his constituents are very hot under the collar about the proposal. My hon. Friend has won the support of two equally anxious hon. Members for that area, who agree with his feelings. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has sat silently in his place, but I listened when he presented his Ten Minute Bill yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir. J. Eden) has sat silently in the Chamber to give me more time. However, it is obvious that the problem has raised strong feelings throughout the Solent area and the South coast.

Matters of general and national importance were also raised. However, it may be helpful to begin by saying something about the Solent proposal and to set out what I have so far found out. The plan to moor a tanker in the Solent to enable liquid petroleum gas to be unloaded into smaller vessels was conceived by an independent consultant, Mr. Jensen. He took the idea to the British Transport Docks Board—for which we are the sponsoring Department—which, as the harbour authority for the relevant part of the Solent, had to give its approval. He also attracted the interest of the Mobil Oil Company, which has been looking at a number of possible sites for an LPG transhipment facility to serve its European refineries.

Events have moved on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said yesterday and as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington said this evening. Mobil has now decided to withdraw its support for the scheme. While it is obviously for Mr. Jensen to consider whether he wishes to pursue it with the British Transport Docks Board—I gather from my hon. Friend's speech that he says he will—given Mobil's decision and the local opposition that the scheme has aroused, I would be surprised if another backer appeared.

Going back to the history of the project, both Mobil and the British Transport Docks Board have assured me that when the proposal was first put to them they realised that it would be essential to explore fully the environmental and safety aspects and to consult widely with all interested parties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington has suggested that Mr. Jensen, the British Transport Docks Board and Mobil have in some way been behaving less than openly and have been trying to smuggle the proposal through before anyone noticed it. I have made inquiries and I find that discussions started last autumn when the British Transport Docks Board set up a working party to consider the technical aspects of the scheme.

At the request of the working party and of the docks board, a report on the safety aspects was commissioned from the Norwegian organisation, Det Norske Veritas, who are acknowledged experts in this field. The major hazards assessment unit of the Health and Safety Executive then discussed the proposal with BTDB and I gather they agreed Det Norske Veritas' findings in principle. The Health and Safety Executive has said that on that basis it considers that there are no strong reasons on health and safety grounds why the proposed storage and transhipment operation should not proceed, given the stringent safety and navigation requirements envisaged by the board.

Those are the discussions which have taken place since last autummn. They did not involve a great deal of wider consultation although I am assured that some of the local interests were made aware of the proposal during the autumn. On 3 February the British Transport Docks Board, a nationalised industry for which we are the sponsoring Department, began a process of consultation with a wide range of interested bodies, including the local authorities, amenity groups and representatives of sailing clubs. Further consultation meetings have been held.

As soon as we heard about the proposal, the chairman of the British Transport Docks Board readily agreed to the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to be kept in close personal touch with the process of consultation. In fairness to the board, for which we are responsible to the House, it began a wide process of consultation and I suspect, although I am not sure, that it was that which set off the strong, indeed fierce, reaction which has resulted in Mobil withdrawing its backing and in the Ten Minute Bill, the Adjournment debate tonight and all the other representations that are coming in from the area.

I appreciate the wide range of arguments which have been put forward. I know that concern over the proposal extends far beyond the pure safety arguments and that nobody locally is reassured about them. People are also worried about the effects of the proposal on the amenities of the Solent and in particular on sailing, as both the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) emphasised. I can assure them that the British Transport Docks Board is also aware of the concern felt by local yachtsmen and that it has always been contemplating, even if the proposal went ahead, taking steps to keep to a minimum any interference with sailing in the area.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

rose——

Mr. Clarke

I will try to give way, if I can make a little progress.

I have given a narrative of the history but the real problem is the proposal, not certainly dead, as it confronts us, and the wider national implications. I accept that it raises some important general issues. As far as we are aware, this is the first detailed proposition of this kind to be put forward for British waters, although LPG has been transhipped in this way in Dutch, French and Italian waters for some time, without incident so far.

One immediately looks at the law and what restrictions there are on this kind of application going ahead. There are already a number of general statutory requirements with which those responsible for operations of this sort would have to comply. These would include the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1981. Those regulations apply to the handling of dangerous goods and the safety of ships carrying them. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive is preparing draft regulations for the control of dangerous goods in ports and harbours, which would cover ship-to-ship transfers of substances such as LPG.

At present the decision whether such a proposal should be allowed to proceed rests with the local harbour authority making use of its powers, local legislation and byelaws. I must say in defence of those involved that I have no reason to think that they would not exercise controls properly or that the controls would prove inadequate. The Solent issue, about which hon. Members feel so strongly, shows that there are other factors which need to be considered, including the environmental and amenity implications of any proposal of this sort.

Yesterday the House listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport introduce a Bill that seeks to bring floating structures within clear Government control. My right hon. Friend and I and other Ministers listened to my hon. Friend's speech, but it is too early the day afterwards to be sure that such controls are needed and, if they are needed, what form they should take. However, we accept that the issue has to be considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington knows that the Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider with his colleagues whether there is any room for improvement in the arrangement for co-ordination between the various Government Departments which have an interest in such proposals. I can assure all those who are interested that because of the direction given by the Prime Minister there can be no question of this issue slipping between departmental responsibilities. Various Departments are involved in differing aspects of the proposal. The Government as a whole, under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, propose urgently to examine the present procedure involving proposals to ship LPG and similar dangerous materials offshore. We propose to consider that and the other issues raised by the Solent proposal. We shall decide as quickly as we can whether any improvements need to be made.

We accept that a serious problem may have been thrown up by the proposal. I am not in a position to say tonight whether I agree that there are gaps in the law, but we shall find out as quickly as possible whether there are. When matters of this sort come forward the Government must produce arrangements that will reassure everybody who is interested that safety, environmental and amenity problems are considered fully, above all safety problems, and that there is a responsible body that has the necessary powers of regulation and control to reassure the public and to satisfy everybody that what is going ahead is industrially desirable and will not cause any great damage.

Mr. Adley

In this instance the British Transport Docks Board happens to have some jurisdiction. There would be even less control a few miles further down the Solent, or elsewhere on the coastline, where there is no statutory harbour authority.

Mr. Clarke

That is a valid observation. Fortunately, in this instance the BTDB is involved as a harbour authority. It has agreed to keep in close personal touch with my right hon. Friend. Until I heard that Mobil had withdrawn as the backer, which meant that we had more time to consider the serious problems that had arisen, I was arranging to have a meeting with Sir Humphrey 13rowne, the chairman of the BTDB. That meeting would have taken place before this debate, had the urgency been sufficient, to discuss how the board would handle the matter.

The Government have no intention of standing aside. We have no intention of ignoring our responsibilities. There will be a quick review to ensure that there are proper legal and other controls.

Mr. Viggers

I am sure that we are all most grateful for the way in which the Government have responded to pressure from all South coast Members. Perhaps the Crown Estate Commissioners have a role.

Mr. Clarke

Yes, they have. They are responsible to a Department other than my own. I hasten to assure my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that this issue will not be allowed to slip between Departments. The Department of Transport is in the lead but other Departments and Ministers are involved.

Mr. Stephen Ross

There are two matters that I must reiterate. I met Mr. Jensen yesterday afternoon and he told me that he is going on with the application. He takes the view that if it is not Mobil (UK) it will be Mobil (USA) or another oil company. Secondly, the British Transport Docks Board should not have jurisdiction and the power to make a decision. It cannot be judge and jury in its own house.

Mr. Clarke

I do not want to prejudge the issue. Mr. Jensen is entitled to pursue a possible investment that is within the law and that may have considerable commercial advantage. It is our duty to ensure that the scheme is subjected to proper regulation. We must be certain that safety is guaranteed. As the law stands, the British Transport Docks Board has the final say. I think that it has behaved responsibly. It was happy to co-operate with my right hon. Friend. Fortunately, we can be sure this evening that there is no question of the project going ahead with no one approving it before there has been time to review the regulatory machinery which should surround a rather worrying proposal of this sort.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjurned accordingly at half past Ten o'clock.