§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
9.23 pm§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the honour and privilege of speaking in the first Adjournment debate of the new Session, which deals with the important topic of the dangers of munitions dumping in and around Beaufort's dyke off south-west Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), the deputy Chief Whip, knows, although I was not granted the opportunity to speak under my Standing Order No. 20 application at the end of the last Session, I have been given an early opportunity to speak on this important matter. I think that that shows that Madam Speaker—as well as many others—is concerned about it. I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who has been given the task of replying to the debate, also understands that there is great public concern in the south-west of Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in Parliament.
The all-party group that has been pressing Ministers and the Government over the past few weeks was set up spontaneously to express that concern in Parliament. I am glad that two of its members—my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who have both taken an interest in the matter—are present. I am also glad to see the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro); I had the pleasure of visiting his constituency recently, and spoke at a meeting attended by more than 100 people. That illustrated the extent of the concern even in an area such as Dumfries town, which is not on the coast.
I thank both the Minister and the Secretary of State for information provided earlier today about all the materials known to have been dumped in the Beaufort's dyke area. Although it was provided for the debate at the eleventh hour, it was nevertheless welcome. However, I think that the Minister will accept—we certainly know—that most of the potentially dangerous material is that which has been dumped outside the permitted area. Most, if not all, of that is not recorded, and we do not know its extent and location. That is one of the main problems that have faced us over the past few weeks.
Having thanked the Ministry of Defence, I must return to the attacking style of debate with which I am rather better acquainted, and make some criticisms of the Minister and of the Government. Over the past few weeks, my hon. Friends and I have become increasingly fed up with being sent from one meeting and Department to another in Whitehall: it has been like a game of pass the parcel. It is interesting that a representative of the Ministry of Defence has been asked to reply to the debate, although both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment are involved. I must say that I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present, because the Scottish Office also has an important responsibility in this regard.
I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will answer as many of my questions as possible, and that, if he is unable to answer any other questions relating to other Departments, he will pledge that I will receive 107 answers to all of them which will be copied for those of my hon. Friends who share my concern. After all, over the past few weeks, we have asked for relatively simple assurances. We want proper, full surveys of the area; we want the information to be made public; and we want any action that is necessary to make safe the areas that are being used for commercial developments. Meanwhile, we want any commercial activities to be suspended in the areas that have not been surveyed until there is a full clearance of those areas. I do not think that that is too much to ask.
Let me return to the events of the weekend of 7 and 8 October, and to subsequent events. We knew that a number of phosphorous incendiaries had washed up over the past few years—in ones and twos; perhaps half a dozen here and a few more there—but the surge in the number washed up during and immediately after that weekend took us all by surprise. More than 4,000 phosphorous incendiaries have now been washed up on the shores of Ayrshire, Argyll and Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to the emergency services in Scotland. The local authorities, the fire brigade and the three armed services did an extremely good job. Unfortunately and tragically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute said in our earlier debate, one young boy was badly burned. However, the situation could have been a great deal worse had it not been for the work of the emergency services.
It probably would not be right to describe the phosphorous incendiaries as the tip of the iceberg; they are a small sign of the potential danger in and around Beaufort's dyke. We now know that as well as incendiaries, there is nuclear waste encased in concrete. There are 1.5 million tonnes of conventional munitions, 120,000 tonnes of mustard and phosgene gas, 25,000 tonnes of nerve gas, 330 tonnes of arsenic compound, 50 tonnes of nitro cellulose from ICI at Ardeer and 1,890 tonnes of gas wastage. It is a great witches' brew of chemicals and munitions. We also know from today's letter from the MOD that there are German torpedoes, rockets, US air force bombs and many other things dumped in and around Beaufort's dyke. Altogether, it is a pretty lethal combination.
As my hon. Friends and I know only too well—all three of us are honorary presidents of the Clyde's fishermen's associations and I have done some sailing in the Firth of Clyde—it is an area of intense marine activity. There are two military ranges which, among other activities, carry out torpedo firing, mine exercises and the dropping of flame and smoke markers. British Gas has already started drilling at one site, although I accept that a survey was undertaken before work started. There is the raking of the sea bed and the gas pipeline and trenching work to which I have already referred. Now—I hope this does not go ahead—there is a proposal from Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Power for an interconnector. If the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland give permission, that will mean thousands of volts of electricity going through the area. There are three ferries in the area, two conventional and one Seacat, there are the fishing boats from Scotland and Northern Ireland and there are submarine exercises. All in all, it is an area 108 of intense marine activity, which adds to the potential dangers from the munitions and chemicals that I described earlier.
There have been a number of reports on the issue, beginning with the BBC programme "Lethal Cargo". There have been newspaper reports in the Daily Mail and Scottish newspapers highlighting the dangers. Frankly, only pressure from the media, from the public and from Members of Parliament has resulted in action. I fear that, without that pressure, there would have been continuing Government complacency about, and a cover-up of, what has been happening and the dangers involved.
We have obtained some action and I give credit for that. The Secretary of State for Scotland has brought forward a routine survey by the marine laboratory at Aberdeen which originally had been scheduled for next spring. I paid an all-too-brief visit to the survey ship, the Culpea, on Monday. I would have enjoyed going out on the ship with the Earl of Lindsay. If the Under-Secretary had been there, I am sure that he would have taken me out with him and I would have been able to see more of the work that is being done. We have also been promised that the reports produced by the survey will be published.
I fear that our meetings with Ministers have been a record of evasion, pass the buck and less than the full truth. I know that my hon. Friends will recall that, on 16 October, we met the Secretary of State for Defence. To give the right hon. Gentleman some credit—I am trying to be balanced—he speedily agreed to the meeting. I accept that, and I pay tribute to him for it. It was a courteous meeting and, we thought at the time, a useful one. The following day we met the Minister for Industry and Energy.
However, we found out afterwards that although they knew at the time of the meeting, neither of the Ministers told us that the Ministry of Defence had opposed the gas pipeline route from the start. That is an important point for the Minister who will answer the debate. The Ministry of Defence was against the route because it knew that it was too dangerous. Only after our meeting with the Minister for Industry and Energy did the BBC reveal that fact. Moreover, the Secretary of State for Defence did not tell us about the prohibition notice that had been put on the pipeline work because of concern that had been expressed about it.
The reaction of British Gas was the worst of all; indeed, it was outrageous. The company continued to deny that there was any connection between its pipe-laying activities and the incendiaries. To anyone with any clear understanding of the situation, that is unbelievable.
In tomorrow's New Scientist, marine laboratory scientists will be directly quoted as saying that it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the pipeline laying was responsible for disturbing the phosphorous incendiaries. So I hope that the Minister will not repeat the totally discredited statement that there is no evidence to show that the British Gas pipeline caused that problem. The scientists have looked at the dump and at the details of what is there, and have made some analysis of it. As a result, tomorrow's New Scientist article will also warn of potentially greater dangers in the area. I hope that the Minister will understand that when he considers what needs to be done.
While my hon. Friends and I were trying to get at the truth, British Gas ploughed ahead with the pipeline from dawn to dusk at double-quick speed, trying to get it 109 completed before there could be any further questions about the potential dangers to people in south-west Scotland. The pipeline is now complete, but the crucial factor is that it still has to be commissioned for the passage of gas. That process must be approved by the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Trade and Industry, and it must be considered extremely carefully. My hon. Friends and I will keep a close and vigilant eye on the matter.
As I have said, British Gas has started drilling in that area, but the company also intends to drill in other parts of the area that have not yet been surveyed. I understand that other companies, such as oil companies, are interested in drilling, also in areas not yet surveyed. Yet we now know that munitions were dumped outside the permitted areas. Disturbing any of those dumps will certainly be dangerous, and could be catastrophic.
That brings me finally to the questions, concerns and doubts that I shall put directly to the Minister. I hope that he will try to answer them today, but that if he cannot do so, I shall receive a written reply later.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)indicated assent.
§ Mr. FoulkesFirst, the House needs to know why the Ministry of Defence originally objected to the British Gas pipeline route. What dangers did it foresee? Can we be told clearly? The Ministry of Defence is responsible for the dump, knew the dangers and told British Gas, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Health and Safety Executive about them. On what evidence was that based?
Equally, and perhaps more importantly, we need to know why the MOD's objection to the route was withdrawn. What evidence was given to counter its original concerns, and who provided it? Was it provided by British Gas alone? I think that it was. I believe that evidence from British Gas alone was used to give the clearance. If so, I suspect that such evidence should be examined most carefully.
We need to know how the original fears and concerns of the Ministry of Defence were answered. We also need to know why the Secretary of State for Defence did not tell us about the Ministry of Defence's fears. Why did the Secretary of State not come clean with us? Why did he not say that the Ministry of Defence did not like the proposal and opposed the route right from the start? The right hon. Gentleman must have known that. He cannot say—as he did when we asked him why he had not told us about the prohibition notice—that we never asked about it. We were asking questions about matters we were aware of, but we were also expressing general concerns. If the Secretary of State knew about the Ministry's fears, he should have given that information to us. We were asking not just for the truth, but for the whole truth, and we certainly did not get that on that occasion.
We need to know the basis on which the prohibition notice was imposed. I understand that some concerns were expressed by European Marine Contractors about safety, and I know that 25 workers on the contractors' ship faxed their headquarters to express their concerns. Other concerns must have been expressed, and we need to know why the prohibition notice was put on. More importantly, we need to know why it was taken off. Why did the genuine fears of the work force and others evaporate a few days later?
110 I suspect that commercial pressure was given greater consideration than public safety. My hon. Friends who went to the meeting with British Gas will recall that the chief executive of Premier TransCo, Mr. McConnachie, revealed that British Gas was behind schedule with the pipe laying. British Gas is worried about its profits going down because of the hot summer and the warm winter, and there are commercial pressures on the company. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland understands as well as I do the importance of speaking with one's hands as well as with one's voice. The commercial pressures that were on British Gas could have been one of the major factors in the lifting of the prohibition notice.
I want to raise the question of the current marine laboratory survey. [Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members will have an opportunity to speak, since the Adjournment debate can go on to half-past 10 if the House wishes. I am not trying to prolong the debate, but there is time for other Members to speak.
I went to see the marine laboratory survey at Ardrossan, and I was impressed by the equipment and by what the scientists were doing—as far as it goes; but it does not go far enough. The survey surveys only what is on top of the sea bed, when the real danger for those involved in drilling, trenching and pipe laying is what lies below the sediment and below 40 or 50 years of marine growth. The scientists told me that that cannot be detected with the equipment that they have at the moment.
I was told that a much more sophisticated sonar system called acoustic profiling would be one way of improving the survey, and that a laser-enhanced television system would be another. Both systems are needed, and that equipment could be made available for a few thousand pounds—perhaps tens of thousands—from the Scottish Office budget. What is a few thousand pounds compared to the safety of the public and the potential loss of life which could occur if such surveys are not undertaken?
Operators have a responsibility to undertake surveys, and the House has a responsibility to require them to do so. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that a proper enhanced survey will be undertaken. If that cannot be done now, the Earl of Lindsay has said that it might be possible to consider an enhanced survey when the next survey is due to be carried out. That will move things forward. I hope that the Minister will also consider having more co-ordination with the Institute of Oceanographic Science and relevant Government agencies, and with the world-renowned Institute of Offshore Engineering at Heriot-Watt university.
I make this plea from the heart on behalf of those of us who traipsed from one Department to another. We told the then Minister responsible for energy that it was essential that the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office co-ordinated their activities in such an area. If it had not been for our pressure, some of the co-ordination and contact that took place would not have taken place and that was necessary.
Genuine public and parliamentary concern has been expressed at public meetings that have taken place in Dumfries and Stranraer; others are scheduled to take place in Girvan on 30 November and in Kirkcudbright on 1 December. Those meetings have been arranged spontaneously by local groups concerned about the matter.
111 Those groups will be concerned about future activities. First, there is the commissioning of the gas pipeline that I mentioned earlier to take place in the spring. That is one area where we shall keep a constant vigil. Secondly, there is drilling in areas beyond the present area that has been surveyed. Thirdly, there is the electricity interconnector. I do not want that to go ahead—this is an extra reason why it should not go ahead—but if it does, the survey must be undertaken and the dangers eliminated.
Any further commercial activity that is considered for the area needs to be considered very carefully in the light of all the potential dangers. We do not want to frighten away tourists by having a dangerous area. We want it cleared up and sorted out so that the tourists know that the danger has gone. We do not want to stop commercial activity which can bring wealth and prosperity to people in the south-west of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Before that commercial activity goes ahead, we want to ensure that it goes ahead safely and without any danger to either the work force or the public.
As I said earlier, there has been too much evasion, buck-passing and lack of honesty. We seek openness, clear accountability and, above all, action to ensure that in this issue, public safety is given top priority.
§ Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), for allowing me a few minutes this evening. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate on a subject that has exercised our minds and been a source of considerable anxiety to me and my constituents during the past weeks.
I believe that the Minister is aware of my interest in the matter, and I am sure that he will pleased to know that my young four-year-old constituent who was injured by one of the phosphorous devices is making good progress. I, too, pay tribute to the emergency services and to the doctors and nurses at the hospital who tended him.
The Secretary of State for Defence, in his letter to me today, says that the devices are likely to be the
flammable fills of British World War II incendiary bombs.If anything more is to be dumped at sea, that serves as a warning that lessons must be learned for the future, because we do not necessarily know how what is dumped will react, how it will decompose, and how it will come back to haunt us in 30 to 40 years. We cannot continue to regard the oceans as a convenient dustbin for anything and everything.The Secretary of State goes on to say:
To date, we have been unable to trace any records of this type of incendiary bomb being disposed of in Beauforts Dyke.I have been told that the Royal Air Force was also dumping in the area, and I wonder whether the Minister can throw any light on that suggestion, particularly as the bombs were used by the RAF.The other day, an anonymous caller telephoned me to tell me that there had been dumping opposite Cairn Ryan pier. Very often, because of the type of craft used, people could not go out, or did not want to go out, to the 112 approved dumping site when storms were brewing. It was a case of, "Put it in a box, tie it with a ribbon and dump it in the deep blue sea."
Other people believe that, in view of the fact that 4,000 devices have been washed up, they did not come from the inside of incendiary bombs, but might have been surplus to requirements and dumped in drums that subsequently corroded. Is it possible that some other country could have dumped them? If so, which one and when? I wonder whether the Ministry of Defence has any light to cast on that possibility.
While I welcome the survey, it needs to be as extensive as possible. Most particularly, as I am sure the Minister will agree, any future commercial activity of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, such as laying electricity cables or drilling for oil and gas, should be preceded by an in-depth study of the relevant sea bed area.
What has been disappointing is that it has been so difficult to extract information from Government Departments—like trying to extract blood from a stone. At the very least, there seemed to be a lack of urgency. When we met the Secretary of State for Defence, why did he not tell us that the Ministry of Defence had warned against laying a gas line through the munitions dump? Did he really not know, or did he not want to say?
I am concerned for the safety of my constituents, the Clyde fishermen, the Navy and the submarines that exercise in the area, and for the good name of the west coast of Scotland. Any damage done to the marine environment or to the beaches will do damage to the whole area as we try to promote it as a clean, non-polluted and lovely part of Scotland.
§ Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)I am grateful to have the opportunity to say a few words from the Conservative Benches, because it is important that the constituents of Dumfries and of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale realise that we too are concerned about the events of recent weeks. I shall look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces can tell us about recent developments.
I appreciate and welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had a meeting in my constituency, although at the time I was at Arlington cemetery for the ceremonies for the Lockerbie disaster.
While expressing concern as to what is going on, however, we should not go to the extent of causing alarm, until we have found out the reason for the appearance of the incendiaries, which largely landed up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
It may be circumstantial evidence, but the incendiaries have lain on the sea bed for 50 years, until we started to plough it up, which makes me think that that might be why they have come to the surface after such a long time. I hope that the videos taken by the scientific staff working on the survey ship will disclose whether ploughing has disturbed ammunition and other explosives on the sea bed, and whether the incendiaries, which are lighter, have floated with the strong tide and currents in that part of the world, on to the Ayrshire and Argyll coasts.
113 I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about the latest state of play and the latest information, whether from the Ministry of Defence or the Scottish Office. Like the other hon. Members present, I must point out that there has been some concern about getting a co-ordinated response from the Government on such an important issue.
Finally, I would like to echo the tribute that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley paid to the local services for going into action at once to deal with the incendiaries on the beach, to minimise any further accidents that might have occurred. With such a large number on the beach, we are fortunate indeed that so few serious accidents took place.
I want the whole matter to be cleared up as soon as possible, so that, as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said, any concerns that those involved with future development and expansion on the mainland may have had about the matter will be swept aside, and a clean bill of health can be given to the Clyde estuary, right round into the Solway firth. The sooner that we can get that information, the better. All the fears, which are justified at the moment, will then be allayed.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on securing the first Adjournment debate of the new Session—I cannot think of anyone whom I would rather see get it.
I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I wholly understand and endorse their concerns. I declare an interest in that part of the world as I have known bits of it extremely well in my capacity as a highly itinerant sportsman. I share their concern that the matter should be resolved.
I understand the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries who, as a distinguished and long-serving former Minister, will understand the difficulties that arise when more than one Department is engaged on a matter as complex as this. It seems as though co-ordination is not as good as it could be. I assure my right hon. Friend, as he will know and as I hope Opposition Members realise, that the co-ordination and co-operation between Departments has been extremely close.
I reassure the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Argyll and Bute that all the matters that they have raised with which I do not deal in my speech, and those that relate to other Government Departments, will be dealt with comprehensively by letter tomorrow and we will let the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley have a more detailed reply about the assurance that he wanted.
I have listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and I share his and his colleagues' legitimate concern about the phosphorous canisters that have been washed up on the beaches of that beautiful part of the world. The hon. Gentleman has been extremely assiduous in investigating the issues surrounding the matter, as all who know him 114 would expect. I know that, along with a delegation of other hon. Members, he met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 October. Further to that meeting, my right hon. Friend today wrote to those hon. Members with all the details that we have been able to gather on military sea dumping operations at Beaufort's dyke.
I welcome the recognition of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley of the excellent work of the emergency services, which was wholly endorsed by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). Other hon. Members have praised the emergency services, especially the service ordnance disposal teams, for dealing with these items and safeguarding members of the public. I am extremely glad to hear from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that young Gordon Baillie is making good progress and that he was so well looked after.
I welcome this chance to try to restore a sense of proportion. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made a very reasonable and measured speech, but this is a matter that leads to alarmist speculation and I should like to restore some sense of proportion to the debate and clarify the situation, in so far as we are able to do so.
The incidents have provoked a great deal of understandable but sometimes highly alarmist speculation about dumping at Beaufort's dyke and the hazard that poses to health and safety and the environment. Claims that my Department has been secretive about past sea dumping operations and allegations of looming environmental disasters are wholly untrue, as today's extensive release of information shows.
In common with our European counterparts, my Department no longer disposes of redundant munitions by sea dumping. We ended all sea dumping in October 1992 in line with various international conventions and agreements to which we are party. The agreements reflect an international wish to phase out most kinds of waste disposal in the marine environment. Although that is to be welcomed, it would be quite wrong to apply today's standards to the situation facing the Government and the country in the years after the second world war when most of the munitions were, of necessity, dumped in Beaufort's dyke.
At that time, the dumping of munitions in deep water was a reasonable, wholly accepted and welcome method of disposal. It was used by all the allied powers to reduce the vast quantities of munitions remaining in Europe when hostilities ceased. Anyone who knows, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries does, of the unbelievable scale of the munitions that were around at that time will understand the scale of the problem and the need of the Government of the day to try to secure a return to more sensible levels of ammunition. The scale of the problem was such that at the end of the war, there were almost 2 million tonnes of munitions stored in the United Kingdom. It was necessary to reduce this amount quickly and safely to peacetime levels.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Bates.]
§ Mr. SoamesThere was never any secrecy about the dumping operations undertaken at Beaufort's dyke. A 115 notice to mariners showing the full extent of the dumping ground was issued in 1945. As hon. Members who represent the area know, the work of service men employed at Cairn Ryan and Silloth was well known. Of course, memories will have faded over the past 50 years, but Hansard records from the time show that the operations were by no means shrouded in secrecy and were, indeed, raised in the House.
Beaufort's dyke was our main sea dumping site for surplus and redundant munitions for many years. It was probably first used as early as 1920. With the exception of one emergency operation in 1976, dumping there ceased in 1973. We estimate that more than 1 million tonnes were disposed of at the site.
Surviving records confirm that between July and October 1945, some 14,600 tonnes of 5 in artillery rockets filled with phosgene were disposed of in Beaufort's dyke. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that any munitions containing nerve or biological warfare agents were dumped by my Department in Beaufort's dyke, the Irish sea or the north channel and we did not dispose of radioactive waste in those areas.
Part of Beaufort's dyke also operated as a licensed dump site for civil waste from 1974. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland provided details in his written answer of 26 October to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I assure the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that before dumping operations took place, great care was taken to pack the material so that it would sink to the sea bed and stay there.
Where possible, fuses were removed to minimise the risk of detonation. The weight of the munition cases alone would ensure that the material would, over time, compact itself on the sea bed. The risk of explosion is at its greatest with fused munitions during and immediately after dumping. It is reduced substantially with the passage of time and the corrosion and decomposition of fusing mechanisms. Nevertheless, our advice remains that any munition on the sea bed is potentially dangerous and should be left well alone, hence the restrictions put in place in 1945 to stop disturbance of the site.
The combined effects of dilution, dispersion, hydrolysis and low temperatures act to reduce the toxic potential of conventional explosives and other munition materials. The conclusion of investigations carried out by the United States navy in the early 1970s at disused deep water dumps in the Atlantic was that long-term effects on the marine environment appeared to be minimal. Similar conclusions were reached by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries for Scotland in 1990 after it completed a survey of the explosive waste disposal site in the Firth of Clyde.
The potential hazards of sea bed dump sites which contain chemical warfare munitions and the question of whether there is a need for remedial action have been considered by both the Helsinki and Oslo-Paris commissions. The results of this work have been reported to the London convention, which is the principal international forum concerned with the disposal of wastes at sea. The consensus of international scientific opinion based on this work is that such sites present no significant risk to human health or the marine environment if left 116 undisturbed. Phosgene, the only chemical warfare agent known to have been disposed of in Beaufort's dyke, is destroyed by hydrolysis on contact with sea water and presents little risk to the marine environment.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertakes an extensive monitoring programme for contaminants in the UK marine environment and the results are published annually. In a previous incarnation at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I saw a good deal of that work, particularly that undertaken in those days at the laboratory at Aberdeen. Its analyses of fish and crustacea to date show that where any contaminants can be detected, the levels involved give no cause for concern.
As part of this work, samples were taken from Beaufort's dyke dumping ground this summer. The preliminary results show no degradation in water quality. In addition, on Monday, the Scottish Office marine laboratory began a survey that will include underwater television studies of Beaufort's dyke dumping ground. We will, of course, keep the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley closely informed of how that work goes.
During the survey, sea bed sediment and commercially exploited fish and crustacea samples will be collected and examined for any contamination that may be related to dumped materials.
A further survey of the north channel will take place next year, and that may include further work at Beaufort's dyke. As the hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, the focus of concern in recent weeks in his part of the world has, of course, been the beaching of large numbers of phosphorous-impregnated canisters on the beaches. Isolated examples of similar items have been washed ashore in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and on the western coast of Scotland for many years.
My Department and independent experts examined those objects in 1990, but at the time there was nothing to indicate that they had ever been issued to or used by the armed forces. Samples from the recent beachings did, however, provide evidence of a variety of munition features from which Ministry of Defence scientists have concluded that they are probably the solidified remains of the thickened flammable fills of British second world war incendiary bombs.
The effect of corrosion on the munition cases and chemical decomposition of the fillings, which usually lead to their breakdown and dispersal, have acted instead to make the fillings buoyant and therefore liable to float to the surface if disturbed.
The cause of this recent disturbance can only be a matter of conjecture, but there have been suggestions that recent pipeline work in the area was responsible. I would like to make it clear, however, that there is no direct evidence that this is the case. A contractor working for British Gas did, as the hon. Gentleman said, survey the proposed route north of the Beaufort's dyke dumping ground before the pipeline was laid and filmed metallic objects and other debris on the sea bed.
On 29 September, the contractor notified my Department that it intended to clear the proposed route. We advised against that in view of the possible risks to the pipe-laying vessel or other vessels in the vicinity, even though the material on the sea bed could not positively be identified from the available footage. However, and in 117 answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, following confirmation that the Health and Safety Executive had accepted the company's own risk assessment for that work, and my Department having been satisfied that all appropriate measures had been taken to safeguard life and shipping, the work was allowed to continue.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley is, of course, well aware of the survey that is currently being carried out by the Scottish Office, which is undertaking an underwater television survey of Beaufort's dyke dumping ground and is collecting samples from the sea bed for analysis.
I am plainly not in a position to comment further on that work, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will ensure that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley is kept informed of developments, as will my Department.
Procedures for dealing with old munitions that have been trawled up or washed ashore are well established. Appropriate guidance to fishermen is given in an annual notice to mariners and beached items are the responsibility of the police and local authorities, which call in Ministry of Defence explosive ordnance disposal teams when necessary.
The Clyde submarine base clearance diving unit, augmented when required by other military teams, has responded promptly to such requests on this latest occasion and will, of course, continue to undertake clearance work for as long as is necessary. Liaison between service units, the police and local authorities is being conducted at local level. Those arrangements have worked most efficiently, and I can assure the hon. Member that everything possible has been done to publicise the potential hazards posed by the phosphorous objects. In common with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, we should all congratulate them on their efforts. They have done very well indeed.
In addition to work by the Strathclyde police, all local head teachers have been advised to tell children not to handle any suspect objects or material. Local authorities have also placed clear warning signs on all affected beaches.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department will continue to provide the police and local authorities with the expert advice and support that they need.
118 Finally, I should emphasise that my Department has made very considerable and real efforts to locate and release all or any material connected with its past sea dumping operations at Beaufort's dyke and other dumping grounds. As the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, there are no grounds for accusations of secrecy, cover-ups or complacency. We are fully aware of how seriously the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues take that matter and, indeed, how seriously we take them.
The simple fact remains that many of the relevant records were destroyed many years ago because no purpose was then seen in their retention. What remains, we have released, and if we find any further records we shall release them.
The fact also remains that, although some danger is posed by material being washed up on beaches, a far greater danger would be posed if the dumped munitions were to be disturbed. The Government have instituted survey work, the outcome of which will inform any consideration of whether the current maritime restrictions in the area need to be strengthened or extended. We shall keep the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wholly involved and up to date on those matters.
I hope that I have been able to give the hon. Gentleman, who mentioned the matter in a temperate and measured way, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries some reassurance about old munitions dumps and Beaufort's dyke in particular. I do not underestimate their anxiety or the anxiety of people living in that part of the world. I am not in the least surprised to hear that there have been well-attended local meetings.
We must remember, however, that Beaufort's dyke is largely a legacy of a war that took place more than 50 years ago, and it is a fruitless exercise to make judgments with the benefit of hindsight on decisions and actions taken many years ago in circumstances very different from those of today.
That does not alter the fact that we understand the anxiety that has been expressed in the House tonight. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that he will receive by letter any answers that I have not given him but that he is owed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend for discussing this extremely important matter in such a measured and sensible way.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Ten o'clock.