§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)It may be helpful if I were to advise the House on the scope of the debate. The debate should address the desirability of restricting the taking, movement and use of fish, edible plants and edible seaweed from the sea area defined in the schedule to the order and, in that context, could include discussion of the repercussions of the Sea Empress disaster.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards)I beg to move,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish and Plants) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 448), dated 28th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.The order prohibits all fishing activities in the area designated in it which is or may be affected by oil and other chemical pollutants as a result of the grounding of the oil tanker Sea Empress.The order also prohibits the harvesting of edible seaweeds—laver, dulse and carrageen—and a plant commonly known as samphire or glasswort.
The laying of the order is the first of two which have had to be made as a result of the oil spillage.
Yesterday, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I made an order prohibiting fishing for salmon and sea trout in all water courses and rivers that discharge to the coast affected by sea fishery restrictions. The angling season for those fish was due to start today, but as a precautionary measure, my right hon. Friend decided to impose restrictions until we can be certain that consuming such fish will not be a health risk.
§ Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen)Does that order apply to the whole length of the river or only the tidal part?
§ Mr. RichardsClearly, it applies to the tidal part because we are talking about migrating fish.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's concern in placing the ban on fishing was to protect consumers—the purpose of the parent legislation, the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
I am extremely grateful to local fishermen, who have shown great concern for the consumer and respect for their industry since the incident occurred by immediately arranging a voluntary ban on fishing in the area affected by the spillage.
The Government took immediate action to investigate the extent of pollution and its impact on fisheries. The sea fisheries inspectorate at Milford Haven, assisted by local fishermen's groups, took samples of fish and shellfish to pass to the directorate of fisheries research at Burnham on Crouch for urgent analysis. The fisheries protection vessel, Corystes, was also diverted to the area to help with the sampling programme.
In the early days of the spillage, it was known that much of the oil would be dispersed into the water column to a considerable depth. Fish metabolise petroleum hydrocarbons quite quickly and the testing regime was set 439 up to measure the level of hydrocarbons in order to assess how far the effects of the spillage had dispersed. The movement and spread of oil was constantly monitored and we took statutory action to protect consumers as soon as scientific advice showed the need for a statutory ban.
On 28 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced statutory restrictions in an area of about 810 square miles from St. David's head to Port-Eynon point on the Gower peninsula. The size of the designated area is based on scientific advice, and the extent of the spillage and its likely effect on commercial fisheries. It was recommended, therefore, that the order should encompass St. Bride's bay, Milford Haven and Carmarthen bay.
It has been put to me that the designated area should have been extended for a short period so that a testing regime could have cleared the area not affected by the spillage. That would not have been legally possible. I could not make an order affecting an area unless there was evidence that we were satisfied that food from that area was unsuitable for human consumption. That was not the case, so the area defined conforms with legal requirements. We need to consider carefully all the options. We may be able to reduce the restricted area, or remove restrictions from particular species, or a combination of the two. We shall keep that under review.
The testing is a highly complex matter. Not only must we consider absolute levels of hydrocarbons, but we need to test for traces of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. PAHs are resistant to degradation and some are known as suspected human carcinogens. Tests for them are complex and time-consuming. I assure the House that throughout the period before the statutory restrictions were imposed, we maintained close and continuous contact with the industry, which acted with restraint and control in adhering to its self-imposed ban on fishing.
The controls that we have introduced are being enforced with the assistance of the environmental health departments of the local authorities—South Pembrokeshire, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen and Llanelli—the Milford Haven port health authority, and officers of the South Wales sea fisheries committee who have been authorised to supplement the enforcement role of the sea fisheries inspectorate. I pay tribute to the untiring effort that all those bodies have put in to help mitigate the damage caused by the incident. Enforcement on the ground is being enhanced by sea fisheries inspectorate surveillance flights over the area and visits of Royal Navy fisheries protection vessels in the affected area.
Hon. Members will doubtless be concerned to know how long the restrictions will last. I have to be honest and say that I cannot yet provide a definitive answer because it is simply too soon. We are continually monitoring the situation and will lift restrictions as soon as we have evidence that it is safe to do so. To that end, we shall continue vigorously with our scientific programme.
§ Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke)Before the Minister moves off that point and the imposition of the order, will he explain why only 77 hours after the Braer ran aground 440 at 11.18 on 5 January 1993, an order identical to the one before the House was imposed—at 4 pm on 8 January? Why was a similar order not imposed with such alacrity following the Sea Empress incident? If it had, we would not have been dependent on the fishermen's voluntary action, which I, too, applaud. The vessel ran aground on 15 February, so why did we have to wait until 28 February before the order was imposed?
§ Mr. RichardsAs I have already explained, such an order can be made only on the basis of scientific evidence and in the interests of the public or the consumer on health grounds. It cannot be made on any other grounds. As the hon. Gentleman has said, we were obviously fortunate to have the full support and co-operation of the fishing industry.
Since I have been diverted from my brief, perhaps I could correct an answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) a moment ago. The order for freshwater fisheries in fact applies to the entire length of the rivers concerned.
The possibility of further contamination from large quantities of dispersed oil remains, as does the possibility of a remobilisation of beached and landed oil. We are carefully monitoring and sampling to establish how the situation develops. The present cold weather means that the fish are not feeding very vigorously. Such activity will increase as seawater temperature rises and could conceivably lead to a greater intake of pollution from oil contained in the water column. We need therefore to move forward judiciously. Careful attention has to be given to every complex aspect of the passage of contamination, and I make no apologies for our cautious approach.
I am naturally concerned about the welfare of fishermen and the future of their industry. One of our main concerns is to ensure that public and market opinion about the quality of Welsh fish is put into perspective. It is important that the message is quite clear that Welsh fish coming on to the market is safe to eat. We shall explore with the fishing industry and others ways in which we can inform the public and trade interests of the fitness of Welsh fish. The subject could form part of our bid for European funding, and we shall discuss with the Commission ways in which we can enhance the promotion and marketing of the Welsh seafood industry.
The insurers of the Sea Empress have assured us that they will immediately meet the claims of hardship cases. They have set up a claims handling office in Milford Haven, and funds have been made available to make immediate payments. By late this morning, nine claims had been received from the fishing industry. These, I am told, are being urgently considered and will be processed as quickly as possible.
Claims office staff are working hard to ensure that agreement is reached with claimants as quickly as possible, although the latest information I have is that some claimants are experiencing difficulties with the international oil compensation fund. It is an issue that I shall raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see what the Government can do about this intergovernmental agreement.
I am happy to give an assurance that we shall remove controls as soon as we can, but I make no apologies for saying that restrictions will remain in force for as long as necessary to ensure the continuing protection of 441 consumers and the preservation of the reputation of the Welsh fishing industry from any threat from contaminated food. At the end of the day, that is and must remain our overriding priority.
I commend the order to the House.
§ Mr. Gareth Wardell (Gower)I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for the Opposition. I must say at the outset that I was pleased to see a map appended to the Welsh Office press release of 28 February, but I was a little disappointed that the map was not appended to the order available in the Vote Office.
Being a geographer, I want to query one small point relating to the order's designated area schedule for the longitude of St. David's head. The Royal Geographical Society, of which I am pleased to be a fellow, disputes the location given in the schedule, but I shall not go into too much detail about the ability of the Welsh Office to ensure that the correct location is given. The longitudinal location of St. David's head is 5 deg 18 minutes 40 seconds west, not as appears in the schedule.
The closure order has been met with considerable dismay in south-west Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) put his finger on a reason for part of the dissatisfaction, which is that in 1993 the Scottish Office issued a closure order within 48 hours of the Braer going aground. The order that we are debating was certainly introduced hastily, without consultation and at one hour's notice, but it was issued some 14 days after the Sea Empress ran aground.
There is a strong impression locally that, having barged and blustered in and out of the crisis for 14 days, and having at last realised that people are incensed at the apparent confusion over responsibility, the Government, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office, decided that they had better do something—anything—to show that they were in control. Unfortunately, MAFF and the Welsh Office have lost considerable credibility and the confidence of fishermen in this crisis. I assure the House that the people of west Wales—not only fishermen but traders, hoteliers and ordinary people—are absolutely furious at the way in which this incident has been handled from start to finish.
What has emerged from my mail bag and from meeting people in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire is that local people have absolutely no confidence in a Government who have failed to take on board lessons learnt from the Braer disaster in 1993 and who have dithered and delayed over implementation the recommendations of the Donaldson report. People have no confidence in the port authorities, the salvagers or the marine pollution control unit, which are jointly accused of a lack of communication, of critical indecision and of misjudgment in dealing with the ship and failing to protect the environment from the oil spillage. They believe that the environmental impact has been much greater than it need have been and that a cover-up is taking place. That is why they call for a public inquiry and why we continue to do so.
This week the clean-up operation is being wound down, although 200 men are still working on the beaches. The sea is reported to be clear of oil, although around 50,000 tonnes are probably still sloshing around in the water column and in sediments. The Royal Society for the 442 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' bird centre is being closed, although it is still expected that many dead, oiled birds will be washed ashore. Many of Pembrokeshire's famous sandy beaches look clean again, although sand castles are likely to be black for a while yet, and internationally precious species have been destroyed, endangered or destabilised.
Now that the shock of the environmental impact has been absorbed, however, attention has to be fixed on the economic impact of the disaster. Fishermen in Milford have experienced their fourth week without income. The tourist industry expects a 25 per cent. fall in bookings, which will have a serious knock-on effect on trade and income in the area. One of the reasons for the local dismay about the closure order is the effect that it will have on the recreational fishing and tourist industries.
No one quite understands why the order has been applied to recreational angling. Usually, controls and regulations relate to commercial enterprises. The European Community directive on licences for bivalve mollusc taking, for example, relates specifically to commercial operations. If a private individual wants to catch and eat shellfish from directly under a sewer, he is free to do so. If he becomes ill, it is his responsibility. Many recreational anglers return their catch. No hotelier is going to buy black market fish which may well taste of oil. It seems that this important sector of the local economy will best be able to organise itself.
Certainly, I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the fact that anglers and their suppliers of, for example, charter boats and tackle are extremely angry that their sport and livelihood is being penalised in this way and that there is a good case to remain for removing recreational angling from the order.
Given the scale of the disaster, and setting aside environmental, conservation and ecology issues, the Government must take on board two matters relating to fishing interests. The first is public health and the second is the long-term protection of the fish and shellfish markets.
While there is some concern about the effects on fish and the marine ecology of the cocktail of chemical dispersants used, no one to whom I have spoken thinks that there are serious immediate public health safety implications. The consensus seems to be that as fish and shellfish affected by oil acquire the taste of that oil, no one is going to eat enough to become seriously ill. In any case, local authorities, through their environmental health duties, are always closely monitoring the public health safety situation in their areas.
To protect the market, we need to ensure that no fish that go on sale are tainted by the taste of oil so that the perception and reputation of local fish as wholesome and clean is maintained. The voluntary ban by local fishermen, as the Minister has acknowledged, was the courageous, practical and immediate first step to securing that confidence in the market. The tasting panel facility at Torry will be invaluable in maintaining that position.
Locally, it is widely felt that the Welsh Office did not need to impose the closure order, especially at such a late stage. Although continuing the voluntary ban would have imposed too much responsibility on a small group of the community, the Welsh Office could have asked local authorities to take on responsibility for protecting public health and market credibility in their areas.
443 It is clear that local authorities are best placed to cope with the situation. Swansea, Llanelli and Preseli Pembrokeshire councils had already undertaken the procedures that are legally necessary to implement local measures to control fishing in their areas. The councils have public and environmental health powers that would have covered their areas perfectly adequately to protect the public health and safety requirement.
Council environmental health departments, the National Rivers Authority and the sea fisheries committee officers are undertaking much of the monitoring work that provides the basis for the MAFF and Welsh Office analysis of the situation. Under the closure order, local authorities, through their sea fisheries committees and environmental health units, will enforce the order. As the local councils will be informing and enforcing the order, I fail to see why, when local councils had the necessary powers, the order is required at all. I hope that it is nothing to do with the Welsh Office not wanting to pay for local authority help on a longer-term basis than the immediate clean-up.
On 21 February, the Welsh Office said that the imposition of a closure order would be "a draconian measure". Less than a week later, this order was imposed at an hour's notice by the Welsh Office. I agree with its original assessment: the order is draconian. It is a blunt instrument wielded in the dark. Everything about it shouts, "best guesstimate available". Yet families' livelihoods depend on such decisions.
The decision to impose the closure order cannot be justified because it was supposed to have been based on information from the monitoring of samples. It clearly was not. My understanding is that sampling results on 28 February did not show any pollution increases above background levels in most species or in the Milford Haven waterway. From that information, it follows that despite the delay in taking action and the breathing space to assess the situation that the fishermen's voluntary ban had given them, MAFF and the Welsh Office decided to make the order before they had reliable information on the effects of the spillage. For example, the most cursory examination of the order shows that the boundary defined in it can be described only as wholly arbitrary.
§ Mr. RichardsThe hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He says that the boundary described in the closure order was wholly arbitrary, but it is almost coterminous with the voluntary boundary imposed by the fishermen.
§ Mr. WardellYes, indeed. I am delighted that the Welsh Office followed that guidance, but the boundary was not based on what the Minister said in the House. He said that it was based on scientific evidence. He now says that it was based on what the fishermen did. The change that he has admitted to the House shows clearly that the Welsh Office followed the boundary set by the fishermen without the scientific evidence that he says was legally necessary to define the boundary.
No one understands the rationale behind the defined offshore limits as anything other than a precautionary, catch-all MAFF and Welsh Office protective position. No one understands why north Devon and, especially, the area around Lundy have not been included in the order.
444 People in Swansea want to know whether, as North sea oil from the Forties field was recorded at Mumbles head and in Swansea bay last weekend, the boundary of the order will be extended. Why is the border south of Port Eynon point when the oil has reached further east than the currently enforced boundary? If, as seems likely with so much oil still suspended in the water column, further pollution sites are identified, will the order be varied again and again? If so, what is the mechanism for doing that? As I said, the boundary is arbitrary. If it is not, I hope that the Minister will place in the Library as soon as possible the exact sample results that enabled the line to be drawn. We look forward with interest to seeing the sample results from before 28 February that would give us confidence. The samples that I have seen do not lead to that conclusion.
How flexible will be the mechanism for lifting as soon as possible the prohibition on an area-by-area and a species-by-species basis? We want to know the mechanism and whether the Minister will give a commitment that he will lift the order area by area and species by species.
Although local authorities, the NRA, sea fisheries committee officers and MAFF are undertaking extensive monitoring of oil, water and fish, we cannot compare its results with experience and data from the Braer incident because MAFF is using a different indicator. They are using total hydrocarbons, as opposed to the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that were used after Braer. After the experience at Braer, we would hope that practically all species of fin fish will be untainted after about three months and that after perhaps 18 months, crabs and lobsters will be clear. The length of time that a species will take to recover depends on how badly an area was affected by the spillage. Local authorities are surely best placed to define where in their localities the effects of oil have cleared or remained.
The position of the shellfish industry is different and is potentially much worse. I understand that because of the very cold weather, some species have not been taking much food, so the effects of the oil are and will be much less than expected. Only information from monitoring will show whether that view is correct. Only monitoring will show whether the phenomenon is short term, whether the position will change when the water warms up and whether it applies to all shellfish or just to some species. Experience from the Braer incident suggests that heavily affected shellfish take a very long time to recover. The ban on whelks and scallops after the Braer incident has remained in force for three years.
Although research is under way through Plymouth and Bristol universities, we do not know the background level of oil pollution in shellfish sites in seas throughout Europe. It is, therefore, difficult to say what levels will be deemed safe and what levels will be deemed normal. That is a critical point. We did not know that information before the disaster occurred so it is impossible to know what its effects will be. The base level against which we need to make comparisons is not available.
On 22 February, for example, the Milford mussel beds were open, although the total hydrocarbon levels in the mussels were far higher than the levels in mussels in the beds at the Burry inlet on 28 February. Those beds were closed under the prohibition order when the total hydrocarbon levels were just over six parts per million per kilogram of fish. As the Burry inlet happens to be
445 within the arbitrary boundary that the Welsh Office has drawn, although it has no visible oil in it, it is covered by an order that prevents the people of the northern part of my constituency from undertaking their commercial enterprise. There is no indication that the total hydrocarbon level in the cockles there poses any risk to public health.
I would like the Minister to tell the House this evening what the critical levels are which, if found in samples, will pose a public health risk. What are the levels below which shellfish or finned fish are deemed to be safe and fit for human consumption? Unless we know that, we can have no confidence in the order and can see it only as a catch-all, precautionary measure which is not based on scientific evidence. People should know that what they are eating is not safe because the critical levels have been exceeded.
Such considerations demonstrate how important it is to individuals and to the local economy that regulations are flexible enough to respond to changing information. Local authorities and the South Wales sea fisheries officers are already monitoring and gathering information. They are much better placed to respond to changed situations in their own area than are the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I have raised a number of important points to which, I hope, the Minister will be able to respond. The point about the critical level is especially important and I hope that the Minister can tell us about the sample results that demonstrate clearly that it is dangerous to eat any fish or shellfish covered by the prohibition order.
I trust that the closure order will be lifted as soon as it is possible to agree standards and procedures with the local authorities. As more information becomes available, everyone involved will be better able to understand what is happening in different areas to different species. At that point, local authorities are best placed to adapt to and to put in place the necessary fine-tuning to protect public health, public confidence and the local economy.
I am pleased to have this opportunity, for the first time in my parliamentary career, to address the House from the Dispatch Box. I am grateful to you,Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me.
§ Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on an excellent performance. Unfortunately, it may well be his last performance at the Dispatch Box. He displayed again his great skill and his command of detail. The House will be lessened when he is not with us after the next general election.
I will try to confine my remarks to the order. I am sure that if I stray you will pull me back quickly,Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, it is mainly my constituency that has been affected by the Sea Empress disaster and by the prohibition order.
As I mentioned when I intervened during the Minister's speech, I am especially concerned by the delay that has occurred, for whatever reason. We had an explanation from the Minister. The Scottish Office acted only 77 hours after the Braer had run aground in conditions that were extremely severe, with gales and huge seas. Was anyone able to carry out scientific monitoring to decide whether 446 there was a risk to health within 77 hours of the vessel running aground? I have read the debate that followed the imposition of that order. Everybody congratulated the Scottish Office on its alacrity in dealing with an extremely severe problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower has said, the order was a precautionary measure which was confirmed later by scientific evidence.
I put on record my thanks to the fishermen of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and West Glamorgan, who imposed their own voluntary ban as quickly as possible and then pursued the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to get a proper prohibition order in place as quickly as possible.
There were two reasons for that action. First, the fishermen wanted to try to restore order to the situation. Secondly, once order had been restored, confidence could be given back to the market for products from areas not affected by the oil. Progressively, following testing and monitoring, areas in the periphery could then establish their own clean bill of health for the products that they wished to market.
We can already see the problem. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs heard evidence this morning about prawns caught between Aberystwyth and New Quay in Cardigan bay, on the periphery of the area affected by the order. Those prawns were not accepted for sale in the market. We are talking not only about products caught within the prohibition area, which was purely voluntary until 28 February, but about products caught some distance away. That is a major problem.
Within hours of the news getting out that the Sea Empress had run aground on 15 February, the people marketing whelks from Carmarthen Bay were informed by the Koreans—their only market—that they did not want the product for fear that it was tainted. The same then happened to products shipped to France and Spain; the market dictated that it did not want products from west Wales and, I understand, from Wales in general at one stage, although I understand that that problem has started to improve.
The Minister has not been able to tell us—at least, not in response to my intervention—why it took from 15 February until 28 February to impose the order. In his opening remarks, he mentioned the consultation that had taken place between the Welsh Office and the fishing organisations and industry. He repeated that statement in a memorandum that he sent to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee for our investigation into the matter, from which I quote briefly. In paragraph 21 of that memorandum he states:
Throughout the period before the placing of statutory restrictions, there was close and continuous liaison with the fishing industry about adherence to their self imposed ban on fishing which enabled the Department to have full confidence that the action being taken ensured the consumer was fully protected.That is contrary to evidence that we received this morning from Mr. Phillip Coates, a director of the south Wales sea fisheries committee. When Mr. Coates was asked by the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, what consultation had taken place between the Welsh Office and the sea fisheries committee on that issue, the answer was "zero". There was no consultation whatever about the imposition of that prohibition with the officers or the members of the sea fisheries committee.447 More than 90 per cent. of fishermen in west Wales are members of the Sea Empress Fisheries Claimants Association. Their view was faxed to me at 11.42 am on 28 February. I quote from it:
The MAFF Office has offered all the assistance that can be given to the Welsh Office but we understand they have rejected it. The association need a definitive answer to the closure problem as soon as possible as our members are becoming a little angry to say the least. Could you please contact the Welsh Office and lend your weight to our problem.The week before I received that fax, I had received a communication from the Sea Empress Fisheries Claimants Association, which I met that Friday afternoon. As a result of that meeting, I contacted the private office of the Minister in MAFF with responsibility for fisheries, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), to urge him to institute a prohibition order to restore confidence to the market and protect the rights of the fishermen who were currently exercising a voluntary ban.I was informed that the Minister was not available, but I explained the position and staff agreed to pass the message on to him at the earliest opportunity. I telephoned his office when I returned to London on Monday morning and was told that he was not available but that we could meet after the vote at 10 o'clock. That is what I did, and I was assured by the Minister that he would do what he could to ensure that order was restored. He agreed with me that the best way was to put a prohibition order in place as soon as possible. He informed me, however, that it was not his responsibility but the responsibility of the Welsh Office.
On Tuesday morning, I contacted the private office of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). Unfortunately, he was not available until about 4.30 on Tuesday afternoon. I spoke to him just before he went into the Standing Committee on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. I was assured by him that the argument had been accepted and that the prohibition order would be in place as soon as possible.
I received no information the following day until I saw the Minister in the precincts of this place and asked him what was happening. He said that he would check and find out what was going on. He understood that the Secretary of State was dealing with it. That was at 4.50 pm. I then received a phone call from a member of the Press Gallery, informing me that the order had already been put in place. As you will see from the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is timed 4 o'clock that afternoon.
I can understand that at times there may be lack of communication between Departments such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office, but it is beyond me to believe that we had such had communication within the Welsh Office between the Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State. I understand that the Secretary of State signed the order at approximately 2.30 pm, for imposition from 4 o'clock onwards, but obviously no one had bothered to tell the Under-Secretary of State what was going on. That exemplifies one of the problems that we have had in getting the order properly in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower made a point about leisure angling. To help my constituency and the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for 448 Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Gower and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), I hope that everyone, at least from Wales, will try to restore the reputation of that most beautiful part of our country. The problem is that while the order is in force leisure angling is prohibited.
This morning I learned that an international sea angling competition scheduled for September, in which 25 boats would have been involved and for whose competitors several hotels would have provided accommodation—in other words, an opportunity to restore confidence and put some money back into the local economy—had been cancelled. That will cost my constituents many thousands of pounds, because most of the competitors had intended to stay in the Tenby area and charter boats from Tenby, Saundersfoot and Milford Haven.
I support the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower for the leisure angling part of the prohibition order to be removed as soon as possible. The case was well made by my hon. Friend. Everyone accepts that people who enjoy angling as a sport or as a leisure pastime know what they are doing and there would be no suggestion of those fish products finding their way on to the market. We can at least begin the process of tackling the obvious problems that the tourist industry and the leisure industry generally will suffer as a result of the spillage.
The Minister rightly alluded to compensation problems, despite assurances given by the insurers about the payment of hardship funds and compensation. I am sure that he departed from his prepared text, as I am aware that he met members of the Sea Empress Fisheries Claimants Association before the debate. As he knows, we received evidence from them this morning and in the early afternoon and we learned that there are clearly serious problems in relation to hardship payments and general compensation.
What worries me especially, even though I have met the insurers, is that people who are rightly starting to make claims seem to feel that, apparently because there were problems with the payment of claims following the Braer disaster, the insurers may well be taking a different view and acting differently in the way that they treat claims arising from the Sea Empress disaster. I quote from an article that appeared in The Times on 24 February in which Mr. Michael Thorpe, deputy director of Skuld—the insurers of the Sea Empress—said:
Unfortunately we created a claims mentality"—referring to the Braer—which led to a number of spurious and over-inflated claims.Our experience with the Braer incident might make us more reluctant to pay out claims for the Sea Empress in full even if we are satisfied that claims are bona fide. This is because we do not want to find in three years' time that we have paid too much too early".The experiences so far of the few people who have submitted their claims, and the reactions of the insurers to those claims, bear out the fears that the insurers are following a far more tight-fisted policy in relation to justified and reasonable claims made by those who have suffered consequential loss as a result of the Sea Empress disaster. I am assured by the insurers that that is not the case, but the experiences of the people making the claims seem to bear out those fears.I am sure that the Minister and Labour Members would agree that that is wholly and utterly unacceptable. People who have suffered consequential loss should be 449 compensated in full as quickly as possible. Their claims for hardship should also be dealt with as quickly as possible. Let us not forget that it is five weeks since the Sea Empress ran aground and literally no one in the fishing industry has been paid anything in that time.
§ Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)I apologise to the Minister for my absence during his speech. The issue of consequential loss is important. There is no doubt at all that the losses of fishermen in Ceredigion—who are unable to sell their fish even though it may not be contaminated—are a consequence of the Sea Empress tragedy. I trust that there will be no cavilling about this and that the insurers and the compensation fund will recognise this as a consequence of the tragedy and that these people will be properly eligible for compensation. I trust that the Government will press this issue very strongly.
§ Mr. AingerI do not know whether that intervention was meant for me or for the Minister, but I support the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, particularly as I referred to the example of fish caught off his constituency between Aberystwyth and New Quay. Undoubtedly, the fishermen and the processor have suffered consequential loss. I took this point up with the insurers and the international pollution compensation fund administrators and I was assured that so long as documentation was provided, the consequential claims would be met.
We are concerned, however, that there appears to be a climate of restriction—certainly this was the experience in the first few days of dealing with the claims—in which relatively small percentages are being paid of what are reasonable claims. Obviously, there is still a large amount of hardship that has not so far been tackled and which needs to be tackled as quickly as possible.
I shall not detain the House much longer. The accident of 15 February turned into a disaster on the night of 19 February. Unless we have a truly independent inquiry, I fear that people in my constituency will believe that there has been a cover-up. It is clear from evidence that is now widely available that the decision-making process in relation to the salvage operation included officials from the Coastguard Agency and officials from the marine pollution control unit. This and other issues must be addressed to restore confidence in west Wales and in the energy industry as a whole. The only way in which that can be done is by an independent inquiry—ideally under Lord Donaldson—so that confidence can be restored and we can get to the bottom of this tragedy.
§ Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli)I shall be brief as my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) have dealt with the problems fully. I shall raise one or two points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, this is a draconian order and I do not know whether it is necessary. Having listened to my hon. Friends, I am not so sure, but I can understand that a Government of any political persuasion would feel it best to err on the side of caution and safety in these matters.
In looking at the order—I am not making a pedantic lawyer's point—I find that the language does not fall very easily. Indeed, looking at the parent Act, it is not clear 450 whether it is always a suitable vehicle. As I understand it, however, the order is the same as the one used following the Braer incident. I will quote the preamble, if that is the right term. We are told that the order is
in exercise of the powers conferred … of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985".There is then a curious long sentence which states that the Secretary of State may be of the opinionthat there exists or may exist circumstances which are likely to create a hazard to human health through human consumption of food"—I understand that, but the next part is very odd—and that in consequence food which is derived or may be in the future derived from fish … may become unsuitable for human consumption".I thought that that referred to fish, but having read it again it obviously does not. I do not think that fish is food derived from fish—fishcakes or fish fingers, perhaps, but not fish. I do not know why there is this difficulty. Very often when drafting is not clear, it betrays a difficulty in dealing with the problem. The order goes on to say that no one should fish at all, even those who fish merely for leisure. The way the preamble is drafted is rather strange.In relation to fishing for recreation, the order will have a considerable effect. There is perhaps not so much fishing in my constituency as there is in Pembrokeshire, the Gower peninsula or the constituency of Carmarthen. As the Minister will know, people fish commercially for bass and for their own pleasure. This will be a draconian order, not only for those who fish commercially but for those who fish for pleasure in the Burry Inlet and beyond.
What worried me most was the Minister's use of the word "hardship" when he discussed the insurance fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke has dealt with this issue, and perhaps the Minister did not just mean hardship. Hardship is not loss of profit, as I understand it: it is a subjective matter. Why can the Minister not say "claims by commercial fishermen for loss of profit"? We all understand that a claim has to be proved, but it should not be too difficult to prove that there has been a loss.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure fishermen and those who process shellfish in my constituency that if they can show a loss of profit—it should not be too difficult to show a dip over a six-month period from the disaster, as supplies may be obtained from other places—they will be compensated.
§ Mr. Gareth WardellI agree with my right hon. Friend. That information is available. The sea fisheries committee licenses cockle gathers, so their numbers are known. MAFF has information about whelks, for example. On the basis of the information that the Departments already have, therefore, there is no reason whatever not to speed up the process of compensation.
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that the South Wales sea fisheries committee is aware of every cockle that is lifted from the Burry inlet. The information is available, so people should be allowed to prove their claims.
I hope that the Minister was not saying that only claims for hardship would be allowed. Where did he find the word "hardship"? Is it from some part of the agreement 451 that I have not read? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that claims for loss of profit will also be allowed and that it is not just a matter of hardship.
That is all that I have to say as my hon. Friends have covered the matter. It is a draconian order and I hope that it will be lifted fairly soon. I hope that the Minister will come back to the House regularly to tell us what is happening and when he is likely to lift the order.
§ 8 40pm
§ Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen)I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. It is very much an all-Dyfed affair. I note that the Minister was brought up in Llanelli and that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) was born in my constituency and lives there now. Everyone who has spoken tonight represents Dyfed constituencies.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower on his speech from the Front Bench. He has worked diligently, as he did in the Select Committee, and is a complete master of his brief and knowledgeable about fisheries and the problems that we face in Dyfed. I should also put in a word for the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who has a unique background in the oil industry.
Although Dyfed is only a small part of Britain, North sea oil destined for the British market caused last month's catastrophe, which severely threatened its economy. I echo the calls throughout Dyfed and among Opposition parties for a full and independent public inquiry into the initial incident and, in particular, into what happened during the following four days which turned the incident into a disaster. Only a full public inquiry can ensure that it does not happen again.
Broadly speaking, I welcome the order in that it safeguards the future of the fisheries market—it is important to our economy and food safety in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, the order draws a rather arbitrary border. The initial incident occurred just off Milford Haven, but the wind direction carried its effects down the south-west coast. Very little thought seems to have been given to the boundaries.
The order will affect the cockle industry in Laugharne in my constituency. In the past three or four years, there has been a remarkable revival of the cockle industry there as the cockle beds have shifted in Carmarthen bay. I do not understand such matters, but the industry is now worth well over £1 million a year. The prohibition order will mean the loss of several million pounds in shellfish sales this year.
I had an exchange earlier with the Minister about salmon fishing and angling in the Towy. I am glad that he has corrected his earlier comment. I understand that the order applies to the entire length of the Towy and that no fishing will be allowed—even for leisure—in the next few months, until the order is lifted. I am sure that the Minister will keep the situation under constant review.
§ Mr. Gareth WardellMy hon. Friend mentioned the cockle industry in Laugharne. The sampling of hydrocarbon contamination of cockles at Llansteffan shows that, when the order was introduced, hydrocarbon 452 contamination was at the maximum, so there is no scientific justification whatever for the introduction of a ban on the harvesting of cockles there. That is an example of the problems that are likely to occur under the order.
§ Mr. WilliamsThere are many such anomalies. The order is a sledgehammer. It is a crude measure that bans everything from that area of sea water. It may be difficult to make exceptions, but my hon. Friend has raised an important point.
There is also a problem in relation to leisure angling on the Towy. I have a letter from the chairman of the Carmarthenshire Fishermen's Federation pointing out that the Towy has always been a good river for salmon and sewin. It is one of the best salmon rivers in Britain. It was his understanding that the ban on fishing covered the river as far as Abergwili. He wrote:
My advice to rod fishermen on non-tidal stretches, whose season was due to open shortly, is to hold off until we have some results from the studies being made by the NRA.He was advising his members to introduce a voluntary ban on fishing until the situation was clearer.Will the Minister keep under constant review the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Pembroke and for Gower, because the leisure fishing industry is an important part of our tourism industry as well as being extremely popular among my constituents? There are fishing clubs in Llandeilo, Cross Hands, Llandyssul and Carmarthen. Fishing is extremely popular; it is much more popular than membership of political parties. Hundreds of people enjoy a day's fishing. Sometimes they catch nothing at all, but it is a leisure pursuit and what they catch is generally for their own consumption. I ask the Minister to keep matters under review and consider the points made by my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) mentioned the definition of consequential losses within the terms of compensation. I hate to think about the effect on the finances of the fishing clubs in Llandeilo, Cross Hands and Llandyssul this year. Any losses they and the NRA incur in respect of fishing licences must be reimbursed from the oil compensation fund.
My final point concerns how long the order will remain in force. The Minister said in his introductory comments that that is difficult to anticipate. I am glad that he did not limit it to a short period. After the Chernobyl accident, we were told that restrictions would apply in north Wales for only a few weeks. Those weeks became months, the months became five years and now, 10 years later, some farms in north Wales are still restricted. I would rather that the Minister erred on the side of caution instead of making promises that he cannot keep.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower referred to the scientific basis for a ban—a ban can be justified only upon clear scientific grounds. Crude oil is not incredibly toxic. We do not like the taste of it, but it is generally indigestible. I accept that it contains toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but we are talking about relatively low levels. I hope that the Minister will show discretion, as my hon. Friend requested, and that the ban will be lifted as soon as public health requirements allow and studies by environmental health officers, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other responsible bodies suggest that it is permissible.
§ Mr. RichardsWe have had a good debate this evening about a very serious subject. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and others have made constructive speeches, and we have benefited from their close understanding of the issues and from their local knowledge. I was intrigued to see the hon. Gentleman lead for the Opposition, as he comes from Tumble, which is landlocked. I wondered how much he knew about sea issues—but clearly he has done some research.
They say that a crisis can bring out the best in everyone; west Wales can be proud of the way in which its representatives have dealt with the incident from the beginning. As Opposition Members have said, I number myself among those with connections with west Wales. Seafaring on the Irish sea has a long history that is full of great, magnanimous and even heroic deeds. I am reminded of the giant, Bendigeidfran, who it is said walked across the Irish sea pulling the Welsh forces behind him in their ships. Superhuman endeavours have also characterised the weeks following the Sea Empress incident.
I pay tribute to those who have worked tirelessly and ceaselessly to help ease the ill effects. First, I commend those who controlled and supervised the emergency—often performing beyond the call of duty. Secondly, I record my appreciation for the level of co-operation received from local authorities and other public bodies. Thirdly, I thank the fishermen who selflessly refrained from fishing in order to safeguard their industry and the general public. Last—but certainly not least—I commend those voluntary organisations, Crown forces and volunteers comprising men, women and young people who did not hesitate to respond to the emergency. We thank them for their dedication.
Many Opposition Members—particularly the hon. Members for Gower and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams)—said that the exclusion area is arbitrary and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) described the closure order as draconian. I assure Opposition Members that the order is not arbitrary, but based on scientific advice. I think that I have time to tell hon. Members a story—which I am sure they will appreciate—to prove that the order is not arbitrary.
As I read the order and looked at the list of species that would be affected by it, my eyes fell upon the words "lemon sole". I lived in Llanelli as a boy and I remember well how the whole family—all seven of us—would sit down to lemon sole for Saturday lunch. My mother bought it from one of the fish stall holders in Llanelli market. I know the gentleman from whom she used to buy—he had come from eastern Europe some time during or following the war—and I always marvelled at his dexterity in filleting.
My mother used to dip the lemon sole in breadcrumbs before cooking and then serve it with parsley sauce, peas, mashed potatoes and a knob of butter. I assure hon. Members—and anyone else who cares to listen—that lemon sole from the Burry inlet in Carmarthen bay that is cooked in that manner is better than any lemon sole from anywhere else in the world.
I shall now deal with some of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members. If I do not succeed in answering their questions in the short time available, I shall write to them as I know that these issues concern 454 them and their constituents. I must inform the hon. Member for Gower that public health authorities do not cover hydrocarbons or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in their programmes. He said that we did not need to impose an order. The fishermen have told us that they accept that such an order is necessary.
I thought that some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks bordered on the irresponsible—which is not characteristic of him. He must realise that the Secretary of State has a duty to look after public health and to ensure that consumers do not eat fish that could be injurious to their health. I was surprised to hear him refer to anecdotal evidence in support of his case, whereas the case for the closure order is scientifically based.
§ Mr. Gareth Wardellrose—
§ Mr. RichardsThe hon. Gentleman is dying to say something, so how can I not give way?
§ Mr. WardellI refer the Minister to only two issues. First, as to his point about the arbitrary line, he must now demonstrate that samples taken from immediately outside that line have considerably lower levels of contamination than those taken from immediately within it. Secondly, he must inform the House what critical levels of hydrocarbons found in fish and shellfish make them injurious to public health upon human consumption. If he is able to do that, I shall be a much happier man.
§ Mr. RichardsI assure the hon. Gentleman that sampling will continue inside and outside the exclusion area, including those parts to the east of his constituency to which he referred earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a judgment, based on the available scientific evidence and advice that he is given, about the appropriateness of the exclusion order that is currently in force. I shall come back to the issue of levels of hydrocarbons a little later, but the level of hydrocarbons found varies from species to species and depends on which part of the creature's body is sampled.
§ Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan)Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no difference in the level of pollution one inch either side of a line drawn in the sea, which does not have a wall running under it? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the effectiveness of the boundary will be reviewed and that the Government will take prompt action if it proves necessary? Would my hon. Friend care to speculate how long it will be necessary to keep the zone in force to protect health and the reputation of the Welsh fishing industry, which is vital?
§ Mr. RichardsMy hon. Friend makes a valid point about the line. It was not drawn arbitrarily, but on the basis of scientific evidence. I assure my hon. Friend that sampling, especially, and computer modelling will continue to take place inside and outside the exclusion zone, as has been done already.
One other issue seems to confuse Opposition Members. I must put them straight. They all seem to suffer from the illusion that there was a public inquiry after the Braer incident. That is not the case.
455 On the question of recreational angling, I repeat that the purpose of the order is to ensure the safety of consumers. My right hon. Friend and I cannot possibly take risks in that area. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has a duty to look after the interests of the consumer.
§ Mr. AingerWill the Under-Secretary give way?
§ Mr. RichardsI shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman has had a good bite at the cherry already.
I cannot see how angling would be policed. One Opposition Member said that the fish would not necessarily end up on dinner plates, but in most cases they would end up on the dinner plates of the angler's family or friends.
§ Mr. AingerI am somewhat puzzled. The Minister said that the order was precautionary and intended to protect the consumer, so why has he only just introduced it? If that was the real issue, the order would have been imposed as soon as the vessel hit the rocks and started leaking oil in such large quantities. It does not make any sense to introduce the order for the rivers that feed into the area almost a week after the original order that covers a huge area. If the order was precautionary, it would have been introduced sooner.
§ Mr. RichardsThe hon. Gentleman has mugged up on oil, but not on angling. He should know that migratory fish are difficult to find in February, so it was not possible for samples of oily migratory fish to be found in the middle of February. They took rather more time to find. The hon. Member looks astonished. Perhaps he should mug up on angling.
One Opposition Member—I forget which one—referred to the district fisheries inspector. The district fisheries inspector is an official of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so MAFF has a locus in the matter. My right hon. Friend, obviously, takes advice from MAFF.
Another Opposition Member said that the Department had not consulted the industry, and cited the sea fisheries committee. The committee wanted information to answer queries from fishermen, because it is not the committee's role to represent the fishing industry. The Department has from an early stage copied information to it on a regular basis and continues to do so. I can tell the right hon. Member for Llanelli that loss of profit is a matter for compensation, but insurers will consider claims on that ground after hardship claims.
In the short term, we will continue to monitor carefully hydrocarbon and PAH in fish, crustacea and shellfish. As levels become safe—something that we shall 456 determine in close consultation with the Department of Health and the directorate of fisheries research—we shall progressively lift the ban. There are no safe limits for hydrocarbons in fish and shellfish.
As with the 1993 Braer incident, samples of fish and shellfish from commercial harvesting areas were collected during the early stages of the spill, and they will be analysed to establish background values. Those data will form the basis of establishing safe concentrations, to protect consumers of fish and shellfish from affected areas. In the medium and longer term, we will explore with the industry and its representative bodies how we can ensure that the trade and consumers appreciate the quality of Welsh fish.
I want the seas of west Wales open for fishing again as soon as possible, and I want consumers of Welsh fish near and far to be confident, when that fish returns to the market, that it is clean, healthy and appetising. In short, I want to do the best that we can for the local fishing industry. I know from the comments that have been made this evening that all hon. Members here share that aim. I commend the order to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish and Plants) Order 1996 (S.1., 1996, No. 448), dated 28th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.