§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what present Forces are available for the protection of oil installations in the North Sea against surprise attacks by organisations hostile to this country; and whether their military advisers and oil operators are satisfied with the present degree of protection.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMThe full range of capability of the Armed Services could, if necessary, be made available in the circumstances envisaged by the noble Earl. The Government are fully satisfied with the degree of protection available and, although I cannot speak for the oil operators, there is very close co-operation between us on these matters and I have no reason to doubt that they too are satisfied.
§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which seems to have improved since the debate here on 21st May. Can he inform the House whether it is the fact that the Norwegians have instigated an offshore defence force to protect their rigs, and can he say whether the Government would consider having a special force to defend the rigs in the North Sea?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I am not aware of what is happening specifically in Norway, but as a result of a Dutch initiative officials from Holland, Norway, West Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France and Britain met in The Hague on 5th June to discuss possible co-operative measures in peace time against malicious or accidental damage, and a Working Group has since discussed certain aspects of the problem in London. The next full meeting of the regional conference will be held in London in November.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether we are to understand from his reply referring to the Armed Services, that the Government do not consider that there is a police responsibility in this matter, as was suggested by the Government many months ago when this subject was raised?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, an offence on a rig is exactly the same in nature and in law as an offence on land. Normally it would be a police matter, but the Armed Forces are there to assist the civil power and under certain circumstances could take action on their own initiative.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, can the noble Lord go a little further and assure the House that there is now adequate and almost instantaneous (if I may use that word) machinery, so that the police can get in touch with the military in the case of urgency?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMYes, my Lords.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what police forces have the direct responsibility which he adumbrated in his last answer but one?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I believe that the prime mover in this case is the chief constable of the Grampian Police.
§ Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, would the Government now reconsider their decision to cut down on conventional submarines, as these are the only ones that can operate in the Channel and in the shallow waters, while nuclear submarines cannot do so? Surely conventional submarines are one of the main possibilities for defending oil rigs in the North Sea?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, if the noble Lord puts down a Question on this matter I shall endeavour to answer it.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, surely the truth of the situation is that once it ceases to be a police matter and becomes a matter for the 878 Armed Forces, these rigs in the North Sea are wholly indefensible?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I note the noble Lord's pessimistic attitude which I had noted earlier.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, would the noble Lord just explain this point? He referred a moment ago to the chief constable of the Grampian Police. Surely his writ would not extend over installations off the Norfolk Coast nor, presumably, those North-East of Shetland?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, it will be the chief constable of the appropriate Region.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be very undesirable if he were to say too much about the nature of these defences?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most sensible comment.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is no danger of his saying too much about this matter, because he has said very little?