| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 387
--that the company was asking for more and more information which was not contained in the original agreement.The piece de resistance was served on 30 October, with the same heading. The simple, one-paragraph letter, said :
"I refer to our meeting and confirm that we will be unable to pay the second instalment of Cooperation Payment due under the terms of our Agreement dated 6 July until you provide certified accounts and fish sales notes, as requested in my letter to substantiate the information originally provided by you and which forms part of the Agreement between us."
None of that information was mentioned in the original agreement. On 21 October, I wrote to Mr. Jackson in Aberdeen and I said that I did not think that the correspondence would bear public scrutiny. I thought that it was rather perverse to say the least that letters had been sent to fishermen who had not been offered payment. That showed abominable administration and something that I had come to expect from Elf after my dealings with the company. I felt that if I could not get a more positive answer from him or from the managing director Mr. Romieu I would have no alternative but to raise the matter in Parliament.
I did not want to trouble my hon. Friend the Minister yet again because he had been very helpful. An hon. Member should not have to come to Parliament to try to negotiate on behalf of his constituents if an oil company is a reputable organisation. Clearly the company is involved in serious matters in respect of North sea safety and one hopes that one deals with reputable people when one deals with big public companies.
I eventually received a reply from the managing director dated 12 November and I want to quote two paragraphs from that letter. I apologise to the House for quoting at such length from documents, but they are clearly germane to the problem. The managing director wrote :
"It should not be forgotten that we had as much right to carry out our survey as they had to fish, and there was no obligation on us to make any payments at all."
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to that point because I think that he and I might disagree with the managing director of Elf about that--at least, I hope so. The managing director continued :
"Nevertheless, we recognised that some disruption would be inevitable and we therefore proposed a scheme to make co-operation payments to bona fide mobile gear fishermen nominated by their associations."
In almost the last paragraph he wrote :
"Having said all of the above, I accept that, during the course of such a large and complex scheme it is entirely possible that some individual cases have not been dealt with as fairly as we should have wished. If this is so I can only express my regret, and assure you that we have made every effort to deal in good faith with all the claims which we have received."
I enjoy watching free enterprise flourish in our nation and there is no reason why we should have come to this dreadful impasse. I do not believe that Elf has made a serious endeavour to accommodate the fishermen.
The managing director says in his letter, quite rightly, that the company has paid out nearly £1 million in compensation to fishermen. I doubt whether, absolutely top whack tonight, we are talking about more than £30,000. The figure has been very exaggerated.
I understand that the company's parting shot to my constituents was that it intended to come back. It hoped to win licences for further exploration and perhaps my hon.
Column 388
Friend the Minister has some information about that. It is extraordinary that the company did not want to leave the sweet smell of a nice bunch of violets behind instead of the great problems and difficulty which are ongoing and have caused upset and real aggravation to me and to my constituents.The gnomes of Zurich were rather troublesome to the Government in the past. However, Elf Aquitaine is clearly the mafia cousin of the gnomes of Zurich in respect of the inshore fishing industry off the Isle of Wight. I believe that the company has turned out to be a piker because it has not honoured its agreement in the way that the managing director assured me that it would when representatives met me in the House on 4 June.
As I represent the numerically largest constituency in the House, I must be very careful how I ration my applications for Adjournment debates. There are many pressing issues facing the Isle of Wight. Endeavouring to wring out the last few coppers of a compensation scheme from a large multinational oil company is not in my view a justified use of my time or that of my ministerial colleague tonight. I am very sad that this debate has been necessary.
10.18 pm
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for not reading out my reply to his kind invitation to join him in what he termed his hovel. I am not sure whether the size of my family would have borne the scrutiny that the House would apply. I must thank my hon. Friend for his very kind personal remarks about my small role in this affair and in turn pay tribute to him for the way in which he has fought on behalf of the fishermen and his constituents.
This is an interesting matter and, before this debate, it had not received much attention or time in the House. It might be useful if I briefly explain exactly how the licensing system works with regard to fishermen's interests.
The standard conditions which are incorporated in seaward petroleum licences are published before the blocks are offered for licensing. Those standard conditions do not include any requirement for the licensees to make payments, either as compensation or otherwise, to commercial fishermen, or indeed to any other marine interests. As a matter of policy, the Department does not regard it as appropriate to place requirements on petroleum licensees to pay compensation to fishermen for loss of access to fishing grounds. Oil and gas licensees are no less entitled than fishermen to pursue their activities on the open seas. If the licensees and fishing organisations agree in certain circumstances that some form of payment would be helpful, that is essentially a commercial matter for them.
However, fishing interests are taken account of in the planning of licensing rounds and when licences are awarded. The licences include a standard clause to the effect that the licensee shall not carry out operations in such manner as to interfere unjustifiably with fishing or with the conservation of the living resources of the sea. To help to give substance to that provision, my Department consults the fishing departments and the principal fishing organisations to identify fishing sensitivities before
Column 389
deciding which blocks are to be offered for licensing. It also consults other organisations about other sensitivities, for example, environmental matters.Where the fisheries departments advise that special conditions should be attached to licences, tailor made to the particular sensitivities in certain blocks, that advice is followed. For instance, where blocks lie in herring spawning grounds, for example off the east coast, the licensees are required to carry out seabed surveys within a prescribed distance of any proposed drilling location to ensure that drilling will not disturb the spawning grounds. In the spawning season in such areas, conditions are imposed as to the time of year in which they can undertake seismic work or drill, and the use of certain drilling muds may be required in the case of drilling.
Licence-specific conditions, where applied, touch on compensation in one limited respect. If oil-related debris is located on the routes taken by supply vessels to and from rigs, and it results in damage to fishing gear, the licensees are required to deal promptly with claims in respect of that damage.
A further indication of the recognition in the licensing arrangements of fishing interests is that we require licensees to nominate a fishing liaison officer to maintain contact with those interests.
So care is taken to ensure that fishing interests are properly taken into account in our licensing arrangements. What we seek to achieve by our consultations and by provisions tailor made to particular blocks is a situation where there is mutual accommodation between those two groups of sea users.
Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to reflect whether his fishing constituents would really wish for formal compensation arrangements. I understand that that is not the position or an aim of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. The federation has been developing an understanding with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association on the subject of compensation.
I have received from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations a fax, which states that the organisation
"has its reservations with regard to the adjournment debate since it has established a clear working relationship with UKOOA on the subject of compensation which takes account of lost earnings in the given area and the likely effects of restrictions to access. The NFFO is, therefore, prepared to liaise directly with the Isle of Wight Commercial Fisherman's Association in order to attempt to reconcile the various difficulties."
Mr. Field : The NFFO telephoned me this week and said that it had attempted to negotiate on behalf of my fishermen. I pointed out that it had been nowhere near the scene. The matter had been in all the national papers and every television channel in the south, yet we did not hear a dicky bird from the association. Indeed, we did not hear from it in the initial stages when we had exactly the same problem with Occidental. The NFFO's association with UKOOA is laughable. The fishermen with whom it said that it had been in contact were not affected by the most recent licence.
Mr. Eggar : My point was simply that over the years the NFFO has had experience of similar disruption caused by seismic surveys. It has developed a relationship with the oil
Column 390
companies. Not invariably, but in general, that relationship has worked reasonably well and has proved satisfactory to both parties.Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Eggar : I will give way, but I have many matters to cover in a short time.
Mr. Morley : The Minister has been fair. The NFFO and, in the first instance, the local association negotiates. The federation offers its services to bring the matter to a conclusion. So the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) was a little unfair.
Mr. Field : I must object. This is my Adjournment debate and the hon. Gentleman did not ask my permission to intervene. The organisation to which he refers and seeks to defend--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. The person who has the Floor decides whether to allow an intervention.
Mr. Eggar : I apologise to my hon. Friend for giving way to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). It is a difficult matter and I do not want to upset anyone. None the less, there is a national organisation and it has evolved a system. It could have a role in the final resolution of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. I do not seek to impose that, or anything else. I hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the role that the national organisation has played.
The petroleum licence given to the company includes not only a right but an obligation to undertake seismic surveys. Surveys are necessary under the terms of the licence. The company must undertake a seismic survey in order properly to appreciate the potential of the block. In this case, the company chose to pursue a 3-D seismic survey, which takes rather a long time but is believed by the industry to give a fairer and more accurate picture of the potential of that block. That perhaps accounts for the fact that the time taken has been rather longer in this instance than might otherwise have been the case.
I emphasise to my hon. Friend that, although I have been in contact with the company about the matter, it is the company's responsibility to decide how to respond to the application and the representations made by my hon. Friend and the fishing organisation. I am told that the company had more than 30 meetings with fishermen's organisations. I am aware that my hon. Friend took the view that the consultation was not sufficiently wide.
My hon. Friend may be aware that Elf Enterprise has undertaken, in addition to reaching agreement in principle with the organisations on compensation, to fund research into the migratory patterns of sea bass in the area. That might be of some help to the local fishermen. I understand that payments made by the company to the fishermen have totalled more than £1 million. That is not an inconsiderable sum. I am told that the company has spent a total of about £3 million on the entire seismic operation. So the payments to fishermen represent 30-odd per cent. of the total cost of the seismic operation. The company has no obligation under the terms of the licence or in law to pay any compensation. Like my hon. Friend, I take the view that, where there is proven disruption, it is appropriate for the company to
Column 391
compensate. However, it is not unreasonable for the company to seek to satisfy itself that the money that it pays over is justified in terms of the fishermen's activities. I do not say that to defend the company, but because it can offset some 80 per cent. of the cost of compensation against tax payable to Her Majesty's Government. So we all have an interest as taxpayers in ensuring that the company pays a fair sum.Column 392
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I shall ensure that the Hansard report of the debate is passed on to the company. I hope that some satisfactory conclusions will be reached by all parties. The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker-- adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned at half- past Ten o'clock.
| Written Answers Section
| Home Page |