| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.50 pm
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 minutes40 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
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.
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. Richards:
The 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. Wardell:
Yes, 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.
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
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |