| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
First, onshore, prime responsibility lies with the terminals themselves, subject to the regulatory oversight of the Health and Safety Executive. The terminals need planning permission from the local planning authorities for “storage of hazardous
substances”. Secondly, in regard to ship safety when docked at the jetty, once alongside the terminal, ship operators are responsible for cargo safety, and the HSE has regulatory oversight over the offloading of the cargo. Thirdly, when in harbour waters, ship safety is the responsibility of the master of the vessel and the harbour authority.
Fourthly, the navigational safety of a ship at sea is the responsibility of the master of the vessel. The ship is regulated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to internationally approved standards. Fifthly, the construction and manning of LNG tankers has to be approved to internationally agreed International Maritime Organisation standards. I am advised that the IMO has an excellent safety record. I say all this to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is a sophisticated safety framework in place, although I cannot talk about the particular project that he has described.
As the subject is likely to be uppermost in the minds of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, let me elaborate on the first of those points—the safety of the terminals. That is addressed through the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1999. Luckily, that is known as COMAH, otherwise we should spend much of our debate having to recite its full title. The competent authority for COMAH in England and Wales is formed by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, acting jointly. Where the specified threshold levels of hazardous substances are reached—as they would be at LNG import terminals—COMAH applies. In these cases, it applies before construction, when operators who plan to build new LNG terminals must submit a pre-construction safety report three to six months in advance of construction. The regulator will look for a demonstration that adequate safety and reliability have been incorporated into the design, for the application of good practice and for concepts that reduce the risks.
COMAH also applies before dangerous substances are introduced. The operator must submit a pre-operations safety report, which must demonstrate that the operator has taken all measures necessary to prevent major accidents and to limit the consequences to people and to the environment of any that do occur. It also applies before operations commence, when operators must produce an on-site emergency plan, and provide information to the local authority to assist it in its production of an off-site emergency plan. There are also appropriate powers if the regulator—the HSE and the Environment Agency—is not satisfied. In short, we have a well developed regulatory framework for ensuring the safety of LNG import terminals.
Let me now say a few words about the HSE’s advisory role in the land use planning system. All establishments wishing to hold stocks of hazardous substances must apply to the Hazardous Substances Authority—the HSA—for a hazardous substances
consent under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992. The HSE is one of a number of organisations that the HSA must consult. The HSE assesses the risks, using a well established methodology, and advises the local planning authority accordingly. I am advised that, in formulating this advice, the HSE takes into account the potential societal risk to existing surrounding populations and developments—that is, the chance of a single incident that could harm many people. However, the decision whether to grant planning permission for the storage of hazardous substances rests with the local planning authority, unless the Secretary of State determines the application.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail at this stage—or perhaps at any stage—on the particular project that he has raised. I understand that a planning application for the proposed LNG terminal at Canvey Island was submitted to the local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The application was refused, I think in September. I am advised that any subsequent appeal against the refusal will be heard at a public inquiry, and would fall to be determined by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It would not be determined by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Because the hon. Gentleman attaches importance to the point, I add that inquiries are usually held in a suitable venue locally. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Buncefield, which of course we all have in mind. I would be cautious in that respect. I am advised that LNG is quite different from petrol, so there is no easy read-across from last year’s incident at Buncefield to a hypothetical leak of LNG. LNG and petrol are contained differently and behave differently. For his information, Japan has been importing large quantities of LNG for nearly 40 years—since 1969—without a major safety incident. While one brings fears to debates on such issues, one must also bring some proportionality.
I conclude by reiterating that it is perfectly appropriate to voice local concerns, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on doing so in relation to this project or, indeed, any other. However, I would argue that we have a duty in this House to consider the energy security needs of our nation in light of the arguments on climate change and that we need to come forward with ideas about how we will secure energy resources in future. Not too many of us must say no to projects and more of us must argue for the variation and diversity of energy supply that in rapidly changing times—with the North sea in decline, for example—will raise interesting questions as the geopolitics of energy security in the 21st century loom ever larger.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |