MV Ruby: Safety
Steff Aquarone Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rupert Lowe
Apart from the terrible outcome, the Government’s account of events conflicts entirely with the local account of events. The locals claim that the Department for Transport-Secretary of State’s representative drove the process and gave instructions for the sitting MP to be excluded from all communications, convinced that it was a Cobra situation. When finally briefed on 28 November by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) at the Department’s offices, he stated that the locals had made a mountain out of a molehill, the operation was never Cobra and the decision to exclude the MP from briefings was a local one. Somebody is clearly lying and the official briefing pack from the DFT suggests that this is the Government. The hon. Gentleman told me in an email that he was too busy to see me to answer follow-up questions and suggested that I pursue usual parliamentary processes, so here we are. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which seeks to inform the House where the truth lies. The crux of the issue is the part played by the Health and Safety Executive and its employee, Dr Nathan Flood.
MV Ruby docked in the outer harbour of Great Yarmouth, following input from the Secretary of State’s representative on 28 October 2024, as a ship in distress carrying 20,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. Peel Ports is used to handling this material, which is commonly landed at ports, distributed by road, stored on farms and used to grow our food. Peel Ports notified the requisite authorities, including the HSE, which declined to inspect the ship’s cargo. Peel Ports began offloading the bags of ammonium nitrate on to the sister ship, Zimrida. On 11 November, Peel Ports identified seawater in hold one and some staining on the lower bags. Peel Ports notified the HSE, Dr Flood, and again requested its attendance to inspect the bags and the material. HSE refused to attend and inspect. Peel Ports sent them photographs and videos of the cargo in hold one. Peel Ports employed its own explosives experts, Dr Jim Warren and Dr Charles Owen, to attend and inspect the cargo. They reported that they could wipe the staining off the bags, concluding that it was unlikely the bags were contaminated. Peel Ports again requested HSE attendance, which was refused. Peel Ports’ view was that it could safely unload the stained bags—the ship had previously carried a cargo of coal—on to the dock for analysis and disposal. HSE threatened sanctions and enforcement action against Peel Ports if one bag was unloaded on to the dock. I understand that legal responsibility for the material passes from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to HSE once unloaded. It is also interesting that Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service attended MV Ruby at this time, on either 12 or 13 November, and downgraded the situation.
Dr Flood’s attitude was reported by many of the stakeholders to be aggressive, inappropriate and unprofessional, with the use of foul language and even banging his fist on the table and telling people, “This is going to flatten Great Yarmouth.” Analogies to the Beirut explosion were wholly inappropriate and misleading, causing panic among both local and national Government, who have no experience of handling ammonium nitrate. It is incredible that he did that without either a site visit or proper physical analysis of the material before the dumping. Was he too lazy to do what common sense suggested was the correct cause of action? Dr Flood only attended the site and inspected a small number of remaining split bags of material on Monday 18 November, after being instructed to attend by a Minister. I understand that he put on a new pair of rubber gloves which he thrust into the ammonium nitrate and then threw the gloves on to the table, claiming they smelt of diesel. Other people report that they understandably smelt of new rubber. This was also after the gross act of environmental terrorism. To carry out no inspection before dumping is quite extraordinary.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon from the HSE, which is a law unto itself, clearly employing a policy of “Do as I say, not as I do”. The question is, who regulates the regulator? When we understand that the HSE is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, no further explanation is necessary or indeed possible. We now find that the Marine Management Organisation, the MCA, the Environment Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the HSE all blame the dumping on the ship's captain. All other possible sensible options were blocked, but does this silence make them complicit in this catastrophe ? I conclude that it does.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on this topic, which has caused great concern to residents of our neighbouring constituencies. In this case there appears to have been a total information vacuum for local people and representatives, which has fuelled fear and speculation. A number of my constituents have contacted me asking simply, “What is going on?” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the event of such a situation in the future, it will be important for all relevant agencies to provide far more clarity and transparency for residents and their elected representatives?
Rupert Lowe
I could not agree more. Good government must be transparent government.
I hope that the Minister has his pencil ready, because I have 18 urgent questions for which I believe the House needs answers.
No. 1: Why did the Minister tell me on Thursday 28th November that this was a local issue?
No. 2: Why did the local officials think that this was a Cobra situation when the Minister said categorically that it was not?
No. 3: Why did the Minister suggest that local officials had made a “mountain out of a molehill”? The locals said it was all driven by the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State’s Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention. Who is lying?
No. 4: Who gave the instruction that the local MP was not to be briefed except by the Department for Transport? Was that because I am a Reform MP, or because I have experience of ammonium nitrate from farming? What were the roles and reports of Andy Gregory, Stephen Benzies and Stephan Hennig?
No. 5: Was the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) involved in the decision making?
No. 6: Was the resignation of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley on Friday 29 November in any way linked to the unjustifiable outcome involving the dumping of approximately 300 tonnes of potentially contaminated ammonium nitrate with bags? Was it a coincidence that it happened less than 24 hours after my briefing by the Department for Transport?
No. 7: Why was the load described as “potentially contaminated?” Was it physically tested before the dumping? Is there a certificate to prove that?
No. 8: Why were the polypropylene double-skinned waterproof bags dumped with the ammonium nitrate? When used in farming, such bags are emptied and recycled.
No. 9: Did anyone consider that polypropylene bags float to the surface and damage or destroy a ship’s propeller and propeller shaft, apart from this being an act of environmental vandalism?
No. 10: Why was the view of those at Peel Ports—experts at handling ammonium nitrate—not acted upon? They claimed that the double-skinned waterproof bags at the bottom were stained but dry. They suggested unloading the “dumped” material on to the dock for analysis and disposal. Is it true that it becomes the responsibility of the HSE once on land? Pictures that were obtained back up Peel Ports’ opinion.
No. 11: Why did the HSE throw its weight around and threaten Peel Ports with prosecution/enforcement if one bag was unloaded on the dock?
No. 12: Why were local fishermen, local fish markets and Dutch fishing vessels not informed of the decision to dump offshore in my constituency?
No. 13: How close did Great Yarmouth come to evacuation? Why was that information withheld from the elected representative of Great Yarmouth? Who knew what, and when?
No. 14: was the balance of the cargo safely unloaded by Peel Ports?
No. 15: is it fair to say that the owners and operators of MV Ruby were forced into the decision to dump ammonium nitrate in bags at sea?
No. 16: who signed off on this gross act of environmental terrorism without a test certificate? How can this have happened?
No. 17: why do both the harbourmaster and Peel Ports agree that this matter was not handled well, and that there was the wrong outcome?
No. 18: does this House agree that the Government were right to exclude an elected Member of Parliament by diktat, thereby undermining Parliament and showing disrespect for the good people of Great Yarmouth?
As G. K. Chesterton observed,
“A society is in decay, final or transitional, when common sense really becomes uncommon”.
This sorry episode lacked any common sense and resulted in bad decisions by unelected, unaccountable quangos acting in silos. We now need an official parliamentary inquiry, which I strongly request, having researched the matter in great depth. It must not happen again, and the appropriate heads must roll.
On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, all the parliamentary staff and all my fellows MPs a very happy Christmas?
Rural Cycling Infrastructure
Steff Aquarone Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate on such an important issue. He is a great champion of this cause. I know that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues across Oxfordshire will continue to push for progress in their area.
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Norfolk county council, but I must declare an even more important interest, which is that I am a rural cyclist. It is for that reason that I am so pleased to respond to today’s debate for the Liberal Democrats.
In my area, we have some fantastic cycling routes. In Wells and Holkham, people can join national cycle network route 1 and travel through the north of the constituency as part of the Norfolk-wide rebellion way. Towards North Walsham, we have the Weavers way, which takes in much of the track bed of the former Midland and Great Northern joint railway.
The Liberal Democrats and I are ambitious for the future of rural cycling across the country. We want to see new cycle networks, and locally Liberal Democrats are working with communities to deliver on new cycling schemes in their local areas. It is a great shame that the previous Conservative Government did not match our ambition or enthusiasm for the future of cycling. They ruthlessly cut £200 million from the active transport budget, just after so many of us rediscovered our love for walking and cycling during lockdown.
That neglect for walking and cycling seems endemic within the Conservatives. Our Conservative-led county council has sunk £50 million into the white elephant that is the 6 km western link road. The legal and exploratory costs alone could have instead funded high-quality cycle super-highways six times the eventual proposed distance of that road. With attitudes like that, it is easy to see how our rural cycling infrastructure has deteriorated so badly over the previous decade, with Norfolk losing many of its routes from the national cycle network in 2020 after years of neglect and lack of upkeep.
Cycling will play a key part in the rural transport revolution, which so many parts of our country desperately need. We must make sure that cycling routes join up with public transport networks, so that people can safely and easily cycle to their nearest train or bus station. In my rural area, we have one of the highest levels of road per person in the country, and we cannot afford to maintain them all. Is it not time that we looked to convert underused and under-classified roads into access-only roads that prioritise walking and cycling? I am sure that many people would far rather hear the dinging of bike bells nearby than large lorries clattering through small country lanes.
I am passionate about seeing an improvement in rural cycling infrastructure across Norfolk and the rest of the country. Making cycling more accessible and attractive has only benefits. It keeps us healthier, it reduces carbon emissions and it gives us greater opportunity to explore and enjoy our natural environment. I very much hope that we hear from the Minister that the Government will match the passion and ambition of Liberal Democrats across the country to deliver better cycling infrastructure for us all.
Bus Funding
Steff Aquarone Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh
I am very happy to confirm that we are investing in Plymouth, Plymouth’s people and Plymouth’s buses. Buses are an enormous engine of social justice, because, as I said earlier, the most deprived rely on them the most. I am afraid that is why they have been so badly neglected in this place for so long, but that will absolutely turn around under this Labour Government. Buses are my priority and this Labour Government’s priority.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Norfolk county council.
I am pleased that £15 million of the new funding will be heading to Norfolk to support our rural bus services, but the model for running buses in Norfolk is broken. We need a service that works for everyone, not just routes to and from the city and the occasional shopping bus. Will the Secretary of State assure me that this money will not just disappear into county council coffers or route subsidies, but instead help build the proper public transport network that North Norfolk needs?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Under the current system, money has been thrown hand over fist at operators, which have cherry-picked the most commercially viable routes, leaving local authorities to step in to subsidise the lifeline routes that people rely on. The benefit of areas being able to move to a franchised system, or indeed to set up their own publicly owned bus company, is that they can cross-subsidise properly across routes, and ensure that public money is spent in the best way and that we design routes and networks that really work for local communities.