Shell Haven Port Inquiry

The following letter sent to:-

The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Secretary of State for Transport
Dept. for Transport

My constituency includes the bulk of the area of the Thames where massive dredging is proposed as part of the above development.   Please find enclosed copy of a letter of 2nd August 2004 sent direct to you from my constituents, Mr D Godbold, Mr Warren and Mr Harper.

We met to discuss the issues involved and these people represent a major proportion of the interests of the commercial fishing industry in South Essex.

I share the concerns expressed in the enclosed letter and I suspect many of my local colleagues will also share those concerns and I am therefore copying them this correspondence.

There are a number of points, but the two most important at this stage are:

Firstly, no 'HEO' (Harbour Empowerment Order) should be issued until there is an agreed detailed dredging plan.   This detailed plan should make clear the dredging windows to prevent dredging when the fish leave the sands at low tide to the 'safety' of the channel being dredged.    It should also ensure the safety of the spawning grounds at key times of the year.   Of course, this is a mater of international importance as spawning fish come from and return to the Southern North Sea and the UK has 'obligations' not to destroy other country's fisheries.

To issue an HEO without putting in place these protections would be incompetent and dangerous as I am sure you will agree, but I await your comments.

The second issue relates to compensation for the local fishermen and local fishing-related industries.

Mr Ward, the Inspector, stated that P&O should show the fishermen goodwill and sympathy and win their trust.   There seems to be some difficulty in delivering this and I'm sure P&O will want to put this right.  

The local fishing industry may only involve a hundred or so people directly, but it certainly is very important and there is a great public sympathy for the industry.    It is symbolic of our Thames-side community, our traditions and one of the key defining factors in our local history.    It would be a great folly for P&O to be allowed to betray this industry or to destroy its future possible recovery.   It would also be a major financial mistake for P&O to seek to save a very small amount by dissembling or going back on 'undertakings'.

The P&O legal representative told the industry, which was seeking fifteen years as the basis for compensation, that it would be covered for ten years and this was mooted during the Inquiry.   The fishermen asked at the Inquiry, 'Are we looking at ten years for compensation'   Answer: 'Yes' (P&O Legal representative Ms E O'Toole).  This was not an arbitrary time, but based on seven years for dredging and three for 'recovery'.

The original P&O scheme for financial compensation, 14th May 2004, gave no time limit or age limit, but, one month later, the new document, June 2004, has invented age (65 years old) and time limits (new clause 12) that were not previously discussed in any way and that are entirely unreasonable and improper.  My constituent's assets, built-up and passed-on over generations, should not be subject to arbitrary destruction by 'big businesses', irrespective of the age of my constituents.

This sort of behaviour does not show the integrity and 'sympathy' by P&O and Shell towards our community that the Inspector called for at the inquiry; it would be most damaging to their greater designs.  I trust that P&O and Shell will, on reflection, return to the deal that was agreed and treat our fishermen with the respect they deserve.

Part of the problem is that, while all the other interests (London Gateway, Environment Agency, RSPB, Port of London Authority, English Nature) were

legally represented, using 'public or NGO money, our small fishing industry was not (individual fisherman did not have the money), and yet these individual fisherman were the least able to deal with the Inquiry, having no experience and

trusting word of mouth.   These honest, but in this matter naive fishermen should have been given the legal facilities that clearly they could not afford themselves.   I trust that you will use your powers to give them some protection.   I know you will understand this 'David and Goliath' battle and do what you can for the local industry.

I will be asking for an adjournment debate in the House as soon as possible to ensure that the local interests are protected and I hope that P&O and Shell, to whom I am copying this correspondence, will resolve the difficulties, not least to salvage their public credibility.   I will also seek a delegation of local MPs to discuss the issues with P&O and Shell if that becomes necessary.  I hope that my excellent colleagues will feel able to support our local industry by writing and, if possible, contributing to the debate.

With all good wishes.

Yours ever,

Bob Spink MP