Perhaps I may clarify something. I entirely accept and understand the strategic argument but perhaps I should explain why I slightly question the aspect of safety. To give an example, the old Esso jetty, which is a mile long, stretches right across the entrance to the port into the area where all gas tankers entering the port have to pass. It is one of the most exposed parts of the port because it is close to the mouth of Milford Haven. If an accident was to happen, for example, by a gas tanker being blown on to the end of the Esso jetty—and collisions have occurred in the past with fishing vessels hitting the jetty—and an explosion occurred, it would devastate the towns and the oil refinery on the south bank and the town of Milford Haven on the north bank. It is therefore a matter of considerable interest to the Government of Wales on grounds of safety and its possible effect on inhabitants. It is an issue that needs to be considered because there is probably a case for the Government of Wales to at least be involved in some way in considering the possible consequences on the population around the haven if an accident were to occur.
Wales Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Crickhowell
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 November 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Wales Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
776 c966 Session
2016-17Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-02-15 16:29:54 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-11-07/16110768000012
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-11-07/16110768000012
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-11-07/16110768000012