The MV Ruby is a sorry tale of bad decision making by Government and a selection of unaccountable, unelected quangos operating in silos without any application of common sense. It exemplifies the loss of sovereignty of Parliament, which should be absolute under the 1689 Bill of Rights, which asserted the rights of Parliament and individual rights based on John Locke’s philosophy.
The outcome was a shocking and avoidable double act of environmental terrorism, when around 300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate—better known as agricultural fertiliser—was dumped in the sea about 12 miles off the coast of my constituency. When I fill my drill or fertiliser spinner with fertiliser, I discharge the contents of the double-skinned weatherproof plastic bag into the hopper and recycle the bag. In this case, the bags were dumped into the sea with the ammonium nitrate still in them. They will not biodegrade, and will float to the surface after a storm, potentially becoming wrapped around a ship’s propeller and shaft, causing extensive damage—not forgetting the vast ecological damage to young fish, the seabed, and the inevitable algal blooms that will follow. To make matters worse, as the elected representative of the good people of Great Yarmouth, I was excluded from all communication and decision making leading up to the catastrophic dumping operation on 16 November 2024.
5:00 pm
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeff Smith.)
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.
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?
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.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the season of good will.
First and foremost, I want to say that I am proud of this nation. I think I am prouder of this nation than the hon. Gentleman is. The United Kingdom has a proud seafaring heritage, and we are the home of the International Maritime Organisation. We uphold the rule of law in this country, and we treat seafarers with respect and dignity. We fulfil our legal obligations, and we proud to be pioneers in the maritime industry. These principles informed how we handled this situation.
The MV Ruby left Great Yarmouth on 1 December with no cargo onboard and is now at the Port of Tyne, where she is undergoing repairs. The ship left Great Yarmouth with uncontaminated cargo on 16 December for onward voyage to the Ruby’s original intended destinations. Throughout this situation, my Department and other authorities exercised their duties for the safety of the UK and its population, and for that of the ship and her crew. I stand by all the decisions and actions that we took, and I note that everything has been resolved successfully. We were always confident that that would be the case.
I will briefly set out the background. The MV Ruby is a Maltese-flagged vessel that was damaged during a storm on 23 August 2024, not long after leaving port in northern Russia. The vessel entered UK waters on 24 September 2024 under international legal provisions that allow for the right of innocent passage through territorial waters. She went to anchor in order to refuel, but at anchor she posed a number of potential risks to UK interests—namely, the safety of navigation for other vessels. We were also worried about the safety of the crew, their welfare and the safety of the ship.
There were no sanctions issues in relation to the ship, her crew or her cargo, and she was insured by Lloyd’s of London, which is internationally regarded as having the highest standards for its clients and strong requirements for the insurance companies that conduct business there. The vessel is class certified by Det Norske Veritas, which is one of the 12 world-renowned classification societies within the International Association of Classification Societies. That demonstrated to us that the vessel was operating well within the recommended industry guidelines.
If there was no potential contamination and if all the processes were fully followed, as the Minister is indicating, then presumably the Government will have no problem ensuring that all that documentation is made available and public, in a transparent and open way, so that we can have no doubts about that, and any lessons that need to be learned, will be learned.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wish him a happy Christmas as well; we share the same dry cleaner, Mr George, who regularly asks after the hon. Gentleman. I say to Reform Members that the way this matter is being raised is a playbook: assertions, which are often outlandish or simply wrong, are made that are designed to appeal to malcontents; victimisation comes in that playbook, because they habitually cast themselves as the victim of dark forces, conspiracies and cover-ups, always wanting to know where and when, and to have transparency; they expect others to accept the premise of their questions, but then belittle the officials and workers who have worked extraordinarily hard, often in difficult circumstances in our seas. By belittling those officials and workers, Reform Members are trying to make people believe those officials are wrong and they are right. I think there should be little bit more dignity in the approach taken by Reform Members in this matter.
I have had correspondence with officials at Norfolk county council and Great Yarmouth borough council, as well as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who is no longer in his place. I would like to offer my personal gratitude and thanks to the officials at the Health and Safety Executive, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Peel Ports in Great Yarmouth for their co-operation and diligent work throughout the period. I also thank the captain and the crew of the ship for their co-operation during this episode.
I am pleased that, by following the expert advice, this episode has concluded safely and successfully. Our ports, and the men and women who work in them, are invaluable assets to our nation, but we can all be guilty of failing to fully recognise the vital role they play in the life of our island nation. I would like this debate to record the respect and gratitude this House has for them and their work. Our Christmases will be a lot merrier thanks to them all.
5:23 pm
House adjourned.
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.
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?
Before entering the Port of Great Yarmouth, the Ruby had been at anchor for a month. The ship was damaged, and the crew were struggling to get basic supplies. At this point, media reporting focused on the perceived Russian connections of the Ruby, as her origin port was in Russia. This made potential suppliers fear Russian exposure and reputational damage, which further impacted the quality of life on board. Beyond this humanitarian aspect, the extent of the damage to the hull was unknown, and the practical and environmental consequences of the vessel sinking in UK waters, with all her cargo and fuel on board, would have been unthinkable.
Given all this, and where safety requirements were met, there was no reason to deny access to port. The Secretary of State’s representative for maritime salvage and intervention, SOSREP, supported the ship’s management company in convening conversations with UK ports to identify an appropriate port for the offloading of this cargo type and a yard where she could then be repaired.
The ship’s management company made a commercial decision to enter a UK port for repairs. This was because the conditions in the bay of Biscay, which the vessel would have had to traverse, can be extremely rough at this time of year. The crew of 19 on board had already suffered through the original storm and subsequent weeks on board a damaged ship. Offering her refuge in port helped to manage all these risks, and at that point, there was no indication of concern about her cargo.
Ammonium nitrate, for a bit of background, is a compound typically used in fertiliser that the UK regularly imports. In 2023, over 200,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate were handled at UK ports, and the port of Great Yarmouth is one of the many ports experienced in handling this type of cargo. Once at port, the cargo was safely offloaded for several days before any potential contamination was identified.
The Health and Safety Executive was alerted to the potential contamination on Monday 11 November, as the port identified evidence of seawater and hydrocarbons —fuel oil—on the outside of the bags. When it was identified that seawater and hydrocarbons were present on the outside of some of the remaining bags, all movement of cargo in the affected hold was stopped, and the relevant authorities were notified.
HSE undertook a risk assessment, and its findings were actioned by the port and the ship operator. The port’s harbourmaster made the decision to issue a direction under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, following the guidance provided by the HSE at a cross-agency meeting, and classified the vessel as a dangerous ship. SOSREP was engaged and worked with the ship, the port, the MCA and the HSE to ensure that the ship and the crew were safely removed from port.
The ship was removed from port on Saturday 16 November, and the affected cargo was discharged at a pre-identified location at sea. The master of the ship took the view that, in the light of deteriorating conditions at sea and the unacceptable risk to the crew of the potentially contaminated material remaining on board as the sea became rougher due to the incoming weather front, disposal should commence that evening. The cargo believed to be contaminated represented under 2% of the total volume being transported.
Discharging the potentially contaminated cargo at sea, about 300 metric tonnes, was not an exercise undertaken lightly. As would be expected, there was careful and thorough examination of all the alternative options. A full assessment of the environmental implications and safety risks was also undertaken. The work was overseen by environmental experts and the relevant regulators. The East of England environment group was convened for the purposes of this incident and was comprised of experts from: the Food Standards Agency; the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; the local authority; the Marine Management Organisation; the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Natural England; the Environment Agency; and the inshore fisheries and conservation authority.
The location chosen for disposal was identified as the least sensitive in terms of habitat, flora, fauna and fisheries. The site is an existing aggregate extraction area, involving mechanical activity on the seabed. We have been assured by scientific experts from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the East of England environment group that ammonium nitrate is not a persistent chemical and, with sufficient dilution, will dissipate without leaving a trace.
As would be expected, DEFRA is now going through the standard procedure of notifying the relevant international authorities of the discharging event, as the British Government treat our duties to the natural environment with the highest seriousness.
Where safety requirements are met, there is no basis for the UK Government to refuse entry into port in those circumstances. After the potentially contaminated cargo had been discharged, the port and ship operator followed the usual processes to enable the MV Ruby to return to Great Yarmouth with advice from the MCA, HSE and environmental regulators. Allowing the ship to return ensured crew welfare and enabled the normal transfer of its remaining cargo. I must emphasise that there was no evidence that any of the remaining cargo was potentially contaminated, and this was borne out by events. No further contamination was found.
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the staff and the House, and a blessed new year as well.