HL Deb 20 June 1990 vol 520 cc1024-37

9.34 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the present powers of the Health and Safety Executive are adequate to safeguard those working on the Channel Tunnel.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords who have any idea of what is taking place on this huge construction site, possibly the largest in Europe, will understand that my probing questions may range a little wide of the specific Question on the Order Paper.

I ask this Question because during my public life I was an engineer in the sense that I worked in an engineering factory. I have always had a deep interest in the building industry against a background, in my local government days, of dealing with housing in the general sense. I became quite anxious —as I know did noble Lords from all parties —about the repeated reports in the press and the media of the deaths which have occurred at the Channel Tunnel. Because of my privileged position in your Lordships' House, I wish to take this opportunity of publicly discussing this matter on a factual basis without the media hype in the newspapers and, sadly, on television.

In order to obtain first hand knowledge, along with a colleague from another place, Mr. Stanley Orme, the chairman of the PLP, I spent five or six hours at the site. We did not go down to the tunnel because that would have needed more time than we had available. We were mainly concerned to see the type of safety procedures and regulations on site. We have arranged to go to the site again at a later date for the specific purpose of seeing inside the tunnel.

One knows that national trade union leaders sometimes make statements which do not always reflect the views of the people involved at the sharp end; that is, the shop stewards. I know that from my experience as a shop floor trade unionist.

Quite rightly, much anxiety has been expressed because there have been six deaths on what one can call the British side of the site. The company admits to some liability regarding two of those deaths. No doubt they will be called to account legally, and regarding compensation payments to the relatives of those unfortunate people. Having said that, no amount of compensation can compensate for the loss of a husband, son or friend in that situation.

A few weeks ago I attended the UCATT national conference. That trade union represents over 50 per cent. of the workers who are on the site. The question of safety was discussed at that conference. Last year the number of deaths recorded nationally increased by 30. The total amounted to over 150. The conference delegates stood in silence to pay tribute to their colleagues in the building industry who had died. That was very moving.

Therefore, we must begin by remembering that the building industry is our most dangerous industry, and that this site is the most dangerous site within it.

What did we find on that visit? On applying for the job, candidates are screened as to their suitability. If they are considered suitable, they then have to undergo a very strict medical test. That includes a rigorous eye and audiology test. If there is any suspicion of any physical defect which may put them at risk on the site, they are not employed. They are rejected whether they are ex-miners or tunnellers, and so on. That basic standard must be achieved in terms of sight and hearing in order to work on the site because it is very dangerous.

When candidates are accepted, whether they are miners or people familiar with tunnelling in a different context, they spend three days on an induction course on site where they are intensively taught the rigours of that specific site. There is no question of people being bussed or lorried on to a site and walking into an area of great personal danger without first being forewarned and educated in what to do and what not to do.

One point that was made in another place and in your Lordships' House is that the figures for accidents in the Channel Tunnel are very bad compared with the national average. That depends how one deploys the figures. The information that Mr. Orme and I were given was that on that site they report 100 per cent. of the accidents that take place. In industry generally only 40 per cent. of accidents are reported.

The site consists of three separate projects, each of which has its own safety committee, with representatives chosen by the men on the job. The major union on the site, with over half of the 8,000 employees as members, is UCATT, which is the major building trade union. Questions were asked of us and we bounced questions back at the people involved. We were quite clearly told by the representatives that full facilities and places are afforded to them on each of the committees. There is no restriction on their raising any issue whatever.

Those representatives can ensure that any proposals agreed upon on the three different projects are followed through. They can call for immediate action if the agreed proposal is not progessing at the speed or with the thoroughness that they expect. All those nominated to the committee receive full training and are instructed in safety measures. In addition there are seven full-time safety officers employed on the site.

One needs to get some conception of the size of the project. That can be achieved only by seeing it. There is a small police station permanently on site and a medical centre —which we visited —which is really a mini-hospital and is manned 24 hours a day. All those provisions are in excess of the Housing and Safety Executive standards.

We met the shop stewards on the job and I put a specific question to them. The question has been raised on television, in another place and in this Chamber; whether workers have been victimised if they have protested about inadequate safety measures. I should advise the House that the stewards to whom we spoke were angry at that suggestion. They said quite clearly, "Somebody is saying that we are not doing our job. That is nonsense". They said that there might be a foreman who had passed a remark about getting rid of somebody if he continued beefing, but they added, "Nobody, as far as we are aware, has left the site because of such action". Those shop stewards were not from a single union; they belonged to UCATT, GMB, my own union, the AEU, and the ETU. All those people subscribed to that view.

In addition to those provisions, 500 operatives on site are fully trained in first aid techniques, with 40 trained to an advanced level. The training continues and they hope to do better as time goes on.

One of the sad aspects of this matter is the way in which some of the media have dealt with the situation. I have a copy of a letter sent by Mr. Albert Williams, the secretary of UCATT, to the editor of "Around Westminster", BBC 2, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London. It is dated 22nd May. The letter refers to the programme "Around Westminster" and its Channel Tunnel feature broadcast on Sunday 20th May. The letter reads: At considerable inconvenience to myself, I was interviewed for approximately 1 hour for the above programme at my office on Wednesday 16th May, and I was more than surprised that not one mention of the views I projected was contained in your programme. Now, I accept that editing etc. eliminates certain interviews, but the non-inclusion of my interview meant the total exclusion of any point of view of the 4,000 plus workers employed at the Tunnel"— that is, half those employed on the site— which made the programme, to say the least, imbalanced. I suspect that the reason my contribution was omitted is because I refused to sensationalise and project an 'anti-tunnel' point of view. I am sending a copy of this letter to various interested parties concerned with the construction of the tunnel".

That letter was written by a trade union leader who has over 50 per cent. of the people employed on the site as members of his union.

I did not see the programme but obviously I can understand that excluding the view of the most important section of the workers —or rather not the most important, because every section is important, but the largest section —was, in fact, rigging the programme, which was therefore not as factual as it should have been. That example should be put on record.

I have referred to the six people who died. It should be made clear that not all six died in the tunnel. Some died some distance away from the tunnel. It might be asked, "What is the difference to the dead?", but the implication could otherwise be that there is some carelessness in the tunnel. I would not condone that for one moment. The Health and Safety Executive has to be tough in this situation. My understanding is that it has a continuous presence on the site. Every accident is reported to the executive so that it can be dealt with and categorised correctly.

The main contract is held by five companies: Balfour Beatty, Costain, Tarmac, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey. UCATT have given me some notes on the position. These state: The work is organised around the clock on the basis of three consecutive eight-hour shifts. The workers get 6 days on and 2 days off followed by 6 days on and 3 days off. The wages for an 8 to 9-hour shift are around £100 a day basic with around £70 bonus a day".

I asked what was the annual out-take for workers on the site. I was told that people working in the tunnel can gross an annual salary of £50,000 and those working above ground can gross a salary of about £20,000.

Much has been said about the speeding up of work on the tunnel and the management putting pressure on workers through the bonus system so that they work harder. That is denied in the notes I have been sent, which state: This is not borne out by the way the pay system works at Trans Manche Link …with a basic of £100 per day, workers are guaranteed a decent rate regardless of their performance".

We met the project manager, who made it quite clear to us that there is no question of pressure of time. Though the project was behind time because some unexpectedly wet strata were met at the beginning, it is now on target and could be deemed to be slightly ahead of target. He said that the drilling machines are not being driven or forced through to anything like their capacity. That is inhibited by the fact that as the work proceeds the precast concrete sections that line the tunnel are put in place. It is a very technical matter. We hope to go down to see the work.

The brief states: At the end of June 1989 employment in tunnelling stood at around 4,200 and on the project as a whole at around 6,300. By the end of February" — which of course is the end of February of this year — the total number employed has risen to 7,500. Total employment is now beginning to approach twice that predicted during the planned stages of the project, and is expected to continue to rise (though probably more slowly) during 1990 as the mechanical and electrical fitting-out phase builds up. Of workers on the site over half are represented by UCATT and other unions are involved. This means that the majority of the workers are highly organised and already familiar with the system of safety representatives operating at the tunnel. Health and Safety is policed by the Health and Safety Executive —plus a good presence of TML safety officers permanently assigned to the site".

We asked what they thought was the most important component for the future for maintaining safety in relative terms to other contracts. We asked what was the most important commodity that they would like to see extended. They said that it was education of the people involved so that they were aware of the dangers they are getting into and of the importance of maintaining standards of awareness.

I am only repeating the figures given to me, but we were told that 85 per cent. of the accidents on site were not due to neglect on the part of anybody but to human error. People may say that that is a very high figure. When some people read what I have said tonight they may want to challenge it. But those were the figures that we were given and that is the situation we are in.

Various things can be done. I believe that the fines are not large enough. If death is caused on a building site because of neglect by the contractor, in my opinion that is far too important a case to be dealt with at the magistrates' court. We have some judges who give rather odd sentences when people are found guilty. The magistrates are very limited in what they can do. The death of a workman on site caused by neglect is a major personal disaster and it should be dealt with as such.

I have a recollection when I was a young boy of someone coming to my home for my father to go back to work because his workmate had been trapped between a lift and a floor. He had been almost disembowelled. Though it is over 60 years ago I can see the girl even today. It had a devastating effect on the family. A death in any industry, particularly in these circumstances, has a devastating effect whether on the wife, the children or brothers and sisters. It is an appalling situation. At the moment the maximum fine available to magistrates is £2,000. That is not good enough. The Health and Safety Executive was able to get a fine of £50,000 levied against the five major contractors through the Crown Court, but £50,000 divided by five is not a very large sum.

The trade unions say that there should be a constant review of management procedures and a greater enforcement of procedures, particularly with reference to safety groups and safety representatives. They say that most of the fatal accidents were caused by people being in the wrong place. It seems that signposting is not sufficient to prevent accidents to people wandering where they really ought not to be. The unions further suggest that all the most up-to-date health and safety equipment should be made available. They refer to human sensors which if placed on the moving machinery might have prevented at least three of the fatal accidents. We learn by our mistakes and I hope that those suggestions are taken on board.

In conclusion, the unions say that the Channel Tunnel project is a civil engineering achievement that lacks any realistic comparison. No endeavour can equal the project in terms of its size and ambition. It is therefore hard to compare its health and safety record with that of any other contract in the United Kingdom. I am sorry that I have spoken at length but this is an important subject which needs to be put on the record. What is the position on the French side of the Channel? I am told that the French side of the contract is much easier to work. The French are tunnelling almost on a lateral basis whereas workers on the British side have to go down before they even enter the tunnel. It is a much harder exercise.

I have asked this Question because I believe that a close watch must be kept on what is going on. However, we should bear in mind that the workforce and the management are engaged on probably the largest ever civil engineering contract in this country. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that achievement. However, we must also consider what steps should be taken to reduce the number of accidents on the site. That can be done with good will. If the trade unions on the site are given enough facilities they will participate to the full. I hope that the project will be an outstanding success and that we can look back with pride when it is finished.

9.58 p.m.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, at this time of night I shall be brief. In this Question the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has asked whether the Government are satisfied that the present powers of the Health and Safety Executive are adequate to safeguard those working on the Channel Tunnel. Accordingly, I have tried to get a closer idea of the nature of the conditions which need to be safeguarded. That they are dangerous is clear from the fact that up to last month, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, there have been six deaths on the British side of the Channel compared with two on the French side.

I understand that altogether 327 accidents were investigated by the executive between March 1987 and December 1989 in the United Kingdom and that there are no known figures on the French side.

Are the powers of the HSE adequate to deal with the situation? I have examined the relevant sections of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to find out whether they are. I have examined particularly Sections 2 and 3, which deal with the duties of the employer, and Sections 19 and 20, which concern the appointment and powers of inspectors. As the enforcing authority, the executive has power to appoint inspectors and it has exercised that power by appointing a permanent team of three inspectors who are based at Ashford in Kent.

It is plain from Section 20 of the Act that these inspectors have wide powers, including one in particular which appears to enable them to do practically anything to ensure that the duties of employers to their employees are carried out. Those powers have been used to considerable effect. In February of this year the contractors were warned that they must improve their safety procedures. The five companies forming Transmanche Link have been prosecuted three times for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of those working in the tunnel. Those prosecutions culminated, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said, in the imposition last March of fines totalling £50,000.

After the death of the sixth British worker, the HSE halted work in the tunnel altogether on 9th May last and banned all drilling until safety orders were complied with. I understand that two safety audits have been set in motion. One is an internal investigation which has particular reference to the maintenance of boring machines, and its findings will have to be sent to the HSE. The other is an HSE audit, and the Secretary of State has said that TML must comply with its recommendations.

That is a brief summary of the position as I understand it. To judge from that record, the powers of the Health and Safety Executive appear to be adequate in concept, and, to a large extent, in execution. However, there is one aspect of the matter to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. It concerns the standard of training on the British side of the tunnel, compared with that which exists in France. I do so because in a recent article the editor of a specialist magazine entitled Tunnels and Tunnelling wrote: The French have spent a great deal of money training every Tunnel worker to a standard that makes each a technician. We" — that is, the British— are basically sending labourers to the front". I understand that French workers are regularly sent on refresher safety courses. Training in safety is also provided for British workers; but it is said to amount to little more than the induction course to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred. Therefore, I ask whether enough is being done on that front in the United Kingdom.

In the 1974 Act I could find only one reference to training. In Section 2 it states that the employer's duty extends to, the provision of such …training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees". Among the powers accorded to the inspectors under Section 20, there is none that I can see which deals with safety. I know that it is the Government's policy that training in general should be employer-led. Nevertheless, I must ask the Minister whether they are satisfied that in this particular respect the powers of the Health and Safety Executive are adequate. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's reply to that question and indeed to other questions which have been and which may be raised during the course of this timely debate.

10.5 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for giving us the opportunity tonight, even at this late hour, to debate this important and highly topical subject and in particular for giving us the benefit of his experience of a visit to the site. As my noble friend said, at the end of June 1989 employment in tunnelling stood at about 4,200 and on the project as a whole at about 6,300. By the end of February, tunnel employment had risen to 4,700 and the total employed to 7,500. We expect the figures to rise further and so we are talking about a substantial workforce.

Questions have already been asked in your Lordships' House about accident experience, and it is of course accepted —it was accepted at that time —that by its very nature tunnelling is a somewhat hazardous operation. Nevertheless recent experience does not seem to have been happy —that, despite the fact that health and safety is policed by the HSE and, from what my noble friend has said, is done effectively in consultation and co-operation with the unions. I understand that a principal inspecting officer and a team of health and safety inspectors are on site. That is a rather heavier HSE presence than on construction sites normally.

Safety committees exist and recognised trade union safety representatives operate on the site. Despite all that, there have been six fatal accidents since the tunnel began just over 18 months ago. There have been 502 reported accidents. Some of the fatal accidents have been horrendous and it would appear that some at least could have been avoided.

Let us take, for example, a case reported in the New Statesman and Society this week —the case of one Gary Woodward. He was crushed inside the tunnel boring machine in October 1989 when a cable was nipped, causing a machine to move and crush him. if the machine had been earthed, as required by British standard regulations, it could not have happened, but it was not. The risk of injury was "obvious and serious", as was said at the inquest in February, but there were no management witnesses from TML (the consortium of construction companies building the tunnel) and not one witness from the company that built the machine. The verdict was accidental death.

There was then the death of Keith Lynch, a grouter working on the tunnel. In January 1990 he was run over by a slow moving train operating within the tunnel. Evidence at the inquest last month indicated that it had happened because there was no proper system of banksmen, who are supposed to guide the trains. The deputy construction manager in charge of land tunnels who had overall responsibility for safety within the tunnel was not called. That was despite the fact that a year previously there had been another death of one David Simes in similar circumstances. Again the verdict at the inquest was accidental death.

There were two further fatal accidents on 21st April and 7th May. The first was of a fitter who died when a section of pipe fell, crushing him. He died later of his injuries. The second was of another grouter who was crushed by a crane when a section of tunnel lining was being moved into place.

It should be noted that while systems for reporting accidents are different on the French and United Kingdom sides and direct comparisons are therefore difficult, there has, as I understand it, been only one fatality on the French side during the same period. That fact was referred to by the two previous speakers.

The HSE has taken TML to court three times, as has been referred to by previous speakers. As a result of the HSE investigation into the second fatal accident which occurred on 6th February 1989 when a worker was hit by heavy lifting gear, the five companies that make up TML were each fined £10,000 —the £50,000 referred to by my noble friend. I agree with him that that seems to be a small amount when lives are in question. TML has recognised that its accident rate can and must be reduced although it continues to maintain that its performance, approach and standards are generally better and more developed than in civil engineering generally. That is probably true, judging by what my noble friend said this evening. It is clear, however, that TML's approach to accident investigation is not searching enough when looking at the causes and future prevention of accidents. This is surely demonstrated by the fact that two similar fatal accidents occurred within a year of each other.

I was talking quite recently to a construction engineer who knows the site well. He told me that there was a culture among employees which was not sufficiently accident and hazard conscious. He said that in his view there was a masculine, macho culture where taking the necessary precautions was not regarded as sufficiently tough. It is a very tough industry. Therefore I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, that training is of paramount importance if we are to make sure that these accidents are not repeated.

I am informed, and indeed the Minister informed the House in response to a Starred Question last Thursday, 14th June, that the Secretary of State for Employment has recently invited representatives of Translink to a meeting to discuss health and safety management on the project. It is understood that the HSE accident prevention advisory unit has been asked to carry out a major review of the maintenance work.

It is the view of the Trades Union Congress which briefed me on the matter that a review of management procedures by the HSE must give attention to consultation and joint workforce involvement in health and safety through the operation of safety representatives and safety committees. The review should also look at the case for fast track procedures to deal with serious imminent risks. In view of the special nature of the project, there may be a case for a special high level health and safety committee under joint HSE/Translink joint venture chairmanship.

It is understood that this is a difficult and dangerous project. I agree with everything that my noble friend said about the importance of the project, how exciting it is and how unprecedented for this country. That being so, it behoves us to take all the steps that can be taken to ensure that it is not built on the blood of construction workers. We have, I should have thought, progressed from the days when it was taken for granted that massive public works involved the deaths and injury of workers who were regarded as expendable. That is not the Government's attitude since they are, I know, concerned about injuries and deaths on the project.

As for the comment about the alleged intimidation of workers, I noted what my noble friend Lord Dean had to say. When I made the point on a Question last week I had been briefed to that effect by the Trades Union Congress. I should not have made that kind of allegation out of the blue. In view of what the noble Lord had to say on the issue, I shall take the matter up.

As to the whole question of penalties, where serious injuries and accidents are involved, I welcome the fact that a major review is to be carried out. I hope that some positive results will arise from it. I am not generally in favour of sending people to prison, but I believe that it would bring home the need for safety to board members if they knew that they could be held personally responsible where fatalities arise because of negligent operations.

Again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for bringing the matter to our attention tonight. It is of enormous importance and we must make absolutely certain that this major project is carried out with the least possible injury and fatalities to the workers involved.

10.14 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has given to discuss worker health and safety on the Channel Tunnel project. I do so particularly since he has had a certain amount of experience from visiting the site yesterday. That experience helps us in our deliberations.

The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, are committed to seeing that all workplaces enjoy the highest standards of health and safety that are reasonably practicable. This applies equally to the construction industry as any other industry. It is for this reason that we have been most active in promoting construction safety. The Channel Tunnel development is unique in its conception and scale. It is the most challenging civil engineering project in Europe today and is a complex project to manage and operate. Adding to this complexity is its international character.

The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, concerns the adequacy of powers available to the Health and Safety Executive to safeguard health and safety in the work environment. The Channel Tunnel Act applies UK law to the tunnel, even to an extension dug into French territory, until "effective connection" under the Treaty of Canterbury is declared. I should like therefore to outline briefly the factual position on legislation under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and other relevant legislation for the information of this House.

Health and safety is an area where a degree of common ground should and I believe does exist between all parties. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act is an outstanding example of that common ground. The legislation was drawn up by a Conservative Government and put on the statute book by a Labour Government.

The UK health and safety legislation is acknowledged as one of the best in Europe and is often used as a model for European Community directives. The Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act provides a model framework for the development and enforcement of safety standards by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive which it established.

The commission regularly considers developments on the Channel Tunnel project and is concerned with long-term safety issues such as action planned to develop and maintain higher standards, and the executive is responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of health and safety legislation on the site.

The Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act is clear on the duties it places on employers, employees and others in such matters. The Act requires employers to take every step that is reasonably practicable to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees. An employer must take full account of safety in the carrying out of his business.

The Act requires employees to take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work. In addition employees are required to co-operate with their employers to allow them to meet their health and safety responsibilities. The Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act gives to inspectors a wide range of powers including the powers of investigation and prosecution for failure to comply with any relevant health and safety legislation. Inspectors visit the Channel Tunnel project regularly for a variety of reasons and have not failed to use their enforcement powers whenever they considered it to be appropriate. Both improvement and prohibition notices have been served on the Channel Tunnel contractors requiring them to take specified remedial action. In addition the contractors, to date, have been prosecuted on three occasions —twice in the Crown Court. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will be glad to hear that.

As all noble Lords have recognised, the unions have played an active role in monitoring safety on the project. Almost all of the TML workforce is unionised. The unions have always been very supportive of TML's intention to take a firm line on safety-related disciplinary offences. I am grateful for the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I understood him to say that no workers have left the site either through intimidation or because of lack of safety on the site.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I should say that was the information that was given to us. I accept that as factual information; but only the people involved would know whether it was factual information.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is quite right. I believe that I am right in saying that the HSE has received no allegations from the workforce about safety on the site. Those allegations can be received in confidence.

I have mentioned that this is a complex and challenging project, involving activities with a high inherent risk, and demanding careful management and attention to safety matters. It has been disappointing to note the accident record of the project, especially the number of fatal accidents. All noble Lords on all sides of the House would agree that we are dealing with people who have died, and that is regrettable and unfortunate. The accident rate of the Channel Tunnel project is apparently higher than that for the construction industry generally, and that is a matter for great concern which has been expressed both in this House and in another place, and which is shared by Ministers and the HSE. However, caution is required in interpreting the statistics. There is a high level of under-reporting in the construction industry generally, compared with the almost complete reporting by TML, and the industry statistics cover a wide range of work activities. That said, Ministers have made it clear that regard accident rates in the construction industry as too high.

Both the HSE and TML have recently carried out detailed studies of safety management on the site. The HSE's Accident Protection Advisory Unit has looked at procedures for the maintenance of the tunnel boring machines and has presented its initial findings to TML. TML has also recently completed a full internal audit of safety practices and procedures and is discussing the outcome with the five members of the UK consortium.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned mandatory prison sentences. The Health and Safety at Work Act already allows for prosecution of individual managers and directors of companies and imprisonment in certain circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about training. That is a very important issue. He quite rightly alluded to the fact that the Government believe that it should be the responsibility of employers. TML has attempted as far as possible to recruit experienced underground workers for the Channel Tunnel, going right across the world to do so. All employees, nevertheless, go through a three-day induction training course which includes a substantial safety element. Continuous training of operatives is also organised through a structured series of field safety talks in the workplace. TML attaches a great deal of importance to its training programme as it sees its success as being fundamental to changing attitudes to unsafe practice among the workforce. It also organises supervisory and management training courses and carries out a great deal of first-aid training.

I also know that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, wanted to play a part in the debate today but unfortunately had another engagement. He visited the tunnel a few months ago. When I spoke to him earlier today the main point that he wanted to make was that he was deeply impressed by the immense care being taken by the contractors to ensure that the operations were as safe as rules and practices can make them.

In conclusion, I should like to stress that Ministers and the HSE firmly believe that the great majority of accidents are preventable by positive management action. I am confident that the legal framework is adequate and that the HSE and its inspectors have sufficient powers to enforce health and safety laws and regulations. Inspectors have not hesitated to use those powers to enforce the law and will not hesitate to do so in the future.

It must not be forgotten that it is the responsibility of the employer, TML, to safeguard those working in the tunnel. The Secretary of State for Employment met senior management of TML shortly after the last fatal accident to remind them vigorously of that fact. They have acknowledged their responsibility and publicly committed themselves to giving safety the highest priority. In the end the only way in which safety can be improved is by full commitment of TML and its workforce to safe working practices.