HC Deb 18 May 1956 vol 552 cc2413-27

1.4 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)

I am very glad to have the opportunity, upon the Adjournment of the House on the eve of the Whitsun Recess, to raise the question of a serious fire disaster which occurred in my constituency on 25th February. in which eight persons lost their lives. This was the worst mill disaster in Britain for many years, and was one of four which occurred within one month in the Yorkshire woollen mills.

I want to pay tribute to the fire brigade and the local police, whose duties were carried out efficiently and with a thoroughness characteristic of their fine tradition, and also to a railwayman, Mr. Bird, who broke open a door and rescued two women. I hope to be present tonight at a function at which his heroism will be suitably rewarded. I also thank the Minister for his personal interest and action in the matter, and the amount of time which he is devoting to clearing up the death-trap conditions which exists in many Yorkshire woollen mills and initiating a successful prosecution against the owners of the firm responsible for the disaster.

Whatever severe criticisms I shall make against the Factories Inspectorate in Keighley, they are in no way directed against the right hon. Gentleman himself. In my humble submission, he has been let down, as I hope to prove beyond peradventure. At the inquest the coroner stated that the ultimate cause of the death of these eight people was the fact that there was no means of giving the factory people warning of fire. That is a very serious indictment against the management and, ipso facto, against the inspectorate.

Not only was there no warning system whatsoever, but the fire escape did not reach all floors. The staircase which was normally used by the workers when they came out of the mill was made of wood, with the exception of the last flight of stairs— seven in number—which were made of concrete. The door at the bottom of these steps was fastened, contrary to all regulations.

Arising from this state of affairs, which was revealed at the inquest, there are obviously questions to be answered. I am very pleased to see the Minister present, because it shows that he realises the urgency and gravity of the problem in the Yorkshire textile mills, and 1 am very grateful to him for that. First, I want to know why this state of affairs was not known by the inspectorate, and why no action was taken by the inspectorate, after their visit to the factory in 1951, to compel the installation of a fire alarm, when the firm had had its notice drawn to this breach of the 1937 Act. Why, after the last visit of the inspector in April, 1954, was the matter not taken up again? Why was the firm not prosecuted before, instead of after, the calamity, under Section 36 (7) of the 1937 Act?

If a summons had been served upon the firm when it was first known they had no fire alarm, this disaster would not have occurred, and these people would still be alive. What action is the hon. Gentleman taking to see that the inspectorate in Keighley do their job, and that Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Factories Act—which deal with fire safety—are complied with? Again, what disciplinary action is being taken against the person or persons guilty of such a gross dereliction of duty?

The factory was visited in 1951, when it was pointed out that there was no fire alarm. The inspector came again in 1954, but he did not trouble about a fire alarm, and nothing was done until after the disaster. I am not being too censorious in saying that the right hon. Gentleman has been let down by his staff. Nothing I can say will bring back those people who lost their lives by such callous neglect, because that is what it was.

Having said that about the disaster. one must, I submit, pass to the positive side. What can be done? In my Question before the Easter Recess, I asked about new regulations being made. No answer was given. I am not complaining because, indeed, the Chair was exceedingly benevolent towards me, and many supplementary questions were asked. But I should like to know whether the Minister will introduce new regulations to be operable, say. in two years' time laying it down that no machinery in textile mills may be placed on wooden floors because wooden floors rapidly become oil soaked. Not only do the floors become oil soaked, but the beams of the building become oil soaked. I can take the right hon. Gentleman to mills in my constituency where, when the sun is shining, one can see the oil bubbling on the beams.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that sprinkler valves are installed, and in mills over 30 years old make it compulsory for a person to be responsible for fire safety regulations? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the factory inspector will not tip off the management when he is coming because, since the Minister has taken action, his inspectors have, in fact, been visiting the mills, something which they should have done before and not after this disaster? They visited one mill where the fire escape door was locked. The inspector asked why the door was locked and he was told, "Oh, that is normal because the workers leave before time." That, surely, is a question of discipline. There is no reason why people's lives should be placed in jeopardy by action of that sort.

Will the Minister also see that qualified people are recruited to the inspectorate? There seem to me to be far too many art graduates and not enough scientists. After all, the scope of present day factory legislation calls for a tremendous amount of technical knowledge. I am assured by people who know the situation better than I that that section of the right hon. Gentleman's Department is singularly lacking in people with the adequate technical knowledge. Why should factory inspectors be lower paid than mining inspectors? Their duty, while it may not be quite so arduous, certainly covers far more people in so far as it covers the rest of the working population. There is. of course, a grave shortage of recruits —

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

Is my hon. Friend aware that it must be that, and that, in the main, it is the lower scales which prevent the recruitment of proper scientific personnel to the service at the present time?

Mr. Hobson

I should think that that is probably the reason, particularly as the salaries of the mining inspectorate have recently had to be increased.

There is the case of J. T. Sutcliffe's mill, which I raised with the Minister, and I want to thank him for his prompt action in regard to it. There, again, is a factory without a fire alarm and where the means of escape are not satisfactory. The local authorities are examining the mill at present. Why was it not examined by them before under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act, and how many other mills have not been examined by the local authorities? That is a matter on which we must have the information.

It is with some degree of confidence that I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has certain overriding powers over the local authorities. Section 34 (7) of the Act says:

"If it appears to an inspector that dangerous conditions in regard to escape in case of fire exists in any factory to which this section applies, he may give notice thereof in writing to the district council and it shall be the duty of the council forthwith to examine the factory, and they may by notice in writing require the occupier to make such alterations, within such period, as may be specified in the notice."

The right hon. Gentleman's Department must take action on that section because there is not the slightest doubt that certificates have been issued in cases where the means of escape are not satisfactory.

As far as the mill where the fatalities occurred is concerned-and I am grateful for the information received from the right hon. Gentleman's Department-a certificate had actually been issued. Therefore, there is a case where the Minister's district inspector must overrule the local authority and see that these places are made quite safe.

Section 36 of the Act deals with safety provisions in case of fire. Under that Section, lift shafts, hoist shafts, and, I submit, also the rope race which drives the machinery in some of these mills, must be enclosed in fire-resisting material. In how many mills in Keighley does that appertain? In very few indeed. That, obviously, is something which must be looked into.

Again, the provisions of the Factories Act with regard to whitewashing and cleaning are not being enforced as they should be. These places should be whitewashed every 14 months. There is now a great hurry and scurry in some of the old mills to whitewash them. This is of great importance because when whitewash is used on the beams it reduces the inflammability of the oil. Therefore, that is something which should be done. If my memory serves me right—as a trade union official I have been out of the picture for some little time now—I believe that a register has to be kept showing that whitewashing has been carried out. I shall consider it my duty to report, from time to time to the Department the condition in the mills. I have a list waiting for the attention of "her ladyship," in Keighley. I hope that the inspectors are going round, because there are many other death traps, too.

I now wish to refer to Sections 22 and 23 of the Act which deal with lifting gear and hoists. Here, again, a register must be kept and examination must take place every 14 months. In how many mills has the lifting tackle been examined and in how many is the register properly kept? When last did the inspector see the register? That is one of the grave sins of omission which regularly occur.

I have tried to put the negative and the positive side, but the real point I wish to make is that the foul death-trap conditions which are to be found in mills because their owners will not spend the money are very unfair to the good employers and to those who have good modern mills and who keep them up to date. In the last analysis it is tantamount to unfair competition, and I want to pay my tribute to the good mill owners just as I condemn the bad owners.

It is no good the owners of these death traps— in many cases it is very difficult to find out who are the owners— trying to salve their consciences by giving £ 1,000 to the mayor's relief fund for the victims of this disaster. It would be far better for them to spend what capital resources they have in implementing the 1937 Act.

Finally, I hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will be able to give a message to thousands of my constituents whose livelihood is gained in the woollen mills by saying that firm and prompt action is being taken to make their places of work as safe as is humanly possible from the hazards of fire. We owe this to the memory of those who died, to the orphans and the bereaved left behind. If this is done, those people will not have died in vain, and, if I may humbly say so, the right hon. Gentleman and we as a House of Commons will have done our duty.

1.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr)

First, may I say how much my right hon. Friend and myself welcome this debate. It provides us with an opportunity not only to discuss this tragedy and the result of it, but, if I may take up the closing sentences of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), to say what we propose to do to avoid a repetition of such a disaster.

I would pay a tribute, as I know my right hon. Friend would also wish to do, to the responsible and helpful attitude of the hon. Member for Keighley, which has been apparent from the first moment he raised this matter through Parliamentary Questions, from the action he has taken in his constituency and from the way he has spoken in this debate. I join with him in his tribute to the work of the fire brigade, and to the great bravery of Mr. Bird, which is to be recognised tonight. I also desire to thank the hon. Member for his kind words about the way in which my right hon. Friend has looked into this matter.

I do not object to the strength and force of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. and the sincerity with which he made them. I assure him that all the detailed points which he made, both critical and positive, will be given serious and careful consideration by my right hon. Friend. I shall deal specifically with many of the important points which the hon. Member raised, but those with which I do not deal now will also receive careful consideration.

The facts about this fire are indeed tragic and deplorable. I realise that they have aroused natural and proper fear and dismay among those employed in similar mills, not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but throughout that area. Apart from further action which I propose to describe, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that at this moment our inspectors in Yorkshire have been instructed to take special note of fire risks in the mills in that area which they are doing.

This accident, in which eight people were killed and three were injured, resulted from a clear breach of the Factories Acts provisions. As the hon. Gentleman said, the firm were successfully prosecuted and were fined. But if the failure of the firm to carry out its clear duty was reprehensible, it is also clear, and must be admitted, that this accident revealed that the follow—up procedure of the Factory Inspectorate has not worked as it should in this case. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was the inspection and follow—up letter in November, 1951, about the need for fire alarms; and in five visits since that date the fire alarm matter was not pursued. All the difficulties and criticism which the hon. Member made stem from the fact, which we have to realise, that partly because the war came so quickly on top of it—though the reasons are quite immaterial—the 1937 Factories Act has not been implemented to the extent and with the speed that we should have desired. In most of what I have to say, I shall place emphasis on the action we are now taking to press ahead with the implementation of that Act.

Now I wish to speak with particular reference to fire risks. I am sure the hon. Member would not want me to waste time going over the facts and faults of this tragedy which has happened and cannot be undone, but rather to say how we think a repetition of such a tragedy can be avoided. Following this disaster, my right hon. Friend ordered a complete review of the Ministry of Labour policy under the Factories Acts in relation to fire. The Chief Inspector of Factories has held a special conference of his superintending inspectors not only to consider the facts in this case, but to call for reports from the superintending inspectors about the position in their divisions. I wish to tell the House about the conclusions we have reached as a result of this review and the action we are taking.

I will deal first with the question of fire alarms. If only there had been a fire alarm, quite apart from any other defects in the conditions at the factory, those lives would probably not have been lost. In the 1937 Factories Act it is laid down that a fire alarm must be installed in any factory where there are more than twenty workers or where explosives and highly inflammable materials are stored or used. There is no doubt that noncompliance with this essential provision is widespread and serious. We cannot be certain of the figures, although I hope that soon we shall be, but we estimate that no less than between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the factories covered by this requirement do not have fire alarms. Although we must take account of the fact that many of these firms have small and single-storey buildings with extremely low fire risks, nevertheless this is an excessive degree of non-compliance and cannot be allowed to continue. We shall do our best to see that it does not continue.

I will now explain how we propose to do that. First, there is the question of publicity. The publicity given to this tragedy, both by earlier Questions in this House and locally, and now today by this debate—and also by the successful prosecution of the firm—will help to arouse people, both to their statutory obligations and to their general moral duty to their employees. There is one other point on publicity which I should mention. The hon. Member for Keighley will recall that in a Question about this tragedy on the eve of the Easter Adjournment he asked that we should hold a public inquiry. I said that we should not do that in this case, because we knew all the facts.

The prime object of a public inquiry is to ascertain the facts, but we also realise that perhaps a public inquiry could help in the question of public morale and of the giving of publicity. Under the Factories Acts it has not been our practice to hold public inquiries, although there is power to do so. Since the 1914–18 war there has been only one such public inquiry, which was held in 1928. We do not wish to start making frequent public inquiries because our inspectors are better occupied in doing their job of inspecting than they would be were they unnecessarily involved in public inquiries.

I do not think that such inquiries should become a frequent or regular part of our procedure. But in future, when there are serious accidents involving the loss of life and serious damage and so forth, we shall keep in mind what I might call the public morale and publicity advantages of a public inquiry and not simply the need for information.

Whatever we do about publicity it is not enough, and therefore as a first step the Chief Inspector of Factories is to write to all factory occupiers covered by this provision to remind them of their obligation to install fire alarms. That will be something positive, but even that we do not regard as sufficient. There are 40,000 to 50,000 premises involved, and the problem is how to follow this up urgently without disturbing the normal work of the factory inspectors. Important though fire alarms may be, it would not be right to take our inspectors away from their normal work over the whole range of risks to safety and health. We have to find a way to help the factory inspectors in this task. My right hon. Friend has therefore decided that officers from employment exchanges will assist the district inspectors in carrying out a rapid survey by personal visits to all the factories concerned throughout the country. That should ensure that a survey of the 40,000 or 50,000 premises is completed within a short time. I cannot give the exact period, but the matter is being treated as an urgent operation. To assist the inspectorate generally, as well as factory occupiers, we are preparing a leaflet giving advice on the installation of fire alarms and pointing out some of the difficulties to be avoided.

There are technical difficulties in fixing effective systems of fire alarms. We think that there is need for some simple guidance on this matter, which does not exist at the moment, so in addition to the personal approach there will be this leaflet. In the light of the results which we obtain from the survey, my right hon. Friend will then decide whether further action is needed and what that action should be. That, I think, should mark a new drive to deal with the fire alarm problem.

Then there are the Factories Acts provisions relating to fire risks. In general, the Factories Acts aim at ensuring that workers can escape safely if a fire occurs. They aim at that rather than at the prevention of fire itself, although I shall say something about prevention later. The main provisions of the Factories Acts deal with the provision of satisfactory means of escape, the easy opening of escape doors, the clear marking of fire exits, the keeping free of passageways in factories-obviously a most important feature, because it is no use having an escape door if people cannot get to it quickly-and also with seeing that workers are familiar with the arrange ments which have to be put into operation in the emergency of a fire.

I am sorry to say that there is no doubt that the standards of compliance with some of these provisions are not satisfactory. I should like to deal with each of the main ones in turn and to say what we propose to do about them. First, there is the means of escape which was clearly an important issue in the fire about which we have been talking. The first responsibility for examination and certification rests on the local authorities in all except Crown factories, which I will deal with separately.

This work of examination and certification has not been carried on as fast and as fully as we should have wished. In some areas progress has been very good. In some areas we reckon that 90 per cent., or even 95 per cent., of the factories have been examined and certificated by the local authorities, but in many other areas the story is very different and the percentage examined is probably at least as low as 50 per cent. We hope that councils will now speed up this work. We recognise, however, that the factory inspectors also have power in this matter, and they are now being instructed to use these powers more fully in future than they have done in the past.

First, they have the power to notify the local authority about individual cases where dangerous conditions exist and, having notified them, to require them to take action forthwith. We have to be realistic in this matter. We have to recognise that local authorities are not failing to do this simply through apathy and neglect. In some cases they are meeting real difficulties in carrying out these duties. Merely to notify and require them to take action will not sweep the difficulties away.

Therefore, we intend to ask our inspectors to consult with the local authorities to see whether we can help in overcoming any real difficulties they may have. Moreover, if the difficulties cannot be overcome, and if the local authorities cannot fulfill their obligations in this respect, then our inspectors have power under Section 34 of the Act of 1937 to carry out the examination themselves. We have instructed our inspectors that they are to use this power more freely in future than they have done hitherto.

The responsibility for Crown factories does not rest on the local authorities at all but entirely on the Factory Inspectorate. The examination of Crown factories is not yet 100 per cent. complete, but the great majority have been covered and we have initiated a drive to complete the remaining minority as quickly as possible.

Now I come to the question of doors, passageways, marked fire exits and other points such as those the hon. Member mentioned—whitewashing, the fire protection of lift shafts, the general question of hoists and lifts and other matters. These are all the responsibility of the factory inspectors, and enforcement can be done effectively only in the course of normal day to day inspection. Nevertheless, inspectors have been definitely instructed to pay particular attention to these points in future. The hon. Member can be assured that if sometimes these have been overlooked they will not be overlooked in the future.

I turn to the question of fire drills and instruction to workers about the use of means of escape which exist in the factories. My right hon. Friend has decided to change the policy in applying Section 37 of the 1937 Act in this respect. In the debates on the Act in 1937, it was stated by the then Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, the Department responsible at that time for these matters, that the Act did not by itself impose any obligation to hold regular fire drills, and inspectors, therefore, have not pressed employers to do so. Fire drills are not essential in all premises and it would be foolish to insist on them in all premises, but they are certainly highly desirable in some premises.

Therefore, our inspectors have been told that they must in future stress the advisability of fire drills in suitable cases, and special attention is to be given to this point. We want to pursue this on a voluntary basis, but if necessary my right hon. Friend will consider whether to use the power which he possesses under Section 37 to introduce regulations to make fire drills compulsory in certain cases. We propose to see that there are fire drills where desirable, to begin with by voluntary action, but if necessary we shall make regulations in the matter.

Now I come to the question of the prevention of fire. As I have stated, the main emphasis of the Factories Acts is to ensure escape rather than to prevent fire itself. Nevertheless, the Minister has general powers under Section 60 of the 1937 Act which enables him to make regulations directed at fire prevention where the fire risk is high and where any fire outbreak would be likely to lead to particular dangers to workers, as opposed to property generally.

Some special regulations have been made in this respect. For example, there are those dealing with the manufacture of celluloids, cinematograph film and cellulose solutions. These are obvious examples, but we are now considering whether new regulations are required to deal with other processes which involve the use of highly inflammable materials. In any consideration of the regulations which may be advisable, I assure the hon. Member that we will take into account what he said about the way in which machines are installed, sprinkler valves, the appointing of a responsible fire officer, and so on. All these points will be considered when we are considering new regulations.

Mr. Hobson

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the special regulations about cellulose, which has a very low flash point. I am sure he is aware that wool fluff which permeates these factories is just as inflammable and that fire spreads at a rapid rate. This mill was destroyed in ten minutes.

Mr. Carr

I am well aware of the danger with wool, and with cotton it is at least as bad; in fact, it may be even worse. When we are considering further regulations under these general powers given by Section 60, those points will be taken into account. We have to face the fact that regulations of this kind impose rules aimed at fire prevention in special cases. It may not prove possible to make regulations which will apply effectively to whole industries. We are looking into this, but it may be difficult to make effective arrangements to cover wide areas and whole industries.

In any event, whether we can do everything we want by regulations or not—and I think it is probable that we cannot—we have decided to supplement any such action by developing our advisory work to deal with fire prevention in industry generally. As the House will be aware, there are appointed under the 1947 Fire Services Act fire prevention officers who are employees of the fire authorities. The duty of fire prevention officers is to give advice when requested by the occupiers of premises, but they have no power of entry, and in this respect they are at a disadvantage compared with our factory inspectorate. So in 1955 the Chief Inspector of Factories issued instructions that factory inspectors were to advise factory occupiers to seek the help of fire prevention officers. In other words, since fire prevention officers have to be invited before they can go to a factory, we are doing our best to encourage occupiers to invite them to come along.

The Factory Inspectorate is itself seeking to develop a closer co-operation with the work of the fire prevention officers. This was a matter raised by the Select Committee on Estimates in 1954. We are now consulting with the Home Office to ascertain whether this co-operation can be made more effective.

The fire prevention officers constitute one part of the advisory work. In addition, we are going to produce some advisory literature. The only publication at the moment is a memorandum for the guidance of local authorities on some technical problems connected with means of escape. There is nothing at all available for factory occupiers or workers, or, indeed, even for inspectors to help them in developing their personal advisory work. We therefore propose to publish, first of all, the simple leaflet about fire alarms and their installation to which I have referred, and, secondly, a general advisory booklet on fire precaution and means of escape. Both publications will be dealt with urgently, and they will, of course, be prepared in consultation with the Home Office, which has a particular responsibility in this matter.

I should like now to sum up and recapitulate the major positive actions that we are taking. First, on fire alarms, the chief inspector is writing to all factory occupiers and the officers of employment exchanges are being called in to help inspectors carry out a rapid survey of the forty to fifty thousand premises affected by this obligation. A leaflet is being produced dealing with the installation of fire alarms and the types of fire alarm most suitable to different factories.

Secondly, on means of escape, we are going to speed up our work of examination of premises by instructing inspectors to make greater use of the powers which they have than has previously been the case, both in respect of notifying particular cases to local authorities and also, where necessary, by carrying out the examination themselves, as they have the power to do.

Thirdly, on the question of fire drills, we are instructing inspectors to press employers to adopt this procedure in suitable cases, and in the light of the success which we get from this voluntary persuasion, we shall decide whether regulations should be introduced. If necessary, my right hon. Friend will certainly take that action.

Fourthly, on fire prevention, we are examining the need to make further special regulations to deal with abnormal fire risks, and we are also going to intensify our general advisory work on fire prevention both by factory inspectors' work in closer collaboration with the fire prevention officers and by publishing suitable literature on the subject.

All this sums up the positive action that we are taking to reduce the dangers of fire in industry. As I said at the outset, we shall certainly consider also the specific points which have been made by the hon. Member. I hope the House will agree that the action which I have outlined represents an important new initiative on a wide front.

I want briefly to mention two matters which, while having a bearing on the fire risks side of the work and some of the broad aspects of the disaster, also affect the whole of the Factories Acts work which the Ministry of Labour does. First, and most important, the House has been informed, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, of the investigation being carried out by three senior officers of my Department into the staffing and organisation of the Factory Inspectorate. The report has just been completed and submitted to my right hon. Friend, who will be considering it urgently. It bears on such things as the follow-up procedure, which has been such an important point in this disaster, and also the staffing policy, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member.

The second item is the report on accident prevention in industry which has just been published by the National Joint Advisory Council. One of the recommendations is that a standing subcommittee of the Council should be set up to deal specially with improving safety in industry. That has already been done.

We have been discussing particularly this morning the fire hazard aspect of industrial safety. Seriously as we must, and shall, treat the problem of reducing the risks of fire, and dramatic and tragic as the effects are when such an accident occurs, I think it is right to point out that fortunately in total the injuries and fatalities caused by fire are small. In fact, they amount only to a quarter of 1 per cent. of all the factory injuries reported to my Department.

In all about 180,000 people every year are injured sufficiently seriously to be reported to the Ministry. Twenty million production days are lost every year as a result of factory accidents. This is an appalling figure. We were worried, and rightly so, about the 3¾ million days lost last year through industrial disputes. Almost six times as many days were lost as a result of industrial accidents. We simply cannot afford to continue the loss and the suffering which is caused by these accidents. The time has come to make a new drive to reduce them. My right hon. Friend is determined to do all that lies in his power as Minister of Labour to press this campaign forward.

I hope that the hon. Member will feel that this morning's debate is evidence that in the field of fire risk this is no idle promise.

Forward to