POWER TO MAKE SAFETY REGULATIONS

HC Deb 04 July 1972 vol 840 cc462-90

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Golding

I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 26, line 3, leave out 'so far as practicable'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we are to discuss Amendment No. 24, in page 27, line 27, at end insert— '(5) In order to assist him to decide what regulations are necessary he shall call for reports on all casees of death and personal injury which arise from the leakage of gas'.

Mr. Golding

Subsection (1) says: The Secretary of State may make such regulations as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing that the public is so far as practicable protected from any personal injury, fire, explosion or other dangers arising from the transmission or distribution of gas by the Corporation, or from the use of gas supplied by the Corporation. I move the Amendment because I cannot trust the Minister to treat the words so far as practicable in any reasonable way. I have no confidence that he treats gas safety with the seriousness that it deserves. It is customary in a speech of this kind to say that such doubts apply not to the present Minister but to any future Minister that could be appointed, but that is not the case on this occasion. Although the Amendment was put on the Order Paper before 23rd June, before the Minister responded to our new Clause which called for absolute liability on the Gas Corporation for damage arising out of gas accidents, after 23rd June, when the hon. Gentleman spoke on the question of gas safety, the Amendment became even more relevant. In replying to the debate on the new Clause he showed clearly that he is utterly complacent on the question of gas safety. Now that the Government have backed up the Gas Council in making it very difficult for those who are injured or whose property is damaged in gas explosions to receive compensation, there is an added responsibility on the Government to ensure that those explosions do not take place.

I will not weary the House at this early hour with all the figures I could produce of the seriousness of the situation. However, I remind hon. Members that an official Post Office engineering magazine, Safety, has revealed that gas accidents in the Post Office have multiplied more than five times over the past seven years. In the years between 1969 and 1971 the accident figures doubled. Yesterday morning I learned that between February, 1969, and January, 1972,there were in Post Office plants alone 69 explosions caused by leakage of natural gas. I have been advised that the periods which it has taken gas boards to clear leaks in the Eastern telephone region are considerable. Out of 245 reported gas leaks, 18 have not been cleared after two years. This is a serious problem.

I shall quote a few other figures from the eastern region—that is not the region which I represent, but I am sure that hon. Members who represent seats in East Anglia and the eastern region—for example, Southend—will be interested. Seventeen gas leaks were reported two years ago which have not yet been cleared. If one looks at the clearances which have not taken place before a month was out, then the seriousness of the situation can be seen even more clearly. There were five cases in Bedford, 36 in Cambridge, 17 in Colchester, 23 in Norwich and 13 in Oxford in that category.

When one looks at the figures it becomes apparent that there is a great delay on the part of the gas authorities in clearing gas leaks which have been reported to them. Hon. Members opposite may smile, but remember that each and every one of these gas leaks is a potential disaster. This is a very serious subject.

Why does the delay occur? That is a question I want the Minister to answer. One suggestion which has been put to me is that once again private industry is letting down a public enterprise. I am advised that after a fault is reported and a gas fitter has verified that there is a leak, the job is put out to private sub-contractors. Will the Minister tell us whether this is so? Is it the gas authority's fault that the leaks have not been cured, or is it the responsibility of the private sub-contractors?

Mr. Garrett

On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman is obviously referring to the south-eastern region because in the northern region none of the repair work is done by contractors but directly by the Northern Gas Board. Why is it necessary for private contractors to take over at that stage of the procedure to cure a leak?

Mr. Golding

My hon. Friend will know that I am opposed to the concept of nationalised industries contracting work. However, the question should be asked of the Minister. If this contracting is taking place, what is the extent of the sub-contracting? Will the Minister tell us the names of the firms which are involved? I have been told—I shall leave it to the Minister to confirm or deny this information—that the firm of William Press has been involved in this work and has been responsible, because of certain problems regarding the recruitment of labour, for the delays that lead to potential hazards.

Mr. Ronald Brown

Will my hon. Friend consider whether it would be better if a smell was put into natural gas as we had in town gas? If a smell was introduced, a leak could not continue for two years as people would smell it and action would be taken.

Mr. Golding

I am not sure that is true. I know from a constituency example of an old person's house which had a gas leak which continued for some considerable time.

It is against this background that we have to judge the Minister's attitude. I began this speech by putting the blame on him. I was disappointed to see him leaving the Chamber, because my charge is against him. It is customary in moving such an Amendment to say that the present Minister is a responsible person and that we are concerned about protecting ourselves in the future. I made it clear that I was not taking that line. I am sorry that he has left us because I want to examine what he told us on 23rd June. He said: I would emphasise that there are in the industry some of the most up-to-date and advanced methods to ensure safety. In the same way, I believe that responsibilities placed upon Ministers in this respect are properly acted upon. I would certainly reinforce that statement from my own personal, although short, experience in this office. The codes of practice laid down in the Bill and prepared by my Department have resulted from consultation with outside bodies. Hon. Members will appreciate that on certain matters I have been willing to go further than any other Minister has ever done in seeing that the House has knowledge of these matters and in seeing that relevant papers are placed in the library. Therefore, I would not accept any comment that there is other than the most up-to-date approach both by the Council and by the industry in questions of gas safety." —[Official Report, 23rd June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 919.] The most charitable thing I can say about the hon. Gentleman is that he has been in office only a short time and is now in a position to challenge a Civil Service brief.

What are these up-to-date and advanced methods to ensure safety? In the TV programme "Tomorrow's World", the new frame ionisation equipment was shown. I understand some of this equipment is owned by the gas authority. Some people believe that the equipment, which costs only £1,000, could be used more extensively to save injuries. Others believe it to be too sensitive and that because it can only be used vertically it is not so good. How successful is it? Is it being used extensively? How much is it being used? I am interested not in tomorrow's world, but in today's—hence the Amendment. I say it with levity but it is a serious point that my constituents and members of my union, the Post Office Engineering Union, are not so much concerned with today's world but more with avoiding going into the next world.

I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State has returned, because this is an important matter. I am informed also that the Post Office's pellistor device uses a platignum wire more successfully at the moment than ionisation equipment. This wire was developed at the Safety in Mines Research Establishment in Sheffield. What research is the gas authority undertaking? How widely is this type of equipment used? I understand, too, that the Japanese have marketed a gas indicator. What tests have been made of that by the gas authority?

3.30 a.m.

The Minister praised the material he had placed in the Library. On that occasion he said: Hon. Members will appreciate that on certain matters I have been willing to go further than any other Minister has ever done in seeing that the House has knowledge of these matters and in seeing that relevant papers are placed in the Library."—[Official Report, 23rd June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 919.] I asked the librarians to let me see the information the Minister had placed in the Library which would demonstrate the care that the gas authority was taking. I have the material. It is not heavy. One publication is entitled "Natural Gas in the 70s" and the other "Natural Gas on Target". The Minister may want to intervene to say he put more material in the Library.

Mr. Emery

I shall make my own speech.

Mr. Golding

I was given this material by the librarians when I showed them the reference to what the Minister said. There are two pamphlets which were recently issued by the Gas Council. I have read them very carefully. There is not a word about safety in them. There are pictures of swimming pools such as the gas heated swimming pool at London's new Skyline Hotel. There are other pictures of a similar nature. One does not find pictures of people who have been injured by explosions which should never have occurred.

On 23rd June I showed to Parliament a picture of a man whose face had been burned. That man gave authority for the photograph to be shown as a warning to other people not to trust natural gas or to work where it could explode. That picture was on the front of a Post Office safety magazine.

The two publications contain nothing relevant to the subject of safety. It was misleading of the Minister, unless other papers are in the Library, to suggest that the question of safety was covered by the papers. In the magazines there is no photograph of a telephone kiosk which had been turned into a lethal weapon by escaping natural gas.

On 23rd June, 1972, I read a letter from East London showing there had been a telephone kiosk filling with gas during one week which could have exploded very easily, causing a major disaster. There is no suggestion in these publications that "Natural Gas on Target" meant that natural gas can turn a telephone kiosk into the movable type of kiosk in which Dr. Who travels on Saturday evenings.

Mr. Emery

This is the second occasion when that reference has been made. A certain amount of the material has been given to Parliament. I refrained on the last occasion from embarrassing the hon. Gentleman. The arguments the hon. Gentleman is putting forward on behalf of the Post Office, the workers and the union have never been made to the Department or the Gas Council. This is something which the hon. Gentleman is blowing up beyond all proportion.

Mr. Golding

The words "blowing up out of all proportion" would sound a little strange in Glasgow. "Blowing up" is the operative phrase. I am not speaking for the Post Office, not even for the Post Office Engineering Union, I am speaking for the public, I am speaking for my constituents, who suffered in the Madeley gas explosion, who suffered in the Hattrell Street gas explosion, when a man was killed. It is no defence for the Minister to say that his Department has not been told by another Department.

What about Governmental responsibility? Are we to listen to one Minister saying "I did not hear about it; it is another Minister's responsibility?" Are they to shift the responsibility, as happened to my constituents when the Post Office said, "It's not our fault. It is the fault of the gas board" and the gas board said, "It's not our fault. It is a Post Office responsibility"? Someone ultimately has to accept the responsibility, and it has to be accepted at that Dispatch Box. It is a nonsense for the Minister who is responsible for gas safety to be saying "No one told me". The Morton report made clear that gas leaks occur and will continue to occur. If the Minister had looked at the report of the Glasgow inquest recently and at other coroners' reports such as the one from my constituency, he would not need someone to tell him that this was a problem. Anyone reading the newspapers over the last two years knows it is a problem. The Morton Committee was set up because the public knew it was a problem.

Mr. Ronald Brown

The Department of Trade and Industry has a vast interest in this and has a research department whose sole purpose is to research into this. My hon. Friend has the right to ask the Minister how much research his Department has done.

Mr. Golding

I agree I have that right. I have the right to point out that in these books, supposed to deal with safety, there is nothing about safety. The most interesting thing in them is the investment figures, which show that safety could easily be included in the large budget. The title of one of these is "Natural Gas on Target" which I said on 23rd June was a sick joke. The Minister highlighted other deficiencies in his approach.

I quote the Minister's words: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggested that natural gas is a novelty. That is not true in the sense in which he was discussing the danger factor. He mentioned the drying out of joints, and I would stress that this danger arose with other types of gas which come from oil products, such as the naphtha process. Town gas manufactured from oil-based materials sometimes had injected into it a certain degree of precipitate to ensure that the sort of problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would not occur.… The hon. Gentleman said that it was only when somebody was killed that a thorough investigation took place. I must nail that statement, since it is not correct. All explosions are investigated and any serious explosion is investigated very thoroughly, and in such instances reports are made available to my Department. From time to time all mains are monitored by sensitive mobile detectors for breakage and the frequency of investigation depends on the age of the mains and any deterioration which may be known about them. On the point made by the hon. Gentleman that a visual inspection is of major importance, I suggest that in many instances, particularly in respect of conversion, visual inspection would mean the digging up of ground around joints. This is unnecessary with the use of other much more modern methods, which are more efficient than visual inspection and can be applied to deal with a specific problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1972; Vol 839, cc. 920–21.] Is precipitate being injected into natural gas? If it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) suggested that it was, how successful has it been? My hon. Friend said that some experts have said that if natural gas with some added smell lies under certain soils the smell disappears.

Mr. Emery

The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the House. Part of his argument is that I did not fulfil the obligations which I said that I would fulfil. I have said that the documents which I said would be deposited in the Library were deposited in the Library. What is more, I now have a copy of that which was deposited in the Library—namely, the safety regulations. I hope to have an apology from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Golding

I shall be glad to see the safety regulations which were deposited.

Mr. Emery

On 18th May.

Mr. Golding

I shall be delighted to see the regulations. I went to the Library and asked for the documents. I was shown a document which said that six copies of the relevant documents—"Natural Gas on Target" and "Natural Gas in the Seventies"—were enclosed for the benefit of hon. Members. If there was an additional document, I should be happy to see it, and would gladly withdraw. I wish to see precisely what document was placed in the Library to see whether it measures up to the hon. Gentleman's claim.

Mr. Emery

The hon. Gentleman is not even willing to accept my word. The document is Section 67 of the Gas Act, 1968, gas installation in premises, proposed safety regulations—exactly the proposed safety regulations as they were dealt with in draft, the same safety regulations which we would then apply, not from the old Act, but with the new Act. That was the assurance I gave to the Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was not a member. I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South-East (Mr. Rost) that it took him exactly 30 seconds to get the safety regulations from the Library.

Mr. Garrett

Will the Minister confirm that the Amendment proposed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Golding

I apologise to the Minister if that is the case. I shall want to pursue my inquiries. I took with me to the Library an extract of what the Minister had said and asked to be given the papers which he had stated were deposited. I was shown a list of publications relevant to the gas industry containing a note to the effect that six copies of the two documents to which I have referred had been included. Perhaps the Minister will take my word that the document to which he has referred was not given to me. I reserve my position until I can judge whether that document meets the claim that the Minister has gone further than is normal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South has said that the smell of natural gas lying under certain soils could be taken away so that the gas was not detectable. Do the safety regulations contain any reference to the danger that might result from the disappearance of the smell? The properties of natural gas are different from those of coal gas, as was made clear in Professor Morton's report which I quoted on 23rd June: The gas may escape as a result of leakages in transmissions and distribution lines, failure of joints to remain gastight, leakage through pipe walls as a result of corrosion, or from ill-fitting or mal-adjusted connections. He made it clear that Medium and low pressure feeder and street mains are occasionally of welded steel construction but are more often built up of sections of cast-iron pipe connected by socketed joints. The traditional type of joint in the older cast-iron mains, of which there are many thousands of miles throughout the country, is the open socketed type in which the sealing material is help yarn held in position by lead. The transition to dry, manufactured gas and natural gas has caused frequent leakages from these joints as a result of the drying out of the hemp packing…Leakage from the older types of gas main has been a familiar problem for many years and the gas boards are well aware of the danger from leaks and the cost to themselves of any substantial loss of gas. The use of higher pressures, drier gas and latterly natural gas in the district systems has caused the gas board to undertake intensive programmes of clamping, sealing and—where necessary—renewal…The total length of gas mains in the country is so vast, however (of the order of 120,000 miles of main and several millions of joints), that many years will be needed for the elimination of all risks. On 23rd June I made it clear that I was not prepared to wait for years. In the days of the horse before heavy lorries, in the days of town gas before the pressure was doubled, in the iron age before the days of steel, it was reasonable to allow cast-iron piping near the surface of our roads. It is no longer reasonable, because cast-iron pipes are subject to fracture. The Bell Company is laying its cable at least four feet below the surface. The gas authority should replace all its cast-iron piping as quickly as possible.

This is an urgent requirement in an area like Newcastle-under-Lyme which is subject to subsidence. Where such pipes are subjected to additional pressure because of heavy traffic, or in areas which are subject to subsidence as a result of coal or salt workings, it is very important that gas pipes be replaced as quickly as possible to meet the new requirements.

On 23rd June, replying to points which had been made by the Newcastle-under-Lyme coroner following the Hattrell Street disaster, the Minister dismissed visual inspection and spoke of other and more modern methods. Under Clause 31 the Minister is himself responsible for safety. I want him now to state what these modern methods are and how extensively they are being used. I do not want to hear a series of generalities such as we had on 23rd June.

If the Minister is satisfied, let him explain what happens to the gas which is known to disappear between the source of supply and the consumer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central said that 2 per cent. of gas was lost——

Mr. Palmer

My hon. Friend underestimates the amount. The figure which I obtained from the Gas Council was 8 per cent.

Mr. Golding

I was a little worried about that. My hon. Friend is reported as having said 2 per cent. It was my recollection that his figure was 8 per cent. At any rate, if the figure is 8 per cent., let the Minister tell us what happens to it. Where does it go? Is there no problem? The gas boards send out 100 per cent. while the consumer receives 92 per cent. The other 8 per cent. is a problem which the Minister should be facing rather more seriously than he appears to be at present.

I throw away some points because I do not want to prolong this contribution, but I must make another point.

The Minister said: The hon. Gentleman said that it was only when somebody was killed that a thorough investigation took place.…All explosions are investigated and any serious explosion is investigated very thoroughly, and in such instances reports are made available to my Department."—[Official Report, 23rd June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 920.] What is a serious explosion? Recently following the distaster in my constituency a Question was asked by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) about how many gas explosions were reported in 1971 and how the figures compared with those for the two previous years. The Minister for Industry replied that only figures for serious cases were available. He added: For the purpose of reporting, cases are regarded as serious when they cause damage, e.g. £100 or more or involve fatalities."—[Official Report, 8th May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 264.] The Minister will know that most gas explosions in manholes cause serious injuries to men, burnt faces, burnt arms, and if the injury is below the groin it can cause impotence. According to the Department these are not serious cases. It is an intolerable situation when the State believes that £100 of damage is worth reporting, but if a man is crippled for life in the way I have described no report is called for. It is a most vague sense of values and most odd that a Minister can reply to a Question in this way without wondering why £100 of damage should be reported but if a man is burnt and crippled for life it is not worth reporting to the Department for more detailed consideration.

This is one of the most important aspects from the point of view of our discussions and of the Bill because it not only involves property but it is not said that it may involve life or limb. This involves families facing great personal tragedy.

The Government have already refused to make it possible for the Gas Council to compensate the victims of the explosions. The least they can do tonight is to accept the Amendment which would place on them a greater responsibility to avoid an explosion and other incidents.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown

I rise primarily to make sure that there can be no confusion in any report of this debate about which Newcastle Member has made certain alarmist allegations in moving the Amendment. My hon. Friend spoke of cases in the South-Eastern Gas Board area.

Mr. Golding

In the Eastern Telephone Region, which is East Anglia.

Mr. Brown

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming the area. He spoke of instances in East Anglia of escapes being reported and not being located and repaired weeks, months and, I think I am correct in saying, in one case nearly two years after being reported.

I have had 30 years' practical experience of the distribution side of the gas industry dealing directly with the installation of the main, the service pipe from the meter to the main, the interior supply pipe and the fixing of appliances for the consumer. While I can speak with authority only of the Northern Gas Board, I can at least reassure my constituents and people in the north of England that internal gas escapes between the meter and an appliance in a consumer's premises duly reported to the Northern Gas Board will be attended to, located and made safe, if not fully repaired, within minutes rather than hours, days, weeks, months or years. Certainly in the Northern Gas Board's area, and I should imagine in the majority of areas, internal escapes when reported are and should be dealt with within minutes rather than hours.

Outside escapes on gas mains, service pipes, pipes between the main and the meter, governors and other ancillary equipment, certainly in the Northern Gas Board's area, again will be located and made safe and, in the vast majority of cases, repaired permanemtly within hours. Clearly an escape on a 24-inch or 36-inch main cannot be located and repaired within minutes as the excavation of a considerable amount of ground may be involved.

I was appalled at some of the expensive language used by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Golding

I used expensive language not only because of the figures I was given this morning, which my hon. Friend can see, but because on 23rd June I read a letter from a responsible branch secretary in London reporting on the situation in East London and the time that is taken to clear gas leaks. I am concerned about the personal safety of individuals who have to work in these circumstances. My extravagant language comes from a study of compensation papers—I quoted some on 23rd June—of men who have been hurt as a result of delays in repairs. If my extravagant language has disturbed either my hon. Friend or others concerned with the gas industry I am pleased, because now we may get action.

Mr. Brown

I accept what my hon. Friend says. I am as concerned as he or anyone else that people should risk suffering injury, whether minor or severe, as a result of negligence on the part of the gas industry or its servants.

Some of the allegations made by my hon. Friend are a serious slander against many working gasmen. So serious are the allegations that in my opinion the Minister has a duty to hold an inquiry to establish the facts. Irrespective of whether the practice of putting out to contract the job of locating and repairing gas escapes is widespread—and I believe that in certain areas it is becoming widespread—if the facts as presented by my hon. Friend have any validity the Minister should seriously consider them with a view to giving a general direction to the gas board concerned that it ought to train and employ its own labour if contractors are treating the location and repair of escapes as flippantly as my hon. Friend said they are in the south-eastern area of the Post Office. The Minister should assure us that there will be an inquiry into the facts outlined by my hon. Friend, if for no other reason than to reassure the 13 million consumers of the gas industry that gas is a safe and reliable fuel, whether it is town or natural gas.

My hon. Friend has referred to 8 per cent. unregistered gas. Unregistered gas has always been of concern to the gas industry—in private hands, as in public hands—but it is unfair for anyone to say, or by innuendo imply, that all this 8 per cent. of unregistered gas is lost in escapes. There are many ways in which unregistered gas, as it is called in the industry, is dissipated—on works, on production plant, on clearing pipes and so on. There are many ways in which 1 million cubic feet of gas can be dissipated and become unregistered gas.

My hon. Friend talked about what is a serious explosion and what is not. If an old lady turns on the gas to her oven, walks into the dining room to find a box of matches, finds that the old man has taken them into the lounge, gets them from there, walks back to the cooker and then strikes a match and gets her eyebrows singed, that is an explosion. I am sure my hon. Friend would not suggest that there should be a ministerial investigation into that kind of thing.

I worked in middle management in the industry and I hated it when old ladies were involved in that kind of accident, because it meant a mass of paper work for me, inquiry after inquiry, then a report to my boss, who had to report to his boss, and finally the chairman had to have a report.

Stringent precautions are taken at all levels in the gas industry, and I wanted to intervene if for no other reason than to refute, on behalf of my many excolleagues in the gas industry, the serious slander by my hon. Friend against the industry.

Mr. Ronald Brown

When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was speaking, the Under-Secretary made great play about the regulations that were available in the Library. I have been to the Library. Only two copies were available. The Under-Secretary had had one, and I had the two remaining copies. Three copies had been there since 18th May. There should have been a few more copies for hon. Members. My hon. Friend cannot obtain a copy now because I had the only copies that were in the Library.

It is quite untrue for the Minister to say that they are regulations. He must know this because he has a copy. They are draft regulations. They are not regulations at all but are merely drafts put forward in December. Comments were requested by January. It is now July and we have not yet had the regulations. So my hon. Friend is right whichever way he goes. One would have thought that in six months it would be possible to firm up these regulations. The imputation put on this by the Under-secretary was that in some odd way my hon. Friend was in a position to obtain a set of regulations from the Library. Assuming that that were so—because there are no copies there now—what he would have got was not a set of regulations but a set of draft regulations which may or may not be the substance of the final regulations.

Mr. Emery

I know the hon. Gentleman too well to think that he would wish to mislead the House. Perhaps he would look at the debate in Committee when the undertaking was given. Of course they are not regulations. I suggested that in order to help the Committee I would take a step which had not been taken previously in that the draft regulations, before they were published—they are not normally available to the House—should be placed in the Library. It seems to me—I have argued this as a back bencher—that when regulations are going the rounds for consultation, it is somewhat strange that various bodies should be able to have them although they are not available to hon. Members. Although it had not been done previously, it was to a degree to ensure that people had these regulations that they were placed in the Library. I should have thought that three copies were probably enough. The Library is always willing to produce more copies by photocopying if they are required.

The hon. Gentleman's argument is not one which comes within his normal honourable approach to debates in the House. The Government went to a great deal of trouble to try to ensure that these draft regulations, because of the importance of safety, should be available.

To deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point about the time element, these are regulations that will be made after the Bill is passed. Therefore, to use an absurdity, the shorter our debate, the quicker we shall get the regulations.

Mr. Ronald Brown

I appreciate the Under-Secretary's explanation. But he made a great issue of trying to give some indication to my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend had failed or was unable or unwilling to pay tribute to the fact that they are the regulations. They are draft regulations subject to alteration, and that in no way demeans my hon. Friend's argument that the present wording "so far as practicable" should not be allowed to remain.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) seemed to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I can appreciate the object of defending former colleagues.

Mr. Robert C. Brown

I have not taken any case against the Amendment. My taking to task my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was because of the expensive language he used and some of the alarmist statements he made, which in fairness I had to refute on behalf of the Northern Gas Board area.

Mr. Ronald Brown

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point and his loyalty to former colleagues. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was making that point. He was cataloguing many experiences which, I understand, he has raised previously and very pertinently with the Department of Trade and Industry but about which nothing has been done.

4.15 a.m.

The Department of Trade and Industry, an enormous conglomerate, is a very expensive Department. It has been spending vast sums of money on research and development. Recently in a Select Committee I had occasion to question how the money was being spent. I raised the issue of fire from foam plastic as a result of which large numbers of people are being injured or killed, and the Minister's Department has been indolent and has done nothing about it. One of his staff said that the Department would have to have notice of the question. Although questions were put many times in the course of the examination of witnesses, this was the sort of answer which was given. My hon. Friend was right to pinpoint the fact that the Department has not only a specific duty but the set-up in the Department and the funds which it gets each year to deal with the matter. Therefore, my hon. Friend's stricture was justified

It is extraordinary that the Minister should put forward the argument that safety can be secured only "so far as practicable". That is not what the Factories Act, 1936, says. I had some experience as a safety officer of trying to get round the Act, so far as it was practicable, but it was never possible. The Factories Act demands that overhead cranes should be fully cased. If the overhead cables are fully cased, it is not possible to run the crane. Although I had gone a long way towards satisfying the requirements of the Act by providing protection 6 ft. on either side of the crane cab, this was not sufficient for the factory inspector. The law said that they should be properly covered. Therefore, although it was impracticable to do it, I could not get a dispensation from the inspector to the effect that I had done as much as it was practicable to do.

It is extraordinary that we should be drafting legislation which provides that there is a point beyond which it is considered impracticable to take action. But assuming that the Government draft the legislation in a sloppy way, how does one determine what is practicable? Who is the arbiter? Is it the Industrial Relations Court? Are we to ask Sir John Donaldson to advise us on whether it is practicable? If somebody is hurt, who sues whom? Does the person who is hurt sue the Gas Corporation or the contractor who put in the installation? Before we can accept the drafting in the Bill, the Minister is bound to tell us who is culpable. I read what he said on 23rd June, but he did not make the position clear. He fudged it. Somebody must determine what the corporation is responsible for and how far it can go in ensuring the safety of life and limb. The Minister must explain why in this Bill he can argue a contrary a case to that is argued under the Factories Act.

I can see nothing in the Amendment which would prejudice Clause 31. I do not think the words in the Bill are meaningful and the Minister has not defined who can make them meaningful. If they are taken out, that will leave the possibility of the corporation being sued. Surely that is what we are trying to provide. If the corporation is negligent, it should be sued. But if it can pray in aid Clause 31 as drafted, there is no possibility of having justice from the corporation if it is guilty of negligence as long as it can show that any precautions taken were "so far as practicable".

I can recall the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961—the non-feasance Act as it was called—when it was alleged that people who were hurt in falling over paving stones in the street would be able to sue the local authority for the injury they received. But we have found that it is almost impossible to sue under that Act. It is necessary to prove that the distance that the kerbstones or the paving stones are out of line is unreasonable and the result of a High Court action in 1968 made that almost impossible.

The Clause is drafted in a similar way. While it pays lip service to the idea that safety should be important, it goes all the way to ensure that the corporation will be in the best position to get out of its responsibilities if something goes wrong. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. It is perfectly reasonable. Far from the regulations being invalidated by it, I believe that they would be strengthened. This may be only a marginal case, but to reject the Amendment could lead to injustice for someone seeking redress for his injuries.

Mr. Garrett

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) should be congratulated in seeking to make this Amendment to such a comprehensive Bill. I apologise to hon. Members who were not members of the Committee because they may find the debate dull, boring and tedious. But we are trying to make improvements to the Bill and this is one facet of safety that has not been tackled in it.

That is disturbing because other aspects of industrial life are covered by safety legislation in providing an inquiry in the event of death or serious injury. Legislation provides for inquiries into tragedies in the mining and quarrying industries. A procedure is laid down in the event of an aircraft accident and similar provisions exist to deal with collisions at sea, or if a ship catches fire or is subjected to other hazards at sea or in dock.

Yet the large industry which is the subject of the Bill is not covered by such legislation. The Amendment would give the necessary cover for that facet of the safety regulations. I do not believe that such cover exists for the electricity industry. If it does not, the industry should seek such cover.

The regulations were the subject of contention some time ago. I regret to say that I too have never read them. If the Minister could give an assurance or guarantee that the Amendment would be covered by the draft regulations, he could shorten the debate. In that event, there would be no need for us to press the Amendment.

Mr. Emery

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to Amendment No. 23 or Amendment No. 24?

Mr. Garrett

I am referring to Amendment No. 24. I was hoping that the Minister would give us some assistance, because he or his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) may have read regulations that we unfortunately have not read.

To sum up, the new subsection should be inserted and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme should be congratulated on the devoted way in which he has pursued this aspect of safety. I spent much of my working life in the chemical industry. The type of gas we are talking about is child's play compared with gases in that industry. I realise the importance of regulations which make it obligatory for employers and employees to operate safety factors not only to their own advantage but to the advantage of the industry.

My participation in the debate would end on a much happier note if the Minister gave us assurances on the points I have raised.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

I apologise most sincerely for keeping you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the staff of the House here for even one minute longer at this time of night. If we reflect for a moment on the number of policemen, messengers, refreshment staff, engineers, Hansard reporters and the rest involved in keeping the House going, we see that it is an extraordinary state of affairs.

The Amendment is ridiculous. Clearly nobody, not even a Secretary of State, could protect the public absolutely. We cannot attempt to legislate all possibility of accidents out of existence.

I hope it will be recorded in HANSARD that such is the degree of irresponsibility on the Opposition benches that three or four Members between four and five o'clock in the morning have talked for over an hour——

Mr. Garrett

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give way?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

No, I will not.

They have talked for an hour and a half at this time of the morning on the subject simply of removing the words "so far as practicable".

Mr. Kaufman

I hope that my constituents in Ardwick, particularly my constituents in the Pink Bank Lane area, will draw full satisfaction from the fact that a Conservative Member has said that it is wrong for me at half-past four in the morning to raise a case which is causing the utmost anxiety in an area of my constituency. I hope they will note that that is what the hon. and gallant Conservative Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) think about my taking the opportunity to air something about which I have received the most worried representations.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for giving me the opportunity at half-past four in the morning to raise in the House a matter which I have pledged to my constituents I would raise in the House.

Mr. Garrett

Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester was once on the Committee considering a Gas Bill and delayed it for a considerable time while he discussed the possibilities of underground gas coming to the surface and gassing his cows? Is that irresponsible?

Mr. Kaufman

It is not for me to question the motives of any Member. All I will say is that this is Parliament, the place where we raise the grievances of our constituents. That is what we are sent here to do.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

Totally bogus.

Mr. Kaufman

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for enabling me to fulfil my pledge to 15 of my constituents who came to see me a few days ago to voice their deep concern about the situation which has arisen in their neighbourhood. I shall not go fully into the matter because gas is only one aspect of it. However, the complaint which I received from the 15 people who came to see me, and a petition signed by 370 people in the area which I received this week in the House, shows the kind of thing which people are worried about. I should like the Minister to look into the matter.

4.30 a.m.

The situation is that during recent months lorries have been travelling from a brickworks in my constituency to a tip, and travelling over a part of the road under which lies a gas pipe. The frequency of the journeys of the lorries and their weight are such that my constituents have deep fears that the gas pipe will be opened up, gas will escape, there will be an accident and injury will be inflicted upon them.

The people in the area are no strangers to tragedy, because only a few months ago a small boy was drowned in a pool in the brickworks. The gas pipe, and the area which my constituents are concerned about, is at the junction of Santley Street and Pink Bank Lane. I have taken the matter up with the owners of the works, from whom I have received assurances which I trust will be fulfilled completely. I have taken the matter up with Manchester Corporation, the Manchester City Police, the Department of the Environment and the gas board. I received this week a letter from the gas board saying that it is looking into the matter. I have no doubt that it will do so. However, I should like the Minister to assure me that he will take cognisance of the situation, because I promised my constituents when they came to see me that I would raise the matter in the House as their representative. I am grateful for the opportunity to fulfil a pledge which I made to a group of people who sent me here to represent them on these and other matters.

Mr. Emery

I was going to respond to the questions which have been put to me, but perhaps it will assist the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) if I respond immediately to his last contribution. I do not know of the incident. I do not know whether I should have known.

Mr. Kaufman

No.

Mr. Emery

I am glad to be assured. There is no way I would have known. However, if the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the matter in a slightly fuller form than that raised in the partial Adjournment debate which he has had on the Floor of the House, I shall look into it and take whatever action is appropriate.

Mr. Kaufman

I trust the Minister will agree that it was perfectly right for me to raise the matter in this way, even at this hour.

Mr. Emery

It would be for the Chair to inform the hon. Gentleman if he had been out of order. I would never assume, subsume or anything else that I should take over your responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I thought it right to intervene as there are certain aspects of the Amendment which deserve to be understood before anyone from the Opposition Front Bench speaks on them.

I shall not go over matters tediously because I have made the position clear. I was accused of not fulfilling an undertaking I gave in Committee that draft regulations should be put in the House. I did not say that they would be regulations; I said they would be draft regulations. Of course I accept the apology given by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and in turn I am sorry that the documents were produced late.

Mr. Golding

I repeat my apology to the hon. Gentleman. Had I received the full documents in time, naturally I would not have made the comments about him that I did.

Mr. Emery

I accept the apology. This was a misunderstanding and of course tempers rise in such circumstances. It is of the greatest importance that when Ministers give undertakings they should fulfill them to the full. This is why I immediately instituted an inquiry and was able to give the hon. Gentleman my assurance.

The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) raised the question of inquiries, dealt with under Amendment No. 24. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that he is not correct about the figures of deaths and damage to property. I shall look again at the parliamentary reply he quoted, but the statistics he gave covered all explosions causing casualties requiring hospital treatment. The idea that we do not take things very seriously—that we regard these occurrences as important only if they kill people—is not correct. I think what I have said about the statistics goes a long way to meeting the point put by the hon. Member for Wallsend.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) made a number of points for which I thank him, and of course I respond to what he said. It would not be right to give the impression that the gas industry or the men working in it are not immensely concerned with safety, because they are. The hon. Member knows from first-hand experience, and I know from my own experience, the amount of trouble that is taken, and rightly taken—I do not put it forward as a marvellous thing to do, because of course that is right—to ensure maximum safety and to deal with problems of gas leaks raised by consumers.

Certainly there are problems. With 13 million consumers it would be surprising if now and again something did not go "according to Hoyle". But I stress that the Ministers, the Department, the boards, the consultative councils, the managements and the whole staff all go out of their way to ensure that all the precautions possible are taken.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

Although the point has rightly been made about how careful those people are, they cannot do more than is practicable.

Would my hon. Friend repeat this point when the hon. Member for Manchester Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) returns? The hon. Gentleman has now left the Chamber and is evidently not anxious to hear the Minister's reply to the point about which his constituents are so greatly concerned. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Emery

I do not wish to defend the hon. Member for Ardwick but I gave him an assurance. That is all he was interested in. He was here and listened to that.

I am coming to the absolute aspect. I may have inadvertently said something to the Committee which could be misinterpreted. I said that the draft regulations I placed in the Library would be made under the new Act and not under the 1948 Act. It is perhaps possible, in the interests of speed, that we might even lay them under the 1948 Act. That would help the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown).

Mr. Ronald Brown

I appreciated that it was a slip of the tongue on the part of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Emery

Until recently these regulations were not thought to be necessary. There was criticism that the Department was not concerned.

The gas loss is the last thing I want. What happens to the 8 per cent.? The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West dealt with part of this matter. Not all the loss is due to leaks. Part of the loss occurs because of the difference in metering. As consumers' meters age, they tend to operate more slowly. The consumers obtain some benefit as the meters get older. The amount is not large. A number of reasons have been given for the loss. That reason, however, was not mentioned during the debate.

Amendment No. 23 would require that the purpose of any gas safety regulation which the Secretary of State may make should be to afford the public complete security from danger. This is where I come to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles).

Notwithstanding the apparent effect of the Amendment, absolute safety is unobtainable. It is unrealistic to require or expect regulations to result in its attainment. We have discussed certain types of safety regulations, such as fencing or the protection around cranes, where if certain steps are taken absolute protection can be assured. If there is a net, no hammer below a certain weight will fall through it. When one makes regulations concerning a pipe passing through a wall, a certain encasement is required to deal with normal, or any, settlement that might arise.

If there is a physical factor which no one knows about, the requirements of the regulations will not apply. No one can have safety regulations that will protect one from a fool, such as the person who strikes the match, having left the tap open. No regulation can protect one from that.

The concept that one can have or require in legislation absolute safety is an attainment which it would not be sensible or reasonable to put into the Bill. No gas installation is proof against misuse by the consumer or unauthorised acts by third parties. 4.45 a.m.

I refer particularly to Professor Morton's findings. He rightly said in his Report on the Safety of Natural Gas as a Fuel that in correctly designed, installed, maintained and operated appliances gas can be used with safety provided that the safety precautions necessary continue to be observed. He spelt this out clearly. No fuel, whether town gas, natural gas, electricity, paraffin or even coal, is safe if it is mishandled. Surely it would be wrong for the House to accept an Amendment which might lead anyone to suppose that absolute satety could be attained as a result. While I understand that this has been a useful aspect of the debate, to try to write in that degree of absoluteness would not be sensible.

That last Amendment is meant to assist the decision on regulations. This Amendment is defective and ought not to be accepted. It calls for reports and we are not certain what sort of reports. I thought it was put down as a probing exercise to allow this debate. It is not clear to whom the reports would be made. The Secretary of State would not know whether there had been a death or personal injury arising from leakage of gas unless some-one told him. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman would not want to press the Amendment because of its drafting defects and I have taken it to be a probing Amendment which would allow us to have the sort of debate we have had.

Mr. Golding

I put a number of detailed points, which are of great importance, about the type of testing that is taking place. I would like answers to these points because people I have con sulted since 23rd June have made the point that the Minister on that day hid behind generalities. I am not pressing him now, but in some way or other, perhaps by Parliamentary Question, we would like to know more about what the Gas Council is doing——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a second speech.

Mr. Emery

I take the point. I am not trying to hide behind generalities, because I believe it is right and proper that the information should be available to the House. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will have all the points he has raised about safety and testing looked at by my Department. I will study this and write in detail to him and then we can see what further steps we can take.

Mr. Palmer

I think I should say something in answer to the remarkable intervention by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). I do not think he has appeared in our debates before but we are glad to see him. He talks about our wasting time. No doubt he is anxious to get to bed—we all are—but we have a duly. I do not want to make heavy weather of his intervention but when I first entered this House in another parliamentary incarnation, as the Member for Wimbledon, not the last but certainly the first Labour Member for that constituency, one of my first experiences of being up at night was in connection with the original Gas Bill. The late Mr. Brendan Bracken was leading for the Opposition and he kept the House up not for one night but for two nights.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not talk so lightly. We did not ask for a Bill of this importance, with its 50 Clauses and 8 Schedules, to be brought on late at night. We would much prefer to discuss the Bill at a civilised hour. There were 27 sittings in Standing Committee.

Mr. Garrett

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was because of the co-operation of Opposition Members that there were only 27 sittings in Committee? There could well have been 47 sittings.

Mr. Palmer

Yes. This is a matter of considerable complexity concerning the entire reorganisation of the gas industry and the abolition of area boards. However, despite the fact that the Bill is being discussed through the night, we must do our duty as an Opposition.

The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for the persistence with which he has pursued the matter. He has rendered a great public service. My hon. Friend feels strongly on the issue, not only because of his important constituency interest but also because of his very close connection with the Post Office and its employees. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view, because I have an equally close connection with the electricity supply industry.

The problem that Post Office employees face is paralleled by the recent experience of employees in the electricity supply industry, where natural gas, particularly because of the way it can leak more easily than the old town gas, is pressing its way through the soil and moving into substations and underground boxes. In the last year two or three electricity supply employees have lost their lives from this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown), with his close connections with the gas industry, put the point of view of gas employees. I do not blame or condemn gas employees. It is not their fault. It is often the fault of the old apparatus or pipes with which they have to contend.

The difficulty remains with the Minister. I accept what he said about his concern; I believe that in a personal way he meant it. However, the Minister and the Gas Council have to some extent tended to minimise the problem. The last annual report of the Gas Council does not mention the problem—a remarkable omission.

When we were discussing capital expenditure I said that the gas industry would have to spend a great deal on replacing the old, leaky networks that could not stand up to the impact of natural gas. The Minister said that he did not think it would cost very much. I disagree entirely. If the networks are to be replaced the Gas Corporation must spend a great deal of money. Because the industry is reluctant to spend more than it has already incurred in bringing about this great changeover, it is taking considerable risks in the insulation of the old gas pipes.

The Minister was right in qualifying the figures I gave. My figures were supplied, because of a Parliamentary Question I asked, in a letter from the Chairman of the Gas Council. After he gave me the figure of between 7 and 8 per cent. for gas lost, he said that some loss was due to differences in the conditions of measurement but that was fairly marginal. In the last paragraph of the letter the chairman said that the figures related to the whole of the gas industry's transmission and distribution systems and arose mainly from the distribution of gas to consumers through the low-pressure systems. That is the point we have made on several occasions.

It is up to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to decide whether he wishes to press the Amendment to a Division; I do not presume to advise him on that. Our debates have had considerable publicity. The first debate made the headlines, some of them sensational. It has been brought home to the gas industry that the public expect it to do better in future than it has done in the past. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for his persistence and energy.

Mr. Kaufman

On a point of order. I am informed by an hon. Member that during my absence from the Chamber the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) alleged that I had not remained in the House to hear the Minister's reply to the point I raised. I hope the Minister will confirm that I was present.

Mr. Emery

I have already done so.

Mr. Golding

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.