HC Deb 12 June 1974 vol 874 cc1789-98

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

The disaster at Flixborough in Lincolnshire is yet fresh in all our minds, but it is now off the pages of the newspapers and off television. Very soon it will be forgotten, but in Flixborough there are people whose lives in the next few months will be dominated by the disaster, as well as those whose lives will be permanently affected. For the next few months the reconstruction of houses will go on. The country may forget but the people who live in Flixborough will not.

In my constituency, in the hamlet of Barleythorpe, Rutland, in November 1973 there was a gas main explosion. A woman of 44, Mrs. Doreen Featherstone, was killed, her husband had to go to hospital and their stone cottage was completely demolished. In other houses nearby windows were broken and ceilings fell down. The damage suffered by several residences although not serious was upsetting, and it ought to be put right quickly. Mrs. Featherstone had been complaining about a gas leak for some time before the disaster. Unhappily she did not write to me so that I could pass on her complaint. Although she complained, no action was taken.

The gas main was an old one. It is said that the main had probably been affected by heavy vehicles using the road. Fifteen or 20 years ago, however, there were no heavy lorries, and if the gas board had thought that heavy vehicles might wear or fracture the mains they should have been strengthened.

The British Council should consider whether mains are being laid deeply enough in new housing estates. In a new housing estate in Oakham the people say that the mains are laid just below the surface and that it is possible for a person digging the garden to put the fork through them.

In November, after the explosion, officials visited Barleythorpe. They came to look at the roadway and the main that had been destroyed, but they did not go to see the people who had been affected by the explosion. They did not ask whether those people were all right, they did not offer welfare assistance and they made no comments. When I heard this I immediately got in touch with Mr. A. F. Hetherington, the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation. I told him that it was a disgrace and that something should be done about it. He immediately arranged for officials to visit the people concerned. The fact remains that it should have been done without my intervention. Then we had the beginning of the difficulties.

As a result of my intervention, certain small jobbing builders were put on to try to put right the breaking of some windows and doors and to put right the ceilings which had fallen down—in other words, to put the houses back into proper order; but the delay on this was several weeks. The delay in settling the bills of the builders was so great that I am told that up to a week or two ago they had not received their money.

In more than one letter the gas board has said that there are legal matters and questions of insurance in which it cannot intervene and which are not its responsibility. Up to May I was informed that no final settlement had been made for any of the properties opposite the explosion.

When Mr. Featherstone, who has lost his wife, came out of hospital, he had no home. His employer, Mr. Gibson of Barleythorpe, gave him a temporary home in a bungalow which he will need in due course for a new employee.

Mr. Featherstone had to get legal help to make a claim against the British Gas Corporation. Then began his troubles. His sick pay, sick benefit and a small insurance were all taken into account in his claim for legal aid. He spent much of his small capital on new furniture for the new bungalow. He had £1,000 insurance due but not yet paid, and that was also taken into account in his assessment for legal aid.

With his sick pay, plus capital of £814, without taking into account the £1,000 insurance due to him, Mr. Featherstone was asked to make a payment of £564 towards legal expenses. He did not have this sum as the money had gone on furniture, but he was deemed to have had it, except that following my intervention he was told that under the disregards rule, on hardship grounds, the Legal Aid Commission would take into account any necessary expenditure but that the £1,000 insurance would also have to be taken into account, which meant that he could be back to square one with the possibility of having to pay £600 for legal expenses. That is outrageous for a person who has been affected by an explosion which is no concern of his and had nothing to do with him and which is a disaster for him and for the people round about.

Meanwhile the legal and insurance processes crawl on. Mr. Featherstone is trying to battle for his rights against a powerful and wealthy gas board—his difficulties could be the same if it were a private company—to recompense himself for his loss and to put himself back into a situation where he can carry on his normal life.

Damages are at issue. It is more than likely that Mr. Featherstone will get them, yet how can anyone fight a legal battle when he has no money, though he is said to have money due to him but when it comes it will be more than half used up in legal expenses? How can he get legal help without resources? I have written to the Lord Chancellor and he has been more than helpful, but he also is governed by statute and the delay in bureaucracy. So much for Barleythorpe. This was a small example of a local disaster which can be repeated in many places throughout the country.

At Flixborough it was a local disaster but a very large one. Soon after it occurred, a meeting was held, and people were very irate because they did not know whether action was likely to be taken to alleviate their immediate needs in the situation. The voluntary organisations—the Round Table, Rotary and others—and the social services of the county did a tremendous job, I understand. A great number of private individuals also helped. But there was need for emergency repairs and attention to other welfare matters. No one seemed to know where the homeless would be put until someone at the meeting suggested caravans, which arrived within a short time. The sense created was that there was no one in charge, no one who seemed able to call upon Government help or who could even promise the people that, notwithstanding legal impediments and difficulties of insurance, something would be done to deal with their immediate problems. Someone said that there was nothing but talk, talk, talk, and he seems to have been right. Someone asked what would happen if the insurance was not enough—an important point.

That sort of situation can be repeated. My purpose in raising the subject tonight is to propose one or two things which should be done and can be done by the Government without any great expense, perhaps with no expense at all.

First, we must have action prepared for situations of this kind. I believe that the Department should have a plan to help against such disasters which could immediately be put into operation in cooperation between the Department and the local authorities, so that whatever the scale—and most of these disasters are on a small scale—the plan could operate in a way whereby people would understand that something was being done, could be seen to be done and was likely to show results in temporary patching-up process, enabling it to take place very quickly.

Secondly, the Government should provide funds—this is very important—to give loans for immediate work which requires to be done on the properties, for the replacement of personal appliances and for money to be spent on welfare of one kind or another. This money, which would be available to individuals, should be on loan against what they themselves will recoup in due course, either from their own insurance or from damages which may be made available to them.

Thirdly, legal aid should be made available to all people affected by disasters of this kind, again at least on a loan basis. They should not have to argue about it; the argument can come afterwards. If the money was available on loan, they would be able to pay it back out of whatever costs were awarded to them or from the insurance they might get.

Only by a plan of that kind can the little man, already badly mauled by the disaster and in great difficulties, be assisted to get his rights from the large and powerful organisations and be helped to resume the active life in which he might have been involved at work and socially. Only in this way can reconstruction after any disaster be carried through as quickly as possible, unimpeded by the kind of slow legal and insurance negotiations and disputes which are bound to happen but in which assistance can be given.

Action is wanted now. We should not wait for other small disasters to take place. We should provide a plan immediately. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to promise that the Government will take a good look at this as a matter of urgency and try to provide some proposals in the near future.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthorpe) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has made arrangements with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) and the Minister to make a brief intervention. Mr. Ellis.

Mr. Ellis

I am grateful both to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for allowing me this opportunity, and I promise that my intervention will be brief.

In terms of the seriousness of the incidents which have occurred recently, the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman was much smaller in degree. But he has made some very telling points, and I shall seek leave at a later date to go into the details of the disaster affecting my own constituency. I do not want to presume on any inquiries which may be held into it.

It is instructive to learn that this debate is to be answered by a spokesman for the Home Department. Responsibility for the recent disaster in my area is that of the Department of Employment, because the explosion occurred in a factory. But I have prepared a list of the Government Departments which could be involved in disasters of this kind. They include the Department of Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Home Department, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Defence and so on.

Without going into the serious matters which will be investigated by the inquiry which has been set in train, it is clear that there is a need not to set up a massive organisation but to have contingency plans at ministerial level ready so that the various Ministers involved can be prepared and can co-ordinate the very next day to move into the area affected, to give advice across a whole range of issues, including social services, transport and so on, and to discover from the local authorities what help they need.

I have no criticism of the local authorities and how they acted in the disaster which affected my constituency. It may be that they have learned some lessons from it. On the night in question they worked very well together. However, from matters which I have had to take up with Ministers who were not immediately responsible, there is an urgent need for co-ordination as soon as a disaster of this kind occurs. We need to have the appropriate network of arrangements at ministerial level so that it is known which Ministers are responsible, that people will be brought in at that level, and that if there is a need to bring in outside experts everyone knows the channels.

I am pleased to say that one of my hon. Friends from the Department of the Environment will be talking to the local authorities about housing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been there already. I was pleased to see the reaction of Ministers in visiting the area. What we need, however, is a strategic plan of action. I intend to question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the subject, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will add her weight to my plea that we have to look at strategic planning and see how nationally we can help the local authorities involved.

We do not want to take away the local authorities' responsibilities, but we must see how we can move in speedily on a co-ordinated basis to help in the ways that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford has suggested and in many more ways that I have in mind.

12.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)

The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) for raising this important matter, especially when we are all very much aware of the serious and tragic disaster at Flixborough. Clearly I cannot anticipate the result of the full public inquiry which is to be held, but we may be sure that it will keep to the forefront of the public mind the lessons to be learned from the disaster.

I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in his statement. He said that tribute should be paid to the emergency services in the area, including the voluntary services, whose efforts to cope with the fire and destruction and to help the injured and homeless deserved the highest praise.

I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) for his intervention. I have noted carefully what he said about the need for co-ordination between all the Ministers involved. He mentioned the great number of different Departments which can be involved in such a disaster. Immediate co-ordination is essential.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford mentioned the gas main explosion in his constituency which resulted in the tragic death of Mrs. Featherstone, the injury of her husband and damage to surrounding properties. I have every sympathy with the victims of such accidents and their relatives. The hon. Member suggested an advance from the Government against the compensation to next of kin, particularly in the light of the frequent delays in determining liability and settling claims. I shall arrange for this suggestion to be examined by the different Departments involved, such as the legal Departments and perhaps the Department of Health and Social Security. If such a scheme were to apply to gas accidents, it would probably also extend to other accidents, on the roads and railways and in factories, where sudden injury and death may occur. This would be a large undertaking.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

I would not want it to go that far. There is a special situation when people's homes are affected. If they lose a motor car they still have a place in which to live.

Dr. Summerskill

I have noted that point.

Immediate help is being given to the homes of those affected by the Flixborough disaster. The Secretary of State has said that the Government might exceptionally consider declaring the affected districts housing action areas once the Housing Bill has gained Royal Assent, to enable repairs grants at 75 per cent. to be made. I appreciate that this does not help the hon. Member's constituents but it shows that the Government are taking action over the damaged houses. Otherwise general improvement area powers could be used, with repair grants at 60 per cent. Some of the houses subject to severe structural damage might rank as unfit houses under the 1957 Housing Act. Those are three ways in which my right hon. Friend has risen to the occasion.

Also, power is vested in local authorities to incur expenditure in any emergency in which property is damaged or destroyed or people are injured or killed. If there is urgent financial need, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has powers to pay for essentials. We will, however, consider the hon. Member's suggestion about Government loans.

The immediate assistance at any disaster comes from the local authorities and from police, fire and ambulance services, often supported by special kinds of help, like pit rescue teams in a mine disaster, the coastguard and lifeboat services at sea, the special fire and crash services at airports and so on. Voluntary associations can and usually do play an important part. The Government believe that the provision of these services will be primarily a local authority responsibility but we are anxious to consider other suggestions for the improvement of emergency services, especially in the light of disasters like Flixborough. We will continue to strengthen existing arrangements and do anything we can to achieve the closest consultation between all the different Government Departments that might be involved, together with the local authority services.

In the event of a disaster proving to be beyond the capabilities and resources of the local authority, the Government would not hesitate to intervene with additional aid from whatever source proved necessary—for example, bringing in help from other areas, in the last resort bringing in troops, powers of requisition and so on. If inquiry revealed deficiencies in local arrangements and co-ordination, the Government would issue guidance to local authorities so that in a future disaster they could cope even better.

From time to time it is suggested that there should be a national disaster fund, and successive Governments have considered this. The great difficulty in making contingency plans provided by the Government for dealing with accidents and natural disasters on a national basis is that disasters can be of a multiplicity of types. For instance there could be a factory fire, a major tidal flood, a bomb explosion, pit disaster, railway accident or aircraft crash. Each type of disaster poses its own special problems and needs special skills to deal with it, and often different Government Departments are involved. One thing that is certain, however, is that when a disaster occurs relief must be provided immediately by the service best equipped to deal with it alongside the police, fire and ambulance services.

A national disaster force if created could bring problems of divided control and responsibility which might be caused by superimposing a Government body on the existing local services. On the other hand one must always maintain contact and co-ordination between the Government and local authorities in any emergency. The Government are always providing guidance to local authorities to deal with any emergency that might occur in peace time. Local authorities have regular contacts with the regional organisations and specialist headquarters staff of the Government Departments concerned.

We have, therefore, a procedure under which the emergency services and the local authorities which are in the best position to provide immediate relief bear the immediate impact of the disaster, but the resources of the central Government can be called upon in case of need. For instance, scientific knowledge is a sector in which the Government's assistance is often required in incidents involving radioactive substances or dangerous chemicals, as we have recently seen. The members of the Factory Inspectorate were on the site within two hours of the Flixborough explosion.

The Government could provide assistance in the form of emergency supplies and equipment, water pumps, blankets, clothing and so on. As I have said, in an extreme case troops could be called in to help in situations in which a reserve supply of manpower was required.

I have mentioned the finance that is available from local authorities, and this would apply also in the case of a major catastrophe such as storm, flood, oil pollution or explosion. Any application by a local authority for help in meeting the costs of dealing with disasters is considered in the light of the scale of the damage, the availability of specific grants and insurance and the extent of local resources.

I suggest to the hon. Member that coordination between Government Departments and local authorities is the key to dealing with disasters. I shall certainly consider very carefully all the points that he and my hon. Friend have made. I am totally sympathetic with the motives behind this Adjournment debate. We will continue to strengthen existing arrangements and I undertake to consult my colleagues on all the points which have been raised tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to One o'clock.