HC Deb 07 December 1976 vol 922 cc414-26

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts (Conway)

There is at Llandudno in my constituency a liquefied petroleum gas installation which is located within about 150 yards of a junior school, Ysgol Morfa Rhiannedd, and a school for mentally handicapped children, Ysgol Wern y Wylan. The installation, which has a capacity of 250 tons and belongs to the Wales Gas Board, is also within about quarter of a mile of a major secondary school, Ysgol John Bright, and quite close to the Llandudno Hospital. The installation is surrounded on all but one side by houses.

I was first approached about the safety of the installation in March of last year by a representative of the parents of Ysgol Morfa Rhiannedd which currently has 123 pupils. As a result I tabled three Questions for Written Answer to which I received replies on 17th March. I am bound to say that the Answers were not very reassuring. First, they established that liquefied petroleum gases are highly flammable and when mixed with air in the correct proportions may explode."—[Official Report, 17th March, 1975; Vol 888, c. 355–6.] Secondly, it was established that the site was regarded as a "major hazard" since it contained more than 100 tons of liquefied petroleum gas. My immediate conclusion was that such installations should not be sited within an urban area, but then, on 10th April, in reply to a further Question, I was told: … precise information about the total number of large-scale storages of liquefied petroleum gas is not available, since not all such storages were subject to the legislation enforced in the past by the several inspectorates now incorporated in the Health and Safety Executive. The numbers of factory premises (a) in Great Britain and (b) in Wales where storage of 100 tons or more of liquefied petroleum gas takes place are 184 and 23, respectively."—[Official Report, 10th April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 457–458.] These numbers, which relate to factory premises only, suggested that the transfer of such installations to non-urban areas, would be an enormous and costly operation which would take many years to complete, even if the necessary financial resources could be made available.

As the removal of the Llandudno installation, along with others in urban areas, appeared to be out of the question, there seemed to be no alternative but to rely on the safety precautions laid down in the Code of Practice prepared by the Home Office in 1971. The local authority, Aberconwy Council, obtained the advice of Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate which reported on 14th August of last year. The report said: The engineering design of the installation is of a high standard well protected with emergency safety devices. When certain alterations, which have been discussed with the Board —that is, the Wales Gas Board— have been carried out by them, the site will comply with the Home Office Codes of Practice for the storage of L.P.G. I understand that these alterations have been carried out by the Board.

Nevertheless, Aberconwy Council, after considering the report in October 1975, instructed its chief executive to state that, despite compliance with all safety codes of practice, the depôt was still not appropriately situated and to investigate the possibility of seeking an alternative site in conjunction with the Gas Board. The Board saw no justification for the removal of the installation, but said that it would reconsider the matter if the Council were prepared to bear the cost of removal to an alternative site. The Council replied that this was "quite out of the question." In other words, the Board came to the same conclusion on the case of the Llandudno depôt as I had earlier on the general problem of these sites in urban areas in Great Britain.

At this point, I must say a word about the attitude of the Wales Gas Board, which is probably typical of the attitude of other similar bodies in Britain as a whole. It is well summed up in a letter sent to me by the Chairman, Mr. D. H. Fisher, dated 2nd November. He wrote: if we were not satisfied with the safety of the installation we would not continue the operation on the site. We are; so are the Factory Inspectorate who visit it regularly as a matter of routine. We do not consider that we are justified in spending money, and it would be a substantial sum, to move the installation. We have done all we can to allay the concern of some of the local inhabitants and it is for this reason that I have written to you. Wales Gas Board has other large installations in urban areas—a 1450 ton installation at Grangetown, Cardiff, and a 2,000 ton installation at Llandarcy, near Swansea. The Llandudno depôt is important to it and to North West Wales. It supplies in the Aberconwy District alone seven schools, a hospital and 90 different premises. The Gas Board's attitude is quite proper and understandable. Nevertheless, the presence of this installation continues to cause concern because it is a major hazard site. We are therefore bound to look more closely at the problem.

The outstanding fact about the Llandudno installation is its proximity to the three schools I mentioned earlier, involving a total child population of about 1,500. It is notable that concern springs from the parents and teachers, some of whom are themselves parents of children at the schools. It is the potential danger to the children that causes concern, as evidenced by a letter I received from the headmaster of Ysgol John Bright on 29th September this year and a letter from the Chairman of the Federated Committee of Parent-Teacher Associations at Llandudno, Mr. H. T. Lindsay. It was the latter that finally prompted me to seek this debate.

That letter, dated 24th November 1976, and addressed to the manager of the Wales Gas depôt at Maesdu Road, Llandudno, says: The threat to the children of the Llandudno area, and in particular to the pupils of Ysgol John Bright and Ysgol Morfa Rhiannedd, posed by the L.P.G. tanks at Maesdu Road were discussed at a meeting of our committee of 11th November 1976. All members of the committee expressed grave concern at the possibility of an accident at the installation and the effect such an accident could have. The committee support fully the efforts being made by the staff of Ysgol John Bright to get these tanks moved and our dissatisfaction with the current negative attitude of Wales Gas towards this danger. I write asking you to re-examine, in human terms, the possible effects of a fire, explosion or other accident involving these tanks, and to reconsider your decision not to move them. In an installation such as yours, where accident could have catastrophic results, I would expect there to be:—

  • a formal evaluation of the risks;
  • action taken to minimise the risks;
  • action taken to contain the effects of any accident;
an emergency plan to be followed in the event of an accident occurring. To assure us that everything that can be done, has been done, until such time as the tanks are moved, I would ask you whether the above applies to Maesdu Road, and if so what actions have been taken and what emergency plans exist. To inform them of our concern I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Wyn Roberts M.P., to the Chief Executives of Gwynedd and Aberconwy Councils and to the Chief Constable of Gwynedd Constabulary. By copy of the letter I would ask them to inform me why they consider this installation to be an acceptable risk and how long they are prepared to accept responsibility for its presence in an urban area. That is a powerful letter, which must be answered. Children at school are the responsibility of their teachers and the education authority. We as parents insist on higher degrees of safety where they are concerned than we demand for ourselves. My first major question to the Government is whether they will look again, through the Health and Safety Commission, at major hazard sites in relation to schools and declare that there should be no such site within a certain distance of a school, whatever a completely safe distance may be in relation to the nature of the site and the hazard it presents. There cannot be many existing major hazard sites with a school in their immediate vicinity as in Llandudno. Such sites, with schools nearby, should be segregated, and appropriate action taken either to remove the site or the school.

This may be an appropriate place to note that the factory inspector's report on the Llandudno site recommended that: Steps should be taken to set up an emergency plan in case of any failure of the main precautions and in the event of a major fire. This should involve Wales Gas Board, the local emergency services and the school authorities. So Ysgol Morfa Rhiannedd clearly could be at risk, and so could its near-neighbour, Ysgol Wern y Wylan and its mentally-handicapped children.

I understand that recently Swale District Council in Kent considered an application for permission to build a new school near an LPG installation, and that the factory inspectors strongly recommended that the school boundary fence should be at least 100 feet away and that the buildings should be as far away as possible. Clearly, it is possible to provide guidelines for planning authorities for the future, specifying safe distances not only for schools but for residences and work places.

I have read the code of practice and it is mainly concerned with internal safety of installations. It does not really consider circumstances outside the perimeter of such sites and what would happen in the event of an emergency. The section on page 37 dealing with action in an emergency is very brief.

I very much hope that this second suggestion will be acted upon and that the Government do not take the view that provided that safety codes are adhered to, that is the end of the matter. Safety can always be improved. What were acceptable safety measures in the past may not be adequate for the present and the future when our society is threatened by totally ruthless and inhuman terrorists who strike without warning and kill and maim indiscriminately.

I need not remind the Minister of our extreme sensitivity in Wales to the location of schools in relation to hazards following the Aberfan disaster in 1966.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend because this is a problem with which I have had to deal. Has this matter been referred to the Gas Consumer Council for Wales, which was set up specifically to take this sort of problem to the Gas Board in Wales? Has the Council made any representation on behalf of the schools?

Mr. Roberts

I do not think that it has been referred to the Council, but my hon. Friend will know that these sites are not limited to the Gas Boards. There are many similar installations elsewhere.

It may also be that the position of hospitals in relation to major hazards sites should be examined for obvious reasons, in particular the difficulty of a evacuating such premises in the event of an explosion and consequent fires.

There is one further point which should be made. It is clear that as regards the Llandudno site, planning permission was not required since there was no basic change of use when it became an LPG installation. It would surely be wise for the future to require a special planning consent when a site is developed so that it comes into the major hazard site category. I should be grateful for the Minister's view on this matter.

I must press the Minister for satisfactory answers to my two major proposals, namely that major hazard sites with schools in their immediate vicinity should be separately dealt with and either the school or the site removed to a safe place and that guidelines should be laid down specifying safe distances for schools, residences and work places in relation to major hazard sites involving LPG or hazard from some other source so that we do not increase potential threats in urban areas in future.

I fully appreciate the cost problem, but I believe that a beginning could be made on reducing our current concern along the lines I have suggested.

12.33 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant)

I can understand fully and sympathise with the concern felt by Members' constituents who live near large-scale chemical plants and storage areas. This concern is shared by the Health and Safety Commission which has given, and is giving the question considerable attention.

Liquefied petroleum gas is flammable and is stored under pressure or refrigeration, either in bulk tanks or in portable cylinders of the kind used on construction sites or in caravans. The fire and explosion risks it presents have been recognised for many years, and the industry, through the Liquefied Petroleum Gases Industry Technical Association, and the Home Office have each issued codes of practice which give guidance on safe methods of storage. Responsibility for the two Home Office Codes, for cylinders and for bulk storage has now been assumed by the Health and Safety Executive.

There are two risks involved: either that gas may leak from a storage vessel and ignite or that the storage installation may be affected by fire and may cause the gas storage vessels, either bulk tanks or cylinders, to explode, with the consequent risk that missiles may be projected over a wide area. This last risk may be reduced by the fitting of suitable relief valves to tanks and cylinders, and the other precautions adopted are; to site the storage at a safe distance from buildings, boundaries or other plants; to surround the storage area with a protective fence; to keep the area free from combustible material, including grass and weeds; to provide fire fighting equipment, including, in appropriate cases, automatic sprays; and to ensure that possible sources of ignition are correctly controlled.

It is essential that the storage vessels themselves should be constructed and maintained to proper standards. Where these precautions are adopted the possibility of a fire occuring is remote. The fires that have occurred, such as that at Mitcham in 1970, or in Hereford in 1975, have served to demonstrate the need for the strictest observance of the codes of practice. Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories work to these codes when visiting premises where liquefied petroleum gas is stored. However, even when the highest standards are achieved there must remain a small element of risk, as no one can guarantee absolute safety. Those who operate this type of installation must be vigilant at all times, especially when the installation is in a residential area. The public are understandably worried in such cases, and especially if schools or a hospital are nearby.

The problem of large-scale plants was brought most forcibly to the public's attention by the Flixborough explosion and it will be recalled that as a result of that disaster, the Advisory Committee on Major Hazards was set up to advise on the problem. Its terms of reference are: To identify types of installations (excluding nuclear installations) which have the potential to present major hazards to employees or the public or the environment, and to advise on measures of control, appropriate to the nature and degree of hazard, over the establishment, siting, layout, design, operation, maintenance and development of such installations, as well as overall development, both industrial and non-industrial, in the vicinity of such installations. The first report of this committee was published in September, and it sets out the problem at some length. The criteria suggested in the report for identifying major hazards include storage of more than 15 tons of liquefied petroleum Gas, and therefore the Llandudno site in the hon. Member's constituency will fall within the criteria. The report proposes that such sites, many of which are already known to the authorities, should be formally reported to the Health and Safety Executive.

It may be helpful in understanding the effect of this proposal to indicate the sort of action that the Health and Safety Executive has been able to take in the case of the storage at Llandudno.

Prior to the coming into force of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, 1974, it was doubtful whether this site fell within the ambit of the Factories Act 1961. Had it done so, the Factory Inspectorate would have been able to enforce those regulations in order to protect the workers, but not to protect the public. Despite this legal difficulty, the inspectorate took an interest in the site, although if a need for action had arisen it is doubtful whether any could have been enforced.

The passing of the 1974 Act removed this anomaly and the inspectorate, as an operational arm of the Health and Safety Executive, is able to enforce the full requirements of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act. These sections, broadly speaking, require that undertakings should be carried on, so far as is reasonably practicable, in a safe manner as regards the employees—(Section 2)—and the public—(Section 3). Enforcement action under these sections has been taken by the inspectorate to deal with unsatisfactory liquefied petroleum gas cylinder depots.

Arrangements have existed for some time by which a local planning authority can ask the Health and Safety Executive for an appraisal of risk at sites where certain specified activities are carried on which constitute the current "major hazard criteria". These appraisals take account not only of the nature of the installation itself, but also of any special problems presented by the community in the vicinity. The Aberconwy District Council asked for an appraisal of risk for the Llandudno site in April 1975. The site was visited by a chemical inspector of factories on 4th June, 1975. The inspector's report was considered within the Health and Safety Executive by the risk appraisal group of senior staff who have special expertise in the major hazards field enabling them to look at major hazard sites from the point of view of the risk to the public, including any special risks.

The group asked the district inspector, as part of his enforcement functions, to write to the Wales Gas Board drawing attention to certain matters which could improve safety on the site. Cylinders of gas stored on the site were not fitted with pressure relief valves. The Board was advised to remove these and also prepare an emergency plan in conjunction with the local authority and other emergency services. The district inspector reports that all necessary action has been taken, and that the emergency plan was reviewed again at a meeting held between the Board and interested authorities in November 1976. The risk appraisal group's report to the planning authority took account of the presence of the schools and the hospital in the neighbourhood.

By using the existing powers under the 1974 Act, and the arrangements which already exist, the Executive has, therefore, been able to evaluate the risks, to take action to minimise these, and to require an emergency plan to ensure that in the event of an incident the effects of it are contained. I should emphasise that all employers including those who operate installations of the kind suggested in the Advisory Committee's report have a continuing duty under the 1974 Act to conduct their undertaking safely, and that they should not wait for the Executive to take action in these matters.

In the Llandudno case, among others, the Health and Safety Executive was able to take action, and I am assured by the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that wherever a risk which can be shown to be covered by the terms of the 1974 Act comes to their attention the Executive will continue so to act.

However, there will remain in all these cases some small element of risk. No one can guarantee absolute safety at these plants. The only way in which the risk could be removed entirely would be if the use of the land for this purpose were to be discontinued. That would mean the payment of compensation for loss of use under the planning Acts including the cost of physically removing the equipment.

Some or all of these costs would fall to the planning authority. The advisory committees report refers to the question of compensation in its section on planning controls. It points out that Any action under planning powers to close down … existing uses … would involve the payment of considerable sums in compensation". The Committee comments that it considers the practical issues involved are of such difficulty of application and importance that it proposes to consult further on these matters.

The employer has, of course, a duty to ensure that a safe system of work is adopted, and Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate takes the view that this includes the steps necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that potential hazards do not become actual ones.

If the employer is satisfied that he can continue to discharge this considerable but necessary duty, and continues to conduct his activity, then unless the inspectorate can show that his system of work is in some way defective, there is nothing in the Health and Safety at Work Act to prevent his doing so.

The risk that remains in such circumstances is extremely remote, and whether or not it is acceptable to the community at large in any particular case is a matter of judgment. That judgment is exercised at present by planning authorities who must weigh the risks, albeit small, of allowing the activity to continue against the disadvantage of closure, including the need to pay compensation. It may be, of course, that the employer will decide that even though he feels he can control the risk, the consequences of failure would be such as to cause widespread injury and damage, and that the operation would be better conducted elsewhere, but he cannot be directed to remove it except on the payment of compensation by the community.

The report of the Advisory Committee of Major Hazards stresses that every major hazard site must be considered as an individual case. I have already explained that the Health and Safety Executive, in carrying out appraisals of risk for the planning authorities, takes into account the special problems presented by the neighbourhood, including the presence of schools and hospitals, and the recent informal advice given to the Swale District Council is a case in point. Here the authority was advised in general terms about the site of a school near an existing installation and a formal request for an appraisal by the Executive is awaited. When this is received the local circumstances will be taken fully into account. But because each case is an individual one it is not possible for the Executive to lay down hard and fast safety distances in a code of practice, distinguishing between the different types of premises as the hon Member suggests. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the individual consideration given does not meet this point.

The Advisory Committee on Major Hazards also comments in its report that it is the existing plants which will cause the greatest difficulty in the application of its recommendations. There can be no doubt about this, but I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member, and through him his constituents, that the duties imposed on industry, and the powers given to the Health and Safety Executive, by the 1974 Act go a long way towards ensuring that plants of the major hazard kind may be allowed to remain, with safety, near most residential areas.

That is not to say that either industry, or the Executive, can afford in any way to relax its vigilance in these matters, and industry must bear in mind that the duty imposed by Section 3 of the 1974 Act is a very onerous one, in the discharge of which it must have careful regard to the special problems which may be presented by the neighbourhood. Equally the community must recognise that the removal of major hazard plants from residential areas is likely to be an extremely expensive operation which should be undertaken only when a clear and unacceptable risk can be demonstrated.

This is a highly emotive field, and the publicity given to it can arouse understandable concern. This short debate has shown that the matter can be discussed dispassionately. We are hoping that the future work of the advisory committee will contribute greatly to development of solutions to the difficult problems in this field. The Health and Safety Commission, having regard to the future reports of the Advisory Committee on Major Hazards will, I hope, show us the direction in which we must go in regulating these matters, but in the meantime the Health and Safety Executive, as it has done in the Llandudno case will continue to use its existing powers and techniques to achieve the highest possible standards.

Mr. Wyn Roberts

I am particularly anxious that special consideration is given to schools in the vicinity of major hazard sites. There is much to be learnt about public anxiety when schools are sited in such areas. I should like a further assurance from the Minister that the proximity of the schools in Llandudno has been thoroughly considered and I should like him to comment on the suggestion that particular regard will be paid to this problem in future.

Mr. Grant

I have already given the hon. Member the assurance that he seeks on the first point. This factor was considered in the appraisal of the situation at Llandudno.

I repeat that the Health and Safety Executive will take careful note of what has been said in the debate. I shall ensure that its attention is drawn to it so that it may draw it to the attention of the Advisory Committee on Major Hazards and I am sure that in its future deliberations it will take all this into consideration.

I conclude by saying to the hon. Member that in the meantime—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes to One o'clock.