MR. PAUL BRAMWELL (Hansard, 17 January 1978)

§ Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House, for the opportunity to raise the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. Paul Bramwell, who died in tragic circumstances, in an accident at a gravel quarry at Hatfield Heath on 30th January 1976. The family believes that the accident was the result of negligence on the part of Mr. Bramwell's employers and their agents and therefore believes that the company should be prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

Over the past 18 months I have made representations on behalf of the Bramwell 414 family, first to the Under-Secretary, who is here tonight, then to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, sometimes known as the Ombudsman, and finally to the Director of Public Prosecutions—all to no avail. The only description of the accident that I have is one set out in a letter from the Bramwell family, passed to me for onward transmission to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I can do no better than to quote the story from that.

The family writes: Mr. Paul Bramwell, an employed welder for St. Albans Sand and Gravel Co. Ltd., went to work as usual on 30th Jan. 1976. He was told by the site manager, Mr. A. Purser to go with the site foreman and repair steel plating in a hopper (pit) below a conveyor belt which had been out of use for several weeks. The site forman, Mr. J. Mardell, was to assist Paul with the handling of the metal plates although he himself was not a welder. So Paul went to the power house and hung a Danger' sign on the electrical starter to No. 1 conveyor belt, which he would be working below. He also removed the fuse that protected the conveyor circuit from being switched on accidentally. He then commenced work in the hopper with his generator standing above the pit and switched on. Mr. J. Mardell went off to get some material for him. Whilst Paul was working in the hopper, contract electricians working on the conveyor belt system at the quarry asked permission from the site manager to test-run the conveyor belts. Although he had sent Paul to work in the hopper he gave permission for the conveyors to be turned on. The electricians, Mr. P. Smith and Mr. S. Brace, spoke also to Mr. Mardell, site foreman, before starting the conveyors, but he did not tell them that Paul was in the hopper, even though he was supposed to be working with him. The electricians claim that they checked that the belts were clear before starting up, although in so doing they would have seen or heard Paul's generator working at the foot of the conveyor belt. They went to the power house and after sounding the warning klaxon they replaced the fuse which Paul had removed and turned the conveyor on, ignoring the 'Danger' sign that Paul had placed on the switch. It is then said in brackets—I am still quoting from the description of the incident given by the Bramwell family— N.B. The warning klaxon was tested after the accident to see if it could be heard with Paul's welding generator on, and it could not. The letter goes on: A block of ice had formed behind a concrete wall on the conveyor belt, and when the belt was:, witched on the ice plunged down into the hopper at a force of 2,000 ft.-lbs. on to Paul's head. Paul died of severe brain haemorrhage due to multiple fractures of the skull shortly afterwards. 415 The family's description goes on to say: This tragic accident was caused by the negligence of incompetent employees: i.e. (1) Mr. Purser, site manager, gave permission for the belts to be tested although he sent Paul to work in the hopper. (2) Mr. Mardell, site foreman, supposedly working with Paul said nothing to electricians about him being in the hopper when they spoke of turning conveyors on. (3) The electricians, Mr. Smith and Mr. Brace, did not see Paul's generator when checking the vicinity was clear before testing and they ignored the 'Danger' sign on the electrical starter switch. And by the company:—i.e. (1) The warning klaxon was not loud enough to be heard above Paul's generator and therefore inadequate. (2) The system used for employees to safeguard themeselves (the 'Danger' sign) was completely inadequate as it was ignored. (3) For having a site manager incapable of ensuring safe working conditions or even the everyday running of a quarry. That is the family's description of the events, and this is where I come in. I was approached by the Bramwell family, who stated that they had at the end of April 1976 been in correspondence with Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines and Quarries and the Secretary of State for the Environment, whom they at that time believed to be responsible for that inspectorate. They produced to me a letter dated 14th June 1976 from the deputy chief inspector of mines and quarries setting out a list of changes and improvements and announcing the decision not to prosecute the company.

I shall read the letter to get it on the record. Naturally, it expresses the sympathy of the Department at the death of Paul Bramwell, and it goes on: The following are the changes and improvements made at Hatfield Quarry:—

(1) The introduction of a simple 'permit to work ' system using a device known as the Itex Lokguard.
(2) The compulsory wearing of safety helmets by all employees."

I do not think that that was being enforced at the time, although I think that it would probably have made no difference in this case.

"(3) The introduction of workmens safety inspections under Section 123 of the Mines and Quarries Act.
(4) A special course in safety which has been attended by both officials and half of the quarry safety committee.
(5) The introduction of still further courses this month on the subjects of safety and supervision.
(6) The appointment of a new Production Manager who has been given concise instructions to provide extra supervision at the Hatfield Quarry.
(7) There have been three further inspections at the quarry since your brother's death by H.M. Inspectors of Mines and Quarries to ascertain the safe working of the quarry.

The above matters carried out by the R.M.C. Group of Companies have been implemented on the recommendation of H.M. Inspectors of Mines and Quarries. It is for this reasons that it has been decided not to carry out a prosecution since no greater safety for the workmen employed could have resulted other than has been achieved. That was the letter from the deputy chief inspector of mines and quarries, and it was that list of changes that encouraged the Bramwell family to believe that conditions at the Hatfield quarry were not all that they should have been and therefore a prosecution was justified and indeed should have been undertaken by the inspector. It was at this point that the family sought my help, and I wrote on their behalf asking for the report of the inspector, Mr. A. B Holmes, and repeating the family's view that the company should be prosecuted. That was on 18th October 1976.

On 12th November 1976 I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment, who is here this evening to answer the debate In his letter he again expressed sympathy, and in stating that the company would not be prosecuted, he said: I should add that, because of the time that has elapsed, the Inspectorate could not now institute summary proceedings against the company under the Act. The letter went on to say: The detailed reports produced by inspectors about accidents are prepared in confidence for the Chief Inspector's use. This was in answer to the request for a copy of the report. By their very nature, those documents are not for release to persons outside, so I am afraid that your constituents' request for copies cannot be met. The Minister went on to say: There was a statement about some matters of fact prepared by Mr. A. B. Holmes"— that is the inspector— on 19th April, which was sent to solicitors acting for Mr. Paul Bramwell's estate, and a copy of that statement has been supplied to 417 Mr. Paul Bramwell's mother, Mrs. D. Bramwell: I am sorry to have to provide a response which your constituents will find disappointing. I am returning the correspondence which you enclosed with your letter. That correspondence explains the lessons which have been learned and the measures which have been widely applied to guard against a similar accident happening again. I hope that the family can find some solace in that knowledge. We then go to 23rd November, when I had a reply from Mrs. Dorothy Bramwell in which she explained the reason for the lapse of time, in that she had first applied to the Department of the Environment, and been through various Departments, and that this lapse of time was not her fault. The letter closed with the words: Negligence caused my son's death and that negligence should be punished and not forgotten. That resulted in the letter sent to me for transmission to the Director of Public Prosecutions from which I have quoted at some length about the accident and how it occurred. I received a reply from the DPP dated 9th June 1977, in which he said: Proceedings for an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 'shall not…be instituted except by an inspector or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions' (Section 38). In this case, as you know, the Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries decided, for the reasons set out in the letter of 8 November 1976 from the Health and Safety Executive to Mrs. Bramwell, not to institute proceedings against the company. I have now had an opportunity of considering the report of the Inspector who enquired into the accident and am of the view that in all the circumstances of this case it would not be appropriate for me to institute proceedings myself or to grant consent for Mrs. Bramwell to do so under the 1974 Act That was a great disappointment to the family. They were also disappointed because they had received information from the Minister explaining that the situation was such that it was felt generally that, under the Act, it was wiser not to impose a rigid policy of prosecutions. This was on 9th December 1976, when the Minister said: I can assure you that before a decision not to prosecute was taken in this case the most careful consideration was given to all the factors. It was decided that, on balance, the best interests of safety and health, not only in the Hatfield quarry but in the industry generally, would be served by not taking legal proceed- 418 ings. The decision to prosecute can never be an easy one as the circumstances can vary so greatly. Inspectors are not obliged to take proceedings on every alleged breach of the legislation, and HM Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries have found that a rigid policy of prosecutions does not achieve the best results in improving health and safety standards generally. That is in accordance with one of the aims of the Health and Safety at Work Act which was to put emphasis on persuasion and guidance rather than prosecution". It was that particular phrase which caused the Bramwell family, I think, suddenly to feel that something was very wrong. They found it impossible to accept the idea that, the measure having been brought into existence for a specific purpose, it should then be decided, when negligence had been discovered, that there was to be no prosecution. The attitude of the family was quite clearly "Why have legislation if there is no intention of enforcing it?"

This provoked a letter which I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who wrote back what I expected him to write—that he was precluded from inquiring into the opening or, indeed, the non-opening of proceedings in courts of law. We therefore found ourselves in the position that the Minister could not do anything for us or for the family, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration could do nothing, and the Director of Public Prosecutions had written saying that he neither felt able to institute proceedings himself nor to give consent to the family to institute private proceedings against the company concerned, the St. Albans Sand and Gravel Company.

In a Question I asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the decision of the Inspector of Mines and Quarries not to prosecute the St. Albans Sand and Gravel Company Limited in the matter of the death of Mr. Bramwell. The Minister replied: Yes. I have confirmed from the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that before a decision not to prosecute was taken the most careful consideration was given to all factors of the case."—[Official Report, 26th July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 206.] There we were, with every parliamentary avenue explored, and back at the point where the only thing I could do for the Bramwell family was to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate. That I am doing tonight. I say quite 419 sincerely and sadly that there is nothing that can bring back Paul Bramwell, to his family, and that is a matter of great regret. It is to be hoped that the changes and improvements resulting from the death will safeguard the lives of others, but I say finally to the Minister that my constituents insist that where negligence has been established a prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 should follow.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for drawing the attention of the House to the consequences of accidents at work. I welcome this opportunity, albeit a brief one, to say something about the ongoing measures which are improving safety at work generally.

As to the fatality which the hon. Gentleman has described, I should like to say how much I sympathise with the family of the late Mr. Paul Bramwell in their tragic loss. I recognise the strength of their feelings and, in particular, their attitude towards the company for which Mr. Bramwell was working at the time. I shall come back to the specific situation in a moment or two, but it might be helpful if I were to set the scene first by quoting from the Health and Safety Commission's report for 1974–76, particularly in view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said about enforcement. It is worth spelling out the Commission's view: It is not the Health and Safety Executive's policy to prosecute for every breach of a requirement of health and safety legislation which comes to their notice. This would be neither practicable nor productive. The policy of the Executive is to prosecute where employers or others concerned appear deliberately to have flouted the provisions of the legislation; where they have been reckless in exposing people to hazards, or where there is a record of repeated infringements of the legislation. Each case must be looked at on its merits, but the Executive are naturally particularly concerned where death or serious injury has resulted from failure to comply or where people have been exposed to serious hazards even though no actual injury occurred. Following this policy, the Executive instituted about 1,800 prosecutions in the period 1st January 1975 to 31st March 1976. The 1974 Act gave enforcing authorities the power to take proceedings on indictment. In such cases the court has the power to imprison those found guilty; and perhaps more important, unlimited fines can be im- 420 posed. In approaching this judicial procedure inspectors have been guided by the broad criteria set out by the Commission, including in particular the gravity of the offence. I should stress that what the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act seeks to do is to create a climate in which employers and employees work together to attain the greatest possible improvement in health and safety at work. Possibly it is through that spirit of co-operation. which the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate has tried to foster over the years, that there has been some noticeable decline over the last 20 years in the rate of accidents in quarries leading to fatal and serious injuries. Certainly, the inspectorate feels that this has been a major factor in that decline.

After the accident involving Mr. Paul Bramwell, substantial remedial measures were taken, not only at the quarry where Mr. Bramwell worked but throughout the quarrying industry. Indeed, there was specific reference to this unfortunate accident in the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines and Quarries for 1976, in which he pointed out that employees may not always be aware of potential dangers when working in unfamiliar locations, and that, at such times, adequate and precise instructions were essential. Also during 1976 a safety circular illustrating the correct procedures was circulated to all quarry managers. owners and trade associations emphasising that, if accidents from inadvertent starting of conveyors were to be eliminated, those procedures must be implemented at all quarries. So important lessons have been drawn from this accident.

Arising from the fatal accident at Hatfield Quarry, it was apparent that means of locking out isolating switches, though generally effective, did not make provision for the safety of other people who might be working either in front or behind the piece of machinery isolated.

The company agreed and accepted the inspectorate recommendation that further safeguards to prevent any inadvertent starting of machinery while people were still working on it should be implemented, and that has taken place. Indeed, this system was introduced throughout the company's quarries, factories and concrete plants over the whole of the United 421 Kingdom—some 700 installations. The sucess of the system has also been carried into other sections of the quarry industry.

The wearing of safety helmets, which has generally been by persuasion, has become, where appropriate, a condition of employment, and hazard areas now prohibit entry of persons without helmets. A number of film slides were made at the same time of the accident, and these have been used for instruction and training purposes at the company's own residential training school. So, again, important lessons were learned and action was taken.

From the introduction of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the provision by Section 123 of the right of workmen to select a panel of appropriately qualified workmen from their number to carry out safety inspections has been little used. The value of such inspections linked to safety committees with good management and worker relationship has never been in doubt, but the difficulty lay in getting workmen to undertake the responsibility for inspection.

This situation at Hatfield Quarry, and within the parent and associated companies, has now been overcome and progressively the workmen's inspection panels are developing to produce reports which, in addition to hazard spotting, include suggestions to encourage good practice in every work situation. The added value of workmen's inspection is the requirement for a copy of the completed report, with management comment, to be forwarded to the inspectorate, as this involves the local inspector and makes 422 possible true team work between employers, employees and inspectors.

The relationship between the inspectorate and this large multinational company has for some years allowed discussion and development of efficient safety systems. I gather that this relationship has been preserved, and has now been improved to the point where information is freely available to the inspectorate and all matters relating to changes in mineral processing plant or other techniques are provisionally discussed with inspectorate representatives.

I have looked very carefully into the circumstances reported to me which led to the death of Mr. Paul Bramwell. I repeat that I have every sympathy with his family, but I must say—here the hon. Member may agree with me—that it would be wrong for a Minister to seek to interfere with a decision of this kind, which must be primarily for the Inspectorate, with its specialised knowledge, expertise and first-hand experience.

I add that from what I have learnt of this case I do not think that I can disagree with the decision of the inspectorate not to prosecute. I agree that whether that was the correct decision must be a matter of opinion and perhaps of fine judgment. I know that that may be of little comfort to Paul Bramwell's family, but I am sure—this is of major importance—that the lessons learnt from this tragedy will clearly benefit other people who may be working in future in similar situations.