§ 11 am
§ The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley)With permission, I shall make a statement about the explosion at Vibroplant, Fengate, Peterborough.
At 9.35 yesterday an ICI Nobel's Explosives lorry of standard design, carrying 800 kg of explosives, caught fire while on a routine delivery. I understand that the driver pulled into the nearest yard, which was that of Vibroplant plc, Newark road, Fengate, Peterborough, and called the fire brigade. While in attendance, the lorry exploded, killing one fireman and injuring more than 80 people. Some have serious injuries. I want to convey the Government's sympathy to the families of the dead fire officer and the injured.
At least five premises were seriously damaged and the police declared a major emergency. The scale of this tragic incident has been major. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is at the site and will be giving us an urgent report. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is visiting the Cambridgeshire fire brigade. Two factory inspectors and two explosives inspectors are at the site to conduct an investigation. The Health and Safety Executive will be preparing a report. I will not pre-empt the conclusions of the investigation. The report will be published and a further statement will be made to the House then.
The relevant legislation is the Conveyance of Explosives on Roads Byelaws which lay down rules for the carriage of explosives by road. New Carriage of Explosives by Road Regulations, to be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, will be laid before the House in early April. A copy is being placed in the Library.
The current byelaws do not require vehicles carrying explosives to display any warning signs. For security and safety reasons, it was believed that the presence of a two-man crew should be sufficient. During the drafting of the new regulations and after detailed consultations, the Health and Safety Commission has concluded that the balance now lies in favour of secondary safety. The new regulations will require appropriate description placards to be displayed on vehicles. We accepted that judgment when I approved the regulations earlier this month. I apologise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for not giving him earlier a copy of the statement.
§ Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)First, I thank the Minister for his statement. I extend my sympathy and that of my right hon. Friends to the family of Mr. John Humphries, the fire fighter who lost his life in the furtherance of his duty and in the service of the community. I also extend our sympathy and concern to those who were injured and those who are anxiously waiting at their bedsides. I note that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is at the scene of the accident, and I appreciate what a difficult time it is for him.
We share the admiration of the whole House for the devotion and commitment shown by all the emergency services involved and for the hospital staff, many of whom will now share the heavy burdens of trying to heal serious injury and trauma.
1267 Sadly, in recent months the House has had occasion to debate far too many tragic accidents involving ships, trains, planes and now, regrettably, lorries. No one can doubt that in this complex society of ours, where people and goods are constantly on the move, safety in transportation must have the highest priority. We will give every possible support to the Government in their quest for that greater safety, and in that context I welcome the Minister's statement. The issue before the House this morning is whether enough has been done to ensure the safe transport of explosive materials and whether the tragic loss of life and the injuries could have been prevented.
As with all such tragedies, some immediate questions must be asked, but asking them has not been straight forward. When I first telephoned the Department at 4 pm yesterday I was told that it was not the Department's responsibility but that of the Department of the Environment. I am grateful both that the Minister has clarified the position and to have the opportunity to ask him the following questions, particularly those with relevance to the part of his statement on new regulations.
How long has the process of consultation on the new regulations for the transport of explosives taken? When were the consultations completed? At what point were they ready to come before the House? I appreciate and support the fact that they are now coming before the House in early April. Naturally, we guarantee our support for them and we are pleased that we shall have the opportunity to give that support. Does the Minister agree that, given the clear intention of the Government to regulate, it would now be possible for the industry to act immediately, thus ensuring that, should any similar emergency occur, the fire fighters would be warned that such a dangerous cargo was on board?
While I appreciate that there have been few serious accidents of this nature, as the Minister has said on other occasions, the potential for tragedy with such hazardous loads is all too obvious. Will the Minister confirm that the regulations to which he has referred deal solely with the issue of labelling such vehicles? We support clear labelling of the hazards contained in vehicles transporting explosives. Does the Minister not consider that he should make a complete review of all aspects of the transportation of explosives? Will he undertake to make such a review and will he tell the House the number of movements of such loads of explosive cocktails on our roads each year?
In so many of these tragedies, a conflict has emerged between the needs of confidentiality and security, and those of safety. We believe that the safety of the public, the communities through which the vehicles pass and particularly of our emergency services must take priority over other considerations. In these matters, the people must have the right to know.
We welcome the new regulations and we shall support their speedy progress through the House. This latest tragedy has placed a special duty on all of us again to ask: is enough being done? I think that today the House would like to call upon safety officers, workers, managers, owners and all who work in transportation, particularly those involved in the transportation of hazardous goods, to give some extra attention and thought voluntarily to reviewing their procedures to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again.
§ Mr. BottomleyI agree with nearly everything that the hon. Lady has said. I want to reinforce her message of sympathy, which I am sure comes from all sides of the House, for the fire service in particular, which gets called out to incidents, not knowing what caused the incident, what the incident may be or what consequences it will have. We know that they are brave people and we pay tribute to them. It is right to pay tribute to the medical services who cope with the consequences of injury and often, sadly, death on and off our roads.
I still believe that the last time that the road transport of explosives led to a fatality was in 1957. That is a good record over 30 years for an industry which has about 15,000 to 20,000 movements a year. That is the best estimate that I have had so far and it is subject to correction. There may be some incidents of which I am not yet aware.
The work to protect both the public and those who work with explosives, which are a necessary part of our industrial life, is maintained to a high standard. Clearly, when things go wrong, and yesterday things did go wrong —we do not know what, why or who, and I do not want to prejudge any of that—we must learn the lessons. We must learn how to make existing regulations work and how to ensure that regulations can be modified at least to maintain and if possible to enhance safety. I notice the presence of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who got that clause into the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act, which only allowed regulations to be made which would maintain or enhance safety. I am sorry: I mean the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The House must forgive me for mixing the two up.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that we should look at the major hazards of transport of dangerous substances. Within the Health and Safety Executive, there is an advisory committee on dangerous substances which I believe for a number of years has been considering the updating of the regulations. The regulations came to the Department of Transport towards the end of January and within two months—after settling some of the questions—I approved them, a week and a half ago.
As far as I know, no other country is carrying out such good work on the issue of major hazards of transport than Britain. We look forward to the sub-committee looking at the major hazards of transport and presenting a report on all forms of dangerous goods and all modes of transport of them. It will be looking at loading and unloading, in movement and when resting up, whether on trains, in lorries or any other way. Therefore, all the information that the hon. Member for Deptford requested will be provided.
I apologise, however, if at 4 o'clock it was not possible to give a clear definition of responsibility. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment for being on the Front Bench. From my time at the Department of Employment, I know the necessary links of the Health and Safety Executive with many Government Departments. That does not mean that we can always define boundary problems straight away, but there is no ducking of responsibility.
I would ask those people who are ringing my office and jamming the switchboard over a potential option for a road scheme in north London, to please stop doing so immediately. It has been virtually impossible for anyone 1269 else to ring in for the past two hours, which is one of the reasons for my coming rather late to the House with the statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I appreciate the importance of this tragedy, but I must remind the House that this is a private Members' day, and I ask for brief questions.
§ Mr. Malcolm Moss (Cambridgeshire, North-East)This is indeed a great tragedy for the people of Peterborough and surrounding constituencies, such as mine in north-east Cambridgeshire. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) who was on duty in Northern Ireland when the tragedy occurred but who flew immediately this morning to be with his constituents, I wish to make a few comments with which he wishes to be associated.
First, there is no praise high enough for the emergency services of Cambridgeshire—the fire service, the police and the members of staff of the Peterborough district health authority. We would like to offer our condolences to the widow of John Humphries and our sympathy to all those who have been seriously injured. We wish them a speedy recovery.
Many jobs on the Fengate industrial estate are now at risk. About 40 small businesses are now devastated by the event and I ask the Government to make every move possible to ensure that the security of those jobs is not put at risk.
§ Mr. BottomleyI am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that the impact of the accident will be felt not just in Peterborough but also in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon.
§ Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro)On behalf of my party, I would like to extend our sympathies to the family of John Humphries and also to all those who were injured in this terrible incident. I would like to extend our thanks for the brave work put in by the emergency services.
The Minister has not said whether he has any information about why the emergency services were not informed of the nature of the load. I would appreciate it if he could comment on that, although I realise that it is very early. Can he also say whether there are any rules regarding notification of such large loads of explosives as they travel around the country?
§ Mr. BottomleyThe view has been that that would not be appropriate. As I have said outside the House, a balance must be struck between security and such notification. I do not believe that any hon. Member needs reminding of what the effect of explosives in the wrong hands could be. Secondly, there is the issue of safety, which is labelling the outside so that the fire service or other emergency services can know what they are dealing with. After due consultation, the decision has been made to reverse the emphasis. Only time will show whether that is right or wrong. I say to all those involved in risk assessment in this and other areas that we are grateful for their work, because these issues are not easy.
§ Mr. Conal Gregory (York)I am sure that the whole House shares in the grief of yet another transport tragedy. Has my hon. Friend had any further thought about the 1270 possibility of a national emergency number being established? We have had the crises of Clapham, Lockerbie and others, and now a further one in Cambridgeshire. It causes great distress to the relatives involved, at a time when they are under much pressure, to remember a special telephone number. If there was a three-digit number appropriate for such accidents, I am sure that not only would British Telecom deal with that, but my hon. Friend's own staff would not have the difficulties to which he has alluded.
Secondly, as I am sure that the House will wish to have those regulations at the earliest opportunity, would my hon. Friend invite those companies which are involved in the transport of explosives to advise between now and then their movements to the services concerned, so that they can learn from the lessons and we will not have a repeat of this incident in future?
§ Mr. BottomleyI am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest. One of the reasons why we have the safest roads in relation to population within Europe—possibly within the motoring world—is that we do not use the ministerial voice as a microphone to give an instant response to every suggestion, however well intended. The reason that we kill so many fewer than in other comparable countries, such as France and Germany, is that we rely on the collaborative work within, for example, the network of the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission, which is a tripartite body. We try to rely on the assessment of risk by those involved, together with the health and safety inspectorate. I pay tribute to its work, too.
I know that an emergency number is under consideration. Can I separate the point that I was making earlier about my own office? I may not be important, but the work of my office is on a day like this. If people could avoid using the private office number as a way of registering protests which they could make in other ways, it would be easier to obtain the information that I want to give to the House.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)The Minister will be aware that in a series of answers since the M6 crash, about the carriage of dangerous goods, he has told me that he believes that the existing legislation is adequate, but that there are increasing numbers of accidents in which heavy goods vehicles are involved. By definition, a percentage of those will carry dangerous, if not explosive, substances. Will he undertake that the regulations will not only be laid before the House the minute it resumes, but that they will contain checks and balances? If the men driving lorries, and the emergency services, are always informed of the nature of the goods being carried, they will be able to take appropriate action when an emergency arises.
§ Mr. BottomleySignificant changes in the new regulations are better training, marking and information on the nature of the cargo being carried and what to do with it.
§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)The Minister will be aware that, in the chemical-producing areas such as my own, there is widespread concern about the packaging of dangerous substances which are carried on the roads. He will undoubtedly remember that I wrote to him on 28 January about a specific incident in which marking had been removed from a lorry on the instructions of the 1271 police. Subsequently, my hon. Friend will remember that he wrote to me on 9 March saying that the Government were reviewing the whole question of hazardous and explosive packaging. He then gave me the welcome news that the Government intend to act on that very soon.
That letter was also warmly received in the chemical-producing area of Teesside and my hon. Friend's statement will also receive a wide welcome. I urge him to bring forward the proposals as soon as possible to ensure that those hazard markings are improved.
§ Mr. BottomleyI am grateful to my hon. Friend. Certainly the expertise of the police and other emergency services on Teesside and around Cleveland is immense and much relied on.
As has been said outside the House, there will be a European dimension, and we have asked the secretariat of the ADR system to review the decision that it wants to take, which is that there should not be marking.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)I welcome the tentative tone of what the Minister has said—he is always reasonable—in the hope that we will see the shock of yesterday as a great warning. There are many circumstances in which, if the incident was repeated, the devastation would have been far more severe —for example, if a lorry had been fully loaded, if it had been in a confined space and in a built-up area. Does the Minister recall the more than 50 questions I tabled more than a year ago following the conviction on a breathalyser offence of an ammunition lorry driver who was to pick up a load in my constituency. As a result of those inquiries it is known that there have been three fires on ammunition lorries in Britain and numerous collisions and other incidents over the years.
With all the possibilities of accidents not just from explosives but from chemicals and gases carried under pressure on lorries and the possibility of a cocktail accident, are we saying today that we see yesterday as a warning and a lesson? Will our best memorial to the brave fireman who died yesterday be our realisation that our long-accepted practice of allowing tons of explosives, plus loads of inflammable fuel, plus a combustion engine to pass unguarded, unmarked and unprotected along our roads at great speed within a few yards of our homes represents a combination of risks that we can no longer tolerate?
§ Mr. BottomleyIf the hon. Gentleman really meant that last sentence it means an end to a fair amount of industry and contribution to national employment and prosperity.
In terms of risk management, I agree that we need to ensure that we have the best possible reduction of risk and that we put our efforts into the areas that will bring the greatest return. The record of the transport of explosives in this country is good. I have suggested what I believe the figures are for the past 30 years, they may be wrong, but they are certainly in the right order. It is also important to consider this matter in a both/and sense rather than an either/or sense. If yesterday was an average day, 14 people died on our roads and 5,000 will die this year—and many of them are likely to go up in fires caused by the petrol in their cars, let alone as a result of a collision with other vehicles.
I pay a general tribute to the drivers in the heavy goods vehicle industry, whose involvement in casualty accidents has been coming down at twice the rate of car drivers.
§ Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern felt not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who has already been mentioned and who has visited the scene, but by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who we are glad to see in his place today.
Could my hon. Friend have discussions with those companies that convey explosives and other dangerous substances to see whether, in advance of the implementation of the new regulations, it might be possible for them to improve their procedures particularly relating to the marking of the substances? That would ensure that, even before the regulations come into effect, a repetition of yesterday's accident will be made much more unlikely.
§ Mr. BottomleyI know that the House will acknowledge what my hon. Friend has said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The Nobel division of ICI has, over the years, had one of the best records in terms of the consideration of health and safety. I am not saying that it or anyone else is perfect, but I am sure that it is already making the investigations and inquiries to which my hon. Friend has referred.
I have taken advice and, without being able to confirm that it is absolutely right, I believe that it would not be unlawful for any company to put markings on vehicles now. They do not have to wait for the regulations to be laid and regulations to be passed.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Will the hon. Gentleman make the regulations a little more comprehensive? Together with his hon. Friends in other Departments, will he ensure that those regulations cover the transport of nuclear weapons, radioactive and other forms of nuclear material?
§ Mr. BottomleyI think the House would prefer me to take the regulations that come from the Health and Safety Commission after the work of the Health and Safety Executive and lay them before the House as they are.
§ Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North)Many hon. Members who have quarries in their constituencies will be aware that those of their constituents who live close to them will have been particularly shocked and distressed at yesterday's accident. Explosives are a vital part of the quarrying and mining industry. When my hon. Friend considers this matter, will he assure us that he will bring in the mines and quarries inspectorate to consider the safety of the materials as they are conveyed to quarries, and the route that some of those materials take? I am sure that many people will be reassured by the figures that my hon. Friend has given about accidents, which should allay some people's fears. I should be grateful if he would involve the mines and quarries inspectorate in this work.
§ Mr. BottomleyI know from my previous service at the Department of Employment that the Health and Safety Executive brings the relevant inspectorates together. I believe it is better for either myself or other Ministers to be answerable in this House, but to maintain the Health and Safety Executive and the Commission as the bodies that primarily bring the industries and the experts together from all sides of industry. It is the practitioners who have the responsibility to ensure that their work is as safe as reasonably practicable and, in this respect, I believe that 1273 the record shows that they generally have. What happened yesterday was things going wrong rather than things going according to the book.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)Will the Minister accept that there seems to be a leisurely course in dealing with health and safety at work regulations? A study of the current statutory instruments list shows that many of them are intended to raise charges for optical and dental examinations and a whole host of other things. Last night the House approved many instruments that will cut legal aid without any proper scrutiny. That happens when the Government want to increase charges.
Why have health and safety regulations taken so long? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that those regulations will make absolute provisions for training and marking and that we are not about to go down the road to qualifying the requirements with the words "so far as reasonably practicable", which the Health and Safety Executive and the commission are rather fond of using? The Minister knows that those words place a cost on carrying out that requirement and such words can be used in a defence in court. We want an absolute provision so that employers are required to ensure training and proper and adequate marking.
§ Mr. BottomleyHaving transferred a partial tribute to the hon. Gentleman from his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I now believe that he does not deserve it. To introduce other extraneous matters when we are dealing with the serious issues of what happened yesterday and the new regulations that have come through the Health and Safety Executive machinery is to end this statement on a low note.
The hon. Gentleman should remember—assuming that he knew in the first place—that the words "so far as reasonably practicable" lift up the level of provision rather than providing a ceiling to it.
§ Mr. SkinnerThat is just not true.
§ Mr. BottomleyIf a firm can do something that is reasonably practicable, it has a duty to do it. The obligations go beyond what is just written down if it is reasonable to do that. As somebody who is not a lawyer, I do not think that I shall take legal advice from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)Will my hon. Friend confirm that detonators and explosives must have 1274 been carried in the same load for the explosion to take place? Will he take steps to ensure that in future, such materials are never carried in the same load? Further, will he ensure that all explosive material is immobilised in any transit journeys of the type undertaken on this occasion?
§ Mr. BottomleyI think that my hon. Friend is asking me if such loads can be rendered inert, rather than immobilised. I cannot give an answer to his first point, but I am sure that the Health and Safety Executive's inspector's report, which will be published, will cover that issue.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)Where was the vehicle destined to make its delivery? Is the Minister suggesting that the existing regulations do not require those transporting explosives to show warning signs? I am sure that many people will be astonished if that is the current practice. Will the Minister answer two questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) which I do not believe he answered? When did the consultation on the new regulations begin, and when did that consultation end?
§ Mr. BottomleyI imagine that consideration—I am not sure whether it involved consultation—started in 1979, when the last amendment to the previous regulation was made. There is a continuous process of review. I suspect that the passing of the new regulations will be the start of a new process of considering what more can be introduced.
The key point is that the majority of countries in Europe still believe that our previous, and up to now present, practice is right: the security of not advertising the fact that explosive material is being carried is better than the secondary safety which will be introduced as a result of our consultations and changes of view. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is a clear-cut answer, he is wrong. It would need only one more example of illicit explosives being used to cause the death of a number of people for others to turn round and say that the "obvious" point recognised by the hon. Gentleman is wrong rather than right. I have been open with the House about the change of view as to what will provide the greater protection.
§ Mr. SpeakerIn view of the time taken by the statement, the debate in the name of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) will now conclude at 5 minutes to 12, and the debate on the legal profession will start at that time.