HC Deb 19 December 1990 vol 183 cc473-88

5.2 am

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

I find myself caught in rather a cleft stick in these Consolidated Fund debates. I really wanted to speak in the previous debate, about Romanian orphans, but, because of our procedures, I could not do so, and had to be content with intervening, as I have done in similar debates. When I managed to make a speech earlier in the Christmas Adjournment debate, I was "squeezed out" for reasons of time. Perhaps I shall be able to knit the bits and pieces together on some future occasion.

In the current debate, however, I am concerned about the consequences of the severe weather suffered recently by the east midlands and about what is to be done if similar circumstances arise in the future. The severe weather started on the evening of Friday 7 December and there was adequate warning. That did not apply to the gale warnings issued in the south of England in 1987, to which I may refer later. Conditions deteriorated rapidly in my area between 10 o'clock on Friday evening and 3 o'clock on Saturday morning. The results were devastating. Electricity supplies in the east midlands area were disrupted from 3 am onwards. Councillor Betty Long, who lives in the Killamarsh area, informed me about the conditions there. The electricity supplies from the Westhorpe substation were disrupted. Three 33,000 kV cables came down. If one of them had remained intact, electricity supplies could have been maintained.

Supplies were disrupted throughout the entire east midlands area. The results were devastating in north Derbyshire and north Nottinghamshire. Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire and Leicestershire also suffered badly. Water supplies were cut off in many areas because of the failure of electricity supplies at the pumping stations. There were no emergency generators. Action was taken to obtain generators. Eventually help was obtained from the Army. It was difficult at first to reach remote areas where electricity cables had come down.

I first became aware of the extent of the problem when I rose early that morning. I had hoped to hold a constituency surgery in Chesterfield at 10 am, but it had to be cancelled because electricity supplies had failed in the area. Moreover, because of the bad weather conditions, I could not have reached the surgery in time. I switched on the radio and tuned in to Radio Sheffield, as everybody else in the area did. Its community service came very much into its own at that time. That must also be true of the local radio stations elsewhere in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

I received a letter from Chris van Schaick, the programme organiser for Radio Sheffield. He explained what conditions were like four days into the crisis. He said: Over the weekend and yesterday Radio Sheffield abandoned its normal schedule to provide a special weather service. Our phone-in lines have not stopped ringing since the crisis began. The utilities have been asking people to report their problems on air because their own staff have been listening to us to find out where the worst problems are. The station has broadcast a total of nearly 80 hours of programmes on the crisis since Saturday morning. People would have been in desperate trouble if that information had not been made available to them. However, it was only available to those who were lucky enough to have battery-operated radios. However, information was relayed to communities and people were kept informed of developments.

I was one of those who ventured out that Saturday, although, quite correctly, people were being advised not to do so unless their journeys were absolutely necessary. The opportunity for politicians to appear on television probably makes their journey absolutely necessary. I went to Leeds television studio. I make that point because on my journey I was able to observe the difference in conditions in north Derbyshire and Leeds.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling)

May I associate myself and agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the magnificent service that was provided by the local broadcasting networks? He mentioned Radio Sheffield. It should be placed on record that Radio Nottingham and Radio Trent, which cover the area represented by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and myself, did a first-class job providing the community service that he mentioned.

Mr. Barnes

Given the resources that are available, BBC local radio offers a great service to communities, especially in such emergencies, when people automatically rely on public service provision.

Travelling between north Derbyshire and Leeds, I discovered that north Derbyshire was affected far more than other areas. Sheffield was bad, but was a slight improvement on north Derbyshire. Some areas between Sheffield and Leeds were quite mild. Leeds and the areas surrounding it were in trouble, but they were not as bad as those in Sheffield, and neither of those places experienced conditions as bad those in as north Derbyshire.

The area covered by Yorkshire Electricity was less seriously affected than that covered by East Midlands Electricity. That is not to say that Yorkshire was not badly affected; cables were down and it experienced faults with low voltage provision, but the position was considerably worse in north Derbyshire, north Nottinghamshire and large areas of the midlands. That is borne out by the fact that, as late as 12 December, the Leader of the House, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), pointed out that 43,000 customers were waiting for their service to be reconnected, 39,500 of them in the east midlands area. That shows the scale of the problem. It took longer to deal with, because conditions were often far worse.

Snow and ice were adhering to washing lines, to fences round farms and to cables. Falling trees were bringing down cables and pylons were collapsing. Conditions were so bad that linesmen in the Chatsworth area were unable to get out. Appeals were being made on the radio to notify the electricity authorities of where cables were down. East Midlands Electricity received a bad press because its reconnection times compared unfavourably with those in the Yorkshire area. In some areas, reconnection was made impossible by the conditions.

When I returned from Leeds, I was aware of the scale of the problem and was in regular touch with the electricity board. Over that weeekend, I contacted the Department of Energy about emergency action and Labour energy spokesmen about the devastating situation.

What was required all along was a statement from the Government, issued through the Department of Energy, recognising the extent of the emergency and demonstrating to people that they were using all their resources to assist in handling it. That statement was never made.

I also issued a press release that illustrated the strength of my feelings. It appeared in the Yorkshire Post and stated: I am very concerned about the delay, particularly by the Department of Energy, in co-ordinating a repair and rescue programme. It has been largely left to the individual electricity boards to sort out and it should have been a nationally organised operation. Up to 50 per cent, of North-East Derbyshire is still without electricity and many people will have had supplies cut off for a longer period. The East Midlands Electricity Authority seems to have a longer backlog than Yorkshire Electricity which is probably because Derbyshire has been worst hit—but this is a good reason for a nationally co-ordinated scheme. I have got the feeling that if this had been the south of England it would have been regarded as a national disaster, just as it was during the gales. I appreciate that a lot of people have been working very hard over the weekend, but I find the lack of action by the Department of Energy quite worrying. The Government's response to the gales in the south demonstrated that they were organised and concerned. Money was made available to local authorities under the Bellwin scheme. That decision was announced as soon as Parliament reassembled—the House will recall that the gales occurred during the recess—five days after the emergency. No such decision was made about the crisis that hit the water and electricity supplies of the east midlands. Many of my constituents were aghast at the Government's lack of action.

The House had an opportunity briefly to consider the problem on 10 December—the Monday after the blizzards—during Energy Question Time. Three of those questions related to electricity and that enabled hon. Members who represent the east midlands to refer to the crisis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was lucky enough to ask a supplementary question and he pointed out to the Minister that 60,000 people were cut off in the Chesterfield district over the weekend due to the storms, 1,000 faults occurred, and 20,000 emergency calls were made." [Official Report, 10 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 643.] He also said that people would have been happy to have been able to plug in to what they were buying.

The peculiar thing was that the flotation of electricity shares was taking place that Monday. The flotation influenced the Government's failure to announce a crisis and the failure of East Midlands Electricity to ask the Government to do so. If national headlines had described the extent of the crisis in that company' area, shares in it would have fallen through the floor rather than gone through the roof. There was a conspiracy of silence about the problems faced by East Midlands Electricity.

Following Energy questions, a private notice question on the severe weather was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and was answered by the Home Secretary. It is an illustration of the lack of priority that the Government gave to the matter that they did not make a statement on it. A private notice question had to be tabled by the Opposition. Furthermore, the Home Secretary's answer to the PNQ concentrated on transport problems. Little mention was made of electricity supplies However, he said: At present some 380,000 customers are without an electricity supply. Most reconnections should be achieved today or tomorrow, but it will take longer in some isolated areas. Some 500,000 people are still without piped water. The myth that the disaster occurred in isolated rural areas needs to be laid to rest. It did not. It occurred in conurbations and, if not in the centres of towns, in areas associated with them. Next to Chesterfield there is a fairly large town called Staveley, which was devastated in the severe weather. Residents of whole areas, not just small parts of the town, had to wait until the weekend for supplies to begin to be permanently re-established. At Woodthorpe the supply went off about seven times after it was reconnected. The Home Office seemed to have no understanding of the problems in the area.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook asked about the Bellwin scheme. The answer of the Home Secretary was: The right hon. Gentleman asked about what is known as the Bellwin scheme, under which the Government provide financial assistance towards emergency costs under arrangements that were agreed in 1982. The scheme is activated at Ministers' discretion when weather conditions are clearly exceptional and when, as a result, local authorities are likely to incure expenditure. When the scheme is activated, grant is paid to cover 85 per cent. of expenditure over a threshold that is currently £2 per charge payer. Those are new arrangements with respect to the poll tax. The Bellwin scheme originally operated with respect to ratepayers. The scheme was fully brought into operation when the gales hit the south of England.

The Home Secretary continued: As the House knows, the scheme was activated in 1987 following the hurricane and again earlier this year following the severe winter storms. It is too early to know whether it will be activated this time."—[Official Report, 10 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 663.] It was not too early to give an idea of whether the scheme would be activated. The Home Secretary said that activation was at Ministers' discretion when weather conditions are clearly exceptional. Any information collated by the Department of Energy would have shown that we faced severe weather conditions. Perhaps it takes a little time to sort out these things. But surely it should have taken no longer than it took to make a decision in the case of the gales in the south of England in 1987. That was within five days.

Several east midlands Members received a letter from the Secretary of State for Energy. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has a copy with him. The letter says: Where local authorities are concerned, the Bellwin scheme could be invoked although there are at present no plans to do so as no claims from local authorities have been received. What claims from local authorities were received in connection with the gales? The letter was written five days after the events—the time that it took Ministers, on earlier occasions, to rush to the House with a statement and say that the Bellwin provisions would be available. That letter was disgraceful.

By now, we should have had a statement to the effect that the Bellwin scheme will operate. A vast number of emergency services had to be provided. People whose electricity supply was cut off moved into community centres. All sorts of provision had to be made for the aged, young children and others at risk. District, parish and county council provision was needed, as well as a massive amount of voluntary provision. Councils such as Derbyshire, which is poll tax-capped, have limited resources on which to draw. The provision of extra services is likely to have an impact on their ability to provide services in future and may destroy their social services programme. It put a brake on the provision of other services that were needed at the time. A statement should have been made at the time—we should still have one—to the effect that the Bellwin scheme provisions will operate.

In my frustration at the fact that there was no statement about Bellwin or about the Government's intention to involve themselves in co-ordinating activity, I managed, at the last minute, to obtain a Standing Order No. 20 application on the Monday. I wanted to get the business of the House changed so that we could discuss the crisis. For example, it was being said that my constituents in Barrow Hill, who were trying to use the miners' welfare, would have to wait another four days before their electricity could be reconnected.

In some respects, what happened in the east midlands was worse than what happened in the gales in the south of England in 1987 because of the winter conditions. It is true that a thaw came later, but it is a difficult time of year and people can be at much greater risk, although I grant that there were massive difficulties in the south of England, which certainly deserved the assistance that it received. Things that happen in the south of England tend to elicit a rapid response and much media coverage, whereas areas such as the east midlands and Scotland—which also had problems and which had to wait a long time for Bellwin moneys—sometimes feel that they have almost been forgotten.

I tabled three early-day motions—208, 223 and 246—listing the problems and pointing out that, by 10 December, half a million people were without electricity. The figures given by East Midlands Electricity are customer figures. To establish the number of individuals concerned, we need to multiply those figures. I am talking not just about people's homes; shops were closed, nursing homes and homes for the mentally ill were affected, as were factories and pits such as Markham, Bolsover and Cresswell. High Moor pit in my constituency was able to operate only because it is linked to Kiveton park pit in Yorkshire. The electricity supply was driven in a cable from Kiveton park through to High Moor pit. Early-day motion 246 relates to the problems in retrospect because from last Monday only the rural districts remained cut off.

There has been an appeal to the Minister for a meeting to take place and I have already spoken of some of the problems about that. We have persistently been given underestimates about the size of the problem and there has been a lack of publicity. The Government have failed to make statements to the House to alert the media to the size of the problem that existed, which has been caught up with electricity privatisation.

We can draw lessons from the experience. One such lesson seems to be that when emergencies occur, people expect their Government to announce the problems and assure them that they are using what resources they can to attempt to handle them. There may be a case for setting up national emergency legislation in this country on the same basis as it exists in Canada, Australia and France.

Never again should such problems be faced by people in any region, certainly not in the east midlands, where people have already suffered. If there is the prospect of more bad weather this winter, with ice and snow such as we had recently and another collapse of electricity services, will people have to go through again what they have been through, unable to believe that everything possible is being done to assist them?

There are problems associated with East Midlands Electricity. I grant that after the first day it drafted in a host of people and much valuable work was done in an attempt to restore electricity supplies. But there were some problems related to the fabric of the services.

I received a letter from one of my constitutents in Woodthorpe in the Chesterfield district. Mr. Bennett wrote to the electricity board on 8 February 1990 about the problems of electricity supply in that district. He said: I know you are experiencing difficult times at the present but I would like you to investigate the reason why the Woodthorpe area of Staveley seems to be prone to regular power cuts or poor power. Since late last year to date we have had 5 power cuts and reduced power on other occasions. For the last 30 years we have always had problems and as we look out of our windows to Staveley town centre we see the lights burning whilst we are on candle power. This happened again last night—7 February 1990 between 7.20 and 10 pm. My sister-in-law lives in Stavely town centre and never seems to experience any of our misfortunes. A year or so ago you re-routed the overhead power cables and we were assured that our troubles were over. NOT SO. I write as a committee member of the Woodthorpe Residents Association and the local neighbourhood watch scheme. The reply was interesting. It came from Mr. Hitchcock, operations engineer at the Chatsworth district of East Midlands Electricity. He outlines the work being done and the difficulties of the past. He admits the problem and states: next year I intend to monitor the situation to determine whether any further work is required on the electricity network. He certainly learnt something about that after the recent bad weather.

The main lesson to be learnt is that the privatisation of electricity has not helped with handling such crises. The Daily Express headline from that Monday was "Killer Craze Chaos"; by the Tuesday, the headline had become "Share Power for Millions", the article giving details of the sale of electricity shares. The following day the headline ran: Electricity surges to £76 profit"—that is, for each 100 shares sold. Huge sums of money were being made. The only person to get it right and detect humour in all this was Jak, in the Evening Standard. His cartoon showed two old people going up to the attendant outside Nottinghamshire power station—part of East Midlands Electricity—and saying: As soon as we bought shares in it we were cut off. Due to the massive problems caused by the privatisation of electricity, the Government have ducked some of their responsibilities. This was a most unfortunate conjunction of events. We must see to it that these problems never occur again.

5.36 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

I am here to support my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) because Ashfield, like the whole of north Nottinghamshire and north-east Derbyshire, suffered greatly. The electricity companies and the Government were caught with their trousers down by the appalling weather. There was no excuse, as they were tipped off five days before.

We should have made progress since 1947; we are in the 1990s. Yet despite all the technology that we have, the Energy Department could not overcome the severe weather in parts of the country, especially in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and the whole of Derbyshire. The Government must pull their socks up. If this happens again, God help us. When they feel that they are losing the argument, the Government and the electricity authorities say that the weather was an act of God. That is the defence that they put up. But it will not wash.

The people in my constituency are not pleased with the Department of Energy. I do not blame the Under-Secretary of State, who has only just moved into the Department, but the Secretary of State has been there for quite some time—

Mr. Harry Barnes

It is on his head.

Mr. Haynes

He should have anticipated the problems, given that he was warned.

Perhaps I could relate to the Minister some of the happenings in north Nottinghamshire and in my constituency. I echo the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East and the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for the local radio stations for their marvellous work. Obviously, the television people could not send messages because there was no power, but people with battery radios were able to receive messages from Radio Nottingham and Radio Trent.

In our county there are elderly people's homes that are all electric, no gas. The local radio stations appealed to people to provide Calor gas equipment to keep elderly people warm, never mind the provision of hot meals. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, is semi-rural. In the rural part of the constituency, it was really rough. On Sunday morning my hon. Friend was interviewed for television in a field in Derbyshire. The programme was relayed to Birmingham and there was snow all around as deep as hell. That clearly showed the serious problems in that area.

The Department must pull up its socks and do something in case this happens again. In my constituency people appealed to the local authority for water. The pumping stations could not operate because there was no electricity, and the local authority did its best with water tankers and sent them to as many of its properties as possible to flush toilets with buckets of water. How can such things happen in 1990 when we can send rockets to the moon? It takes some understanding. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right when he says that the Government were more concerned about flogging the electricity industry than about the poor beggars in the rural areas who were really suffering.

Radio Nottingham told people about a shop that was loaded with all kinds of batteries and said that if people could get to it they would be provided. What effort did the Department of Energy make? It was no flipping help at all. Many of my constituents said that all that the Government were worried about was flogging off the electricity industry. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, I could not get out on the Saturday morning to go to my surgery. If I remember rightly what the hon. Member of Gedling whispered in my ear a short time ago, he could not get to his surgery either.

The situation was serious, but fortunately my telephone was still operational. At least people with problems were able to ring and ask for help, but it is difficult to help when a Member of Parliament is not responsible for the distribution of this, that and the other. He is responsible for distribution of information if it is available to him, to help people in such need.

Kids could not go to school, but even if they could everything was electric, so schools were closed. I have heard Ministers in the Department of Energy—not this Minister because he has not been there very long—bragging about the electricity industry and how marvellous nuclear power is. Yet we have one drop of snow, and they are beaten. Many parts of Europe have every year worse winters then we have, but they still get the power through. I do not understand why we have such problems. There must have been a slip-up. The Government have had getting on for 12 years to overcome problems like a lot of snow on the ground, leading to everything damn well stopping. I remember hon. Members talking about being stuck on motorways because the snow could not be moved, about lorries jack-knifing and all the rest. There was a problem, and it took a long while for power to come back to these areas.

Like my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, I congratulate the work force on the way in which it set about its job. Some of them worked right through the night, day after day, to make sure that power got through to those who most needed it. Those turning up to work on public transport found that the towel had been thrown in, and the vehicles had had to go back in the garages because they could not get around. There was no transport system. It was appalling.

I hope that the Department will pull out all the stops if anything similar happens again. Let this be a lesson. It is not 1947 now; it is 1990, and I hope that we shall not have the same problems in 1991. The hon. Member for Gedling seems to have moved on to the Back Benches so that he can make a contribution. If that is the case, I shall sit down and give him the opportunity to do so, as there is not all that much time left.

5.47 am
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I always want to call him my hon. Friend. He has expressed well the frustrations and difficulties that were felt, particularly in Nottinghamshire, which was so adversely affected by the severe weather conditions that he described.

I shall not touch on the role of the Department of Energy, which had only a peripheral role in what happened in the period that we are discussing. The severe weather conditions did not affect my constituency so badly as they affected that of the hon. Gentleman. Practically all my constituents had power restored relatively quickly. On the Saturday, I managed to get across my constituency, co fulfil an engagement that I had agreed to do some time before. It was at Ernhale court in Arnold, an old people's complex, which the hon. Gentleman may know quite well, where I had the pleasure of joining the residents for sherry and mince pies to toast the Christmas season. During that visit, having made my way with great difficulty across Carlton and over into Arnold, I was able to see at first hand the grave difficulties from which my constituents were suffering.

The concern that I felt most strongly was for the difficulties and anxieties caused to elderly people, who were dependent on electricity to provide them with the basic services in life, such as heating. In view of the fact that they might be cut off for a long time, a danger which in too many cases became a reality, that point must be taken on board by the House. Whatever we think about the way in which the electricity boards responded to the severe weather, it is important that there should be perhaps mature reflection on what happened. We should await the reports of the utilities to see what they have to say about their plans for the future and the way in which the difficulties that they faced were handled.

Thousands of men and women employed or brought in by the East Midlands electricity board, which is based in my constituency and is now East Midlands Electricity, worked round the clock to restore power supplies in my constituency and elsewhere in the east midlands. Some came from as far away as southern Ireland, and they worked extremely hard in conditions that I am reliably informed had not been seen in the east midlands for 20 years. They experienced weather damage which many of them had not encountered before. It was the first occasion I can recall when I found English weather threatening and frightening.

As I have said, it is important to wait until we are able to give these matters wider and more mature consideration. We need to reflect on the events that took place and the lessons that need to be learnt. With the privilege of having East Midlands Electricity based in my constituency, I have every confidence that the management there will examine any lessons that are to be learnt, learn them and implement the results in the future in the style and with the vigour that is required and that we have come to expect of them.

5.51 am
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for securing and initiating the debate. Back-Bench Members and Front-Bench spokesmen have had the opportunity to place on record their reflections on the events that took place a comparatively short time ago in the east midlands.

It is not exactly with unalloyed pleasure that we are in the Chamber at this unearthly hour, but it was at about the same unearthly hour that electricity linesmen were being dragged out of bed on 8 December, eventually in their thousands when East Midlands Electricity realised the magnitude of the disaster. It is not a region that I know especially well. I understand, however, that snow had been falling pretty well throughout Saturday, and that in the early hours of Sunday the temperature had dropped sufficiently for ice accretion to occur. That accretion occurs only when the temperature is within 1 deg. C, plus or minus, of 0 deg. C. Large lumps of ice become attached to wires and cables, which weigh 10 times more and five times more than the weight at which they can remain attached to their poles.

This was an uncanny reminder of that ghastly period in the history of the North sea trawler industry about 15 years ago when trawlers were affected in the same way. They became top heavy as ice attached to their superstructure, the centre of gravity would suddenly become affected and they would turn turtle without warning, with substantial loss of life. Ice accretion is rare but not unknown. We in Britain perhaps experience it more than elsewhere because our country is windier and wetter than others where much lower temperatures are recorded. It is something for which we should be prepared, but because it does not happen more than once every 20 years we attempt to muddle through. We then have to face conditions that amounted, recently, to a major catastrophe for the east midlands, and one that perhaps did not receive the attention that it properly deserved for the reasons that my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) have set out. East Midlands Electricity said: The extent of the damage, with poles and miles of wire on the ground, is similar to that experienced during the 1987 hurricane in the South of England. I think that we would all agree that it did not get the same attention as the 1987 hurricane in the national press. That hurricane was thought to be a national problem, whereas the damage in the east midlands was viewed as a regional problem affecting those unfortunates living north of Watford gap. It was not the subject of dinner table conversation in Hampstead; it was not the subject of leaders in The Times; it was not thought to be on a par with the hurricane which happened shortly after the general election that brought me and other hon. Members to the House. The Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement about the hurricane on the Monday that the House reassembled after the summer recess. The hurricane remained a major talking point for months because we could all see evidence of it in the trees that had fallen down in Hyde park and elsewhere.

Those of us who are not from the east midlands have not seen the devastation there. However, to get some idea of the measure of it, I can tell the House that 800,000 customers were without power on 8 December. The figure gradually reduced—500,000 by midnight that day; 300,000 by midnight on Sunday; 190,000 by midnight on Monday; 90,000 by midnight on Tuesday; 55,000 by midnight on Wednesday; 30,000 by midnight on Thursday; and 14,500 by midnight on Friday. The figures came down, but six days after the event there were still 14,500 customers without power.

My latest information from East Midlands Electricity is that there are still hundreds of consumers without power in the more remote parts of the east midlands, yet it is now 12 days and a couple hours since the event. It is a major dislocation of electricity supplies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said, many people now depend on electricity in all-electric homes and institutions. They no longer have coal fires and supplies of candles and other alternatives. The more dependent we are on electricty, the more essential it is that we are better prepared for the occasional weather disaster.

I am told by East Midlands Electricity that the damage in the telecommunications service is even greater than that in the electricity service. The number of telecommunications cables that have come down, and are still down, is greater than the number of electricity cables. They are the non-weatherproof part of our public utilities. Water and gas pipes run underground, but electricity—other than in large cities—and telecommunications cables are above ground. They are prone to exposure to high winds, especially when they combine with snow, sleet and ice, as happened on 8 December in the east midlands.

We are trying to measure how good performance was and what needs to be done to improve it. Reference has rightly been made to the need for mature reflection. East Midlands Electricity will be producing a report, and I hope that we will have access to it in the Library or in another forum here where we can debate it. Hon. Members who represent other parts of the country will want to determine what lessons can be learnt from a weather disaster that resulted in 800,000 customers being left without electricity for some time, and 500,000 customers being left without electricity for 24 hours or more.

Britain is proud of its electricity industry. It is far from being a lame duck. It has an exceptionally good record, comparable with Germany and among the best in the world, on security of supply. It has a record superior to that of the United States, Japan and France on the avoidance of blackouts and brownouts. Therefore, when the supply to a large part of the country is knocked out, it merits close examination to discover what went wrong, whether it could have been avoided and whether it can be avoided in future.

We are also proud of the efforts of the company's management and work force and of the staff who were borrowed from other companies and shipped in from other countries as well. That was done fairly rapidly, but not instantaneously. That would have meant travelling along the M6, M69, M42 and M1, which was not possible on the first day.

When the matter was discussed in the House on a private notice question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), hon. Members tended to recount their experiences in the snow rather than what happened to the east midlands region. They regaled us with stories about how long they had had to spend in their cars on the M6, almost boasting about their experiences. There was only a limited discussion of the regional electricity and other infrastructure problems. They dealt largely with how inconvenient it was for Members of Parliament, attempting to fulfil engagements, not to be able to travel up the M6 without let or hindrance. That is an important point, but it is not the most important point.

This is the first opportunity that we have had, admittedly before a limited audience, to discuss the regional problems in north Derbyshire and the surrounding areas; looking at the matter not just as the blocking of four motorways by snow, but to see what lessons can be learnt for the electricty supply system and whether we could or should have done better in getting supplies reconnected.

It is true that the blocking of the motorway vitiated early attempts to ship in large numbers of linesmen to reconnect supplies. The company could not even use its helicopter in the early stages. It could not get it airborne. But gradually, by the middle of the week, it was able to assemble something like General Schwarzkopf's task force in Saudi Arabia. The men, materials and supplies had to be put together in the right place—it is no good having men without materials, or vice versa—and that took three or four days.

For large numbers of people to be without electricity for three or four days creates a colossal problem. Our ability to make do and mend is not as great as it was. To that extent, society is much less flexible and resourceful than it was. One cannot avoid mentioning the fact that some local market traders and shopkeepers exploited the situation. We are told that on Monday, when people in Mansfield were desperately looking for candles, they were on sale at £2.50 each. I am glad to say that, to counter that boil on the surface of the enterprise culture, the company managed to acquire 50,000 candles which were then distributed free by Age Concern by Wednesday evening.

That was a useful countervailing force. It may have been done four or five days after the start of the disaster, but it prevented gross exploitation of the situation with people trying to make a bomb out of the fact that candle supplies were limited just when people were desperate for any means of lighting their way to bed or finding the toilet in the middle of the night, or for whatever other reason they might have needed candles.

All that illustrates the extent of the crisis, and just how dislocated a society such as ours, which is so dependent on modern conveniences, becomes when the source of power for those modern conveniences is suddenly unavailable.

By an extraordinary coincidence, those events occurred just at the moment when the button was about to be pushed, and the champagne about to be poured, at the celebrations to mark the flotation of the 12 electricity companies. They all arranged champagne parties for 11 December, with the exception of East Midlands Electricity—which was sensible enough to cancel its celebrations. It was successfully floated on the stock exchange, but its management realised that it would have been most inappropriate to hold a champagne party on a day when 100,000 of that company's customers were without electricity.

Incidentally, that coincidence might be viewed by some of a more religious bent as the wrath of God being visited on the Secretary of State for Energy for daring to privatise the industry, but I do not go in for such extremist theories. So I shall not invoke the image of the four horsemen of the apocalypse being glimpsed in the darkness, riding through north Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

What is the most important aspect of the electricity industry? Is it the same as that of the water companies, a year after their flotation, which is to increase their dividend by the greatest percentage? I am told by people in the financial world that that is the current priority of the 10 water and sewage companies. If the same thing happens over the next year in respect of the 12 electricity companies, they will have thrown away the industry's crown jewels. Its crown jewels were displayed last week when, as part of the public service ethic, people were willing to work through the night in the frozen wastes of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire to restore services and meet the needs of customers for a continuous supply. Will there be a clash in future between the companies' clear fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximise profits and the need that everyone in Britain has—except those or a hermit-like persuasion—for electricity to flow whenever we throw the switch?

That public utility mentality must be retained even by the privatised companies, or they will be unable to persuade staff to turn out at the dead of night, ship in help from other regions, or secure a commitment from another company even if it does not know where the money is to come from. In the past, one board could ring another and ask to borrow 100 of its linesmen, and leave the financial arrangements to be sorted out later. That staff had to be paid for, but there was no haggling over price when they were needed most—in the same way as the benefiting company would not haggle five years later, when Yorkshire or south-west England were affected.

That tradition has been built up during the period that the industry has been in public ownership. It is essential that that remains the overriding ethic of the industry, even if it has been floated in the private sector.

If the linesmen are infected by the gold digger psychology—like the people who were selling candles for £2.50 each in Mansfield that Monday night—they will start to think, "They need us. It is supply and demand. We want treble time and a full lodging allowance, as if we were staying in a five-star hotel." They will say that if Kleinwort Benson has made a fortune out of the privatisation of the industry, they will make a fortune out of it, too.

If we lose the willingness to turn out at dead of night because it is a tradition in the industry, and that is what one is supposed to do because society has become so dependent on continuity of electricity supply, the industry will be on the slippery slope.

When we finally receive a proper report, after mature reflection, when all the facts are known and consumers are finally reconnected, Opposition Ministers will want to know about the degree to which the public service ethic remains fully effective, despite the financial euphoria that was beginning to overcome parts of the industry as the magic day of 11 December approached. We shall want to know what guarantees the Government will be able to offer us that—privatisation, or no privatisation—the public service ethic, the willingness to turn out and to work double shifts until every consumer who has lost supply is reconnected, will remain, regardless of who owns the industry, whether it is private shareholders or the state, through the Secretary of State for Energy.

6.13 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory)

We have heard graphic descriptions of the inconvenience and hardship suffered by people in the east midlands due to the severe weather over the weekend of 8 and 9 December. Despite the hour, this morning's debate has seen contributions not only from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who instigated the debate, but from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), whose constituency was also affected. On the Conservative Benches, we have had a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) was affected personally, as were his constituents, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), on the Treasury Bench, also represents a midlands seat and therefore has an interest in the debate.

I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and other hon. Members in extending sympathy to those who were without electricity supplies for many days—in some cases for well over a week. People were affected not only in their homes, but also at work. Water supplies were also affected and there were interruptions in the electricity supply to a number of important businesses and industries in the area. I know that a number of British Coal collieries were affected, as were Rolls-Royce at Derby, Courtaulds Acetate, and a number of British Gypsum's mines, and that Severn Trent Water lost supply to 13 of its 15 water treatment plants. So a very wide area was affected. At times, the supply to more than half a million electricity customers was interrupted. The storm was forecast and East Midlands Electricity began to put staff and materials in position at an early stage, before the storm hit. Its 13 emergency centres were manned and engineers and line gangs were on standby. When the storm hit the area, however, they found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get the men and materials to the stricken areas. Snow cover affected movement, and blizzard conditions made it impossible to repair damage immediately.

The phenomenon known as ice accretion arises from wet snow falling on the line at around freezing point, and then refreezing owing to the cooling effect of the wind. The build-up of ice on one side of the line causes the wire to rotate, opening another area to the wind. Ice up to 12 ins thick was deposited on some of the line connectors, which adds approximately 15 lb a yard to the weight of the line. It is not surprising that, in such conditions, lines fell down or broke and wooden poles collapsed; indeed, even some of the large 132kv steel pylons were damaged. As a result, by the evening of Saturday 8 December about half a million customers were without supplies.

The normal standard of design allows a 132kv system to withstand half an inch of ice in a 50 mph wind, with a safety factor of two. A build-up of ice of up to 12 ins on some of the lines was clearly well beyond the design capability of even the best systems. All the voltage lines were affected in one way or another. Obviously repairs had to start on the high-voltage lines, because only when they were repaired was it possible to identify problems in the lower-voltage systems. Some customers may not have understood that that sequence of events was necessary, and understandably felt frustrated because their local, lower-voltage line was not tackled first.

East Midlands Electricity made every effort to keep customers informed. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East paid tribute to that effort, and to the local radio stations which played such an important part in keeping customers and local people informed. In addition, the company worked with local authorities and with voluntary agencies—as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

I stress that no system in the world could have been built to withstand such an onslaught. Weather conditions in the area were the worst for 20 years. The alternative—placing all lines underground—is attractive but expensive; it costs up to 10 times as much to put a line underground as it does to send it overground. A massive capital investment of around £4 billion would be required over about 30 years to complete the "undergrounding" of all lines in the areas, and in view of the infrequency of such severe weather we do not consider that that level of investment could be justified.

Mr. Harry Barnes

If such an incident were to be repeated, the costs would be excessive. Comparisons have been made with the original cost of providing cables, either overground or underground. When a system breaks down, emergency expenditure at great cost is involved. People have to be drafted in from Scotland, Northern Ireland and other regions. I hope that the report to be produced by East Midlands Electricity will be debated so that we can investigate the matter fully and decide what the most cost-effective arrangement would be.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

The assessment that I have given will be reconsidered in the light of experience. The east midlands area alone has about 63,000 km of line, about 60 per cent. of which—mostly low-voltage line—is underground. If it were thought appropriate to put underground an even higher percentage of the low-voltage lines and further sections of the high-voltage lines, that would be considered.

I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the tremendous efforts mounted by the staff and management of East Midlands Electricity and to all who gave assistance in extremely difficult and uncomfortable conditions. In all, help was received from some 1,200 staff from outside the area, in addition to the management, staff, engineers and linesmen in the east midlands area. Help was also received from Northern Ireland and from the Irish Republic, as well as from the Army and specialist contractors. The co-operation between the regional electricity companies was particularly impressive and continued the tradition of mutual assistance within the industry.

There is no evidence of any lack of co-ordination among those concerned. It is certainly completely untrue to suggest that the successful flotation of the regional electricity companies was connected in any way with the response from my Department. The situation was monitored throughout by the Department of Energy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was kept informed. What was required was not words or declarations of emergency by the Government, but the early restoration of supplies to those affected. That is why the primary responsibility and work fell upon the regional electricity companies and the grid companies, and I am very pleased at the way in which they responded.

Mr. Harry Barnes

Why was no statment made in the House? Did not the seriousness of the disruption to supplies call for a statement from the Department of Energy or the Home Office? Ought not something to have been said about the Bellwin scheme, so that people could know where they stood and could take effective action without having to worry about money?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

Hon. Members were kept informed. As for the Bellwin scheme, Ministers said that in principle the scheme could operate if the criteria were met. So far as I know, no requests for assistance under the Bellwin scheme have been received from the authorities concerned.

Mr. Harry Barnes

We know that appeals for assistance were made after the gales in the south of England. The Minister's letter, from which I quoted, was written five days after the disaster. It made the point that has been made today—that no applications had been received. Yet a statement was made in the House five days after the gales in the south of England, saying that money would be made available. The authorities were asked on that occasion to send in the details. Why was that problem dealt with in one way and this one in another?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

In the gales, several primary duties fell to local authorities, but it was made known that the Bellwin scheme could operate and applications were made and processed in the normal way. The Government stand ready to consider any requests from local authorities in the areas concerned, but to my knowledge none has been received so far.

The flotation of the regional electricity companies, which proceeded at about the same time as the storm, did not affect the response of the electricity companies or of the Department. I stress that the electricity supply regulations apply equally whether companies are in the private or the public sector. They regulate public safety and the quality of electric supply, and they are blind to whether the operating company is in the public or the private sector. The regulations are enforced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

The Director General of Electricity Supply has written to all the regional electricity companies suggesting a review of the lessons to be learnt. The company most directly affected—East Midlands Electricity—is carrying out a review of events, and the Department's engineering inspectors will be keeping closely in touch with it.

It is clear that a storm of almost unprecedented ferocity hit the area on 8 and 9 December. Great damage and disruption was caused, but I was impressed and pleased at the way in which the electricity companies reacted. Of course there may be lessons to be learnt. If it is clear that additional precautionary measures should be put in place, we shall consider them when the information has been received, and we shall take into account the constructive suggestions of hon. Members.

I am pleased that the electricity supply of most customers has been reconnected, but I do not underestimate the hardship suffered by some members of the public. In general, they worked impressively to restore supplies or were patient and understanding in the light of this natural disaster. I do not feel that the Department has been negligent in keeping hon. Members informed or in ensuring that the electricity industry reacts in its traditional way of offering a service to the public of which we can all be proud.