§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
§ Order for Third Reading read.
7.25 pm§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although this is a short Bill, and essentially a technical one, it is nevertheless crucial to the new safety regime that is a follow-up to the important report by Lord Cullen after the Piper Alpha disaster. It should go without saying that the Government have always placed the greatest possible importance on implementing all the measures in the Bill as quickly as possible, and on implementing measures that go beyond the Bill. We said from the outset, and it has been generally recognised and accepted, that the Bill is only one part, although an important part, of the overall follow-up to Lord Cullen's report.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the positive approach taken by all hon. Members at every stage of the Bill. This was reflected on Second Reading and in Committee. Although the Bill was not much amended in Committee, a number of important points were raised during our sittings and I tried to answer them not only then but in correspondence subsequently. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Members who raised such points.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)The Minister will recollect that in Committee I raised the question of Cullen's recommendation 57. He kept his word and wrote to me but it would be useful if, either now or in his reply, he were to confirm that the Government are doing everything possible about the difficulties of gas getting into rigs, and particularly into accommodation in the light of Fulmar, about which he knows.
§ Mr. ForthWhen pressed by the hon. Gentleman, I gave him an interim reply. I put it that way because the stage that we have reached is that the operators have been asked about the specific and important point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which was a key safety concern arising from Cullen. We have had replies from all the operators, some of which did not arrive until recently. We are looking carefully through them to assess the extent to which the operators are making a proper response to the Cullen recommendations. The inspectors will now be asked, during their inspections, to follow up responses to see how far they are satisfactorily being implemented. Needless to say, they will want to look particularly at any responses that are less than satisfactory, if that turns out to be the case.
I should stress that, under existing regulations and requirements, the primary responsibility for this important work is that of the employers and operators, and that will be even more true as we produce regulations following on the Bill, as and when it becomes an Act. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, in part thanks to the point that he has raised, that the executive is aware of this matter and has it in hand.
I took the trouble just before the debate—I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise this point again—to satisfy myself yet again that the matter is well in hand. I am satisfied that, as this stage, it is. As and when any further information emerges, I undertake that we will let the hon. Gentleman know of the progress so that we can keep the 380 maximum pressure on the operators to fulfil their responsibilities following on the recommendations by Lord Cullen. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The Bill has reached this stage having been given relatively swift—by our standards—but proper scrutiny by the hon. Members who have shown interest in it. I hope and believe that the Bill has been the most correct and expeditious way of taking forward Lord Cullen's important recommendations. I am confident that, taken together, the measures in it—ranging from the new regulations that will now be put in place as speedily as possible to the increased penalties and many other activities related to the Bill but not necessarily contained in it—will provide a significantly higher quality of safety in offshore operations.
I hope that hon. Members will agree with that, and I thank all those who have taken part in every stage of the Bill for their positive and co-operative approach. I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading tonight.
§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)May I, unusually, place on record my thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill? Although there has not been total unanimity on all aspects of it, the Bill has the Opposition's support. As the Minister said, the fact that the matter has been dealt with so quickly in all its parliamentary stages, both here and in another place, is testimony to the importance that the whole House places in the need for the Bill to be translated swiftly into law.
The Bill arose out of a tragedy—the death of the victims of the Piper Alpha fire. One of the sadder features of health and safety legislation is that it often comes in the wake of disaster. To that extent, it may be the only final tribute that we can pay to the families of those who gave their lives on that tragic night. That fact serves to underscore the importance of ensuring that the Bill is enacted as soon a s possible.
One of the issues raised on Second Reading was the problem of the victimisation of people involved in health and safety matters. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that those involved in health and safety become the victims of various forms of blacklisting, and some of them have not been allowed back on board the offshore rigs. The Secretary of State and the Minister drew the attention of the House to a private Bill that was making its way through another place.
I understand that the Offshore Safety (Protection against Victimisation) Bill will receive its Third Reading tomorrow in another place and, all being well—I assume that there will be no attempt to block the Bill by maverick activity on either side of the House—that it will come into force at the same time as the Bill that we are now discussing. It is important to protect those who seek to raise health and safety matters and to give them the feeling that they can do their job and raise matters of importance without fear of losing their jobs. I appreciate the Minister's actions in securing suitable amendments to the Bill to ensure that it can do what the House intends.
As we have already heard, the Bill is part of a more general process. A considerable amount needs to be done by way of secondary legislation and we look forward to the regulations being brought before the House so that we can examine them and ensure that they are adequate to 381 implement all the Cullen recommendations. The Bill is a preparatory stage for that. It is important that the whole safety regime is introduced as soon as possible and that we have a guarantee that that will be done. To that extent, the passage of the Bill tonight will at least mean that the first part of the implementation of Cullen is well under way.
May I make a couple of points that concern some of my hon. Friends, especially those with constituents involved in the North sea works and those in the geographic proximity of those works? The first concerns the safety vessels. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is particularly interested in that matter and raised it in Committee. It is important that the Minister takes on board our concern that the safety vessels be brought under a health and safety regime that guarantees the safety of those working on them and ensures that they are also an integral part of the safety structure that surrounds the rigs.
Secondly, the Minister is well aware of the Opposition's view on penalties. Although we welcome the increased penalties for which the Bill provides, we are not entirely satisfied that the whole regime for penalties and the system of prosecution is adequate deterrence to those who flout health and safety at work, not just on offshore rigs but on land. We shall return to that issue on future occasions while we are on this side of the Chamber and, after the general election, when we are in a position to do something about it. We shall now expect the court to use those increased penalties to ensure that, where appropriate, those who are sadly not conscious of or are indifferent to the health and safety needs of their employees are deterred.
Although the Bill is small, it is none the less important. The short speeches that have been made tonight do not show that we view the matter with a lack of seriousness. We have had a thorough and useful debate in the Bill's early stages and it is now important that the Bill leaves this place and is translated into practice. Once again, I join the Minister in expressing my appreciation at how the House has handled the measure.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I am pleased that the Bill has come to the House for its remaining stages. A couple of weeks ago, I complained to the Leader of the House that he had not mentioned the Bill's remaining stages in his business statement that day, and I impressed on him the importance that many of my constituents place on the Bill. Constituents of mine were killed when that terrible tragedy overtook the Piper Alpha. My concern for the safety of the men out there on the vessels, rigs and platforms predates the Piper Alpha disaster.
The Minister has given me an assurance about the standby vessels by way of a letter dated 27 February. At the risk of causing more work for his officials, I should be grateful if he would send copies of his letter to all Members who served on the Standing Committee, because what he says is important to those of us with constituents on standby vessels. I am sorry to cause extra work, but I am sure that other Committee members would welcome a copy of that letter.
I have been deeply concerned for a long time about the inadequacy of the standby vessels, In Committee, I moved 382 an amendment which the Minister said was, in essence, unnecessary because clause I covered the safety needs and requirements of the crews of those vessels.
I have never forgotten the evidence given to a fatal accident inquiry in Aberdeen 12 or 13 years ago. The inquiry was brought about by the death of the mate of a standby vessel who fell overboard. Despite the fact that he was wearing what was deemed to be suitable gear, his comrades, the crew of the standby vessel, took about 30 minutes to bring him back on board. The reason was the vessel's unsuitability and its near-total lack of manoeuvrability. It was an old side trawler with a high seaboard. The man was in his fifties and, unfortunately, died of hypothermia as he was in the water much too long to survive. I knew of the man and knew some of the vessel's crew. I well remember their deep distress at their failure to bring their colleague back on board while there was still a chance of resuscitating him.
I welcome the Minister's letter. The third paragraph states:
Standby vessels will also be covered by the proposed safety case regulations as these relate to emergency procedures, and these will be subject to audit by HSE Inspectors. HSE has recruited experts in marine safety to advise on these matters.Lord Cullen commented on the unsuitability of many of the vessels in the fleet at the time. He severely criticised the lack of manoeuvrability of the Silver Pit, the crew of which behaved in an outstandingly heroic way in seeking to rescue the men from Piper Alpha. I think that I am correct in thinking that there is only one custom-built emergency standby vessel operating in the North sea.What role will the HSE play in the design of such vessels? In the light of what the Minister said about marine safety experts, will the HSE be consulted on the design of such vessels, particularly with regard to their manoeuvrability and their ability to withstand severe weather conditions while remaining on station? I hope that the Minister can answer that question tonight as, according to his letter, the marine safety experts are to be engaged, presumably on a consultancy basis, by the HSE. It is important to get the design of those vessels right.
The penultimate paragraph of the Minister's letter talks of the intention of the Health and Safety to ensure
that the requirements of the code will be enforced rigorously and in accordance with its timetable.I take that comment to mean that those unsuitable vessels will be phased out. As I said in Committee, some of them are already tied up. Some of them have already been scrapped, but there are still vessels in the North sea. God forbid that there should ever be another Piper Alpha tragedy, but we must ensure—especially those of us with constituents in the business—that, if a disaster overtakes a platform or a rig, the emergency services have the best resources and facilities to ensure the speedy discharge of the men from those platforms.Presumably, the marine safety experts will seek to be satisfied of the vessels' safety by testing them to see whether they meet the requirements of the code of practice and are in accordance with the timetable. Will disciplined and reasonable tests be carried out on the vessels and crews when training? Emergency evacuation procedures must be a necessary requirement of a training procedure.
I promised not to speak for long, and the Minister has given me some assurances on the standby vessels. I view them as important elements in the safety resources given to the men working on the platforms and rigs. Those men 383 must be satisfied that, if a terrible tragedy takes place, they have been given the means, through the legislation and the implementation of the Cullen report recommendations, to leave their platforms in a safe and reasonable manner. Standby vessels play an important role. Along with many of my hon. Friends, I shall continue to monitor the performance of those vessels and their crews as they go about their important safety work.
I welcome the Bill, and am glad that it has been brought to the Floor of the House so that it can receive Royal Assent. I believe that the legislation will bring some comfort to my constituents, a goodly number of whom are at work on those platforms and rigs on the continental shelf.
§ Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, South)As my hon. Friends have said, we welcome the Bill. It is the culmination of the legislative activity that became necessary as a direct consequence of the Piper Alpha tragedy. We have already seen its effects with the publication last week of the Health and Safety Executive consultative documents on safety cases. Progress cannot come quick enough for the Opposition. Some of the gaps in the legislation have already been mentioned by my hon. Friends. The Bill stems directly from the concern for safety that was exposed as a result of the Piper Alpha tragedy.
My interest in offshore safety goes back a wee bit further. I have never forgotten my first experience of offshore safety as a compensation lawyer in the north-east of Scotland. The first case that I had was that of an oil worker who worked on a drilling rig and was doused in acid solution. It was quite clear from the evidence and the witness statements that I took that the operators of the drilling rig had taken a calculation, and had weighed the cost of stopping drilling against the cost of the extra insurance premium. The victim had to wait 12 hours before anyone bothered to call a helicopter to take him back on shore to hospital. I am sure that many people have many such stories and experiences. That man was scarred for life as a direct result of failing to receive prompt and adequate treatment.
That incident occurred in the early days of the oil industry. The Piper Alpha disaster showed us that that attitude had not changed even by the late 1980s, as did the Ocean Odyssey disaster, which followed quickly on the heels of Piper Alpha. In the short space since the days of 1988, we have come a long way. I know from my contact with the oil industry that attitudes have changed dramatically, but we have a long way to go before the change filters through to the coal face.
There are still problems on drilling rigs as the discussions on Second Reading and in Committee showed when we spoke of issues such as victimisation and blacklisting. The Opposition expressed concern about proper protection for health and safety representatives and committee members. These matters need to be dealt with —and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) made clear, we intend to remedy them when we are on the Government Benches in a few weeks' time.
It is important to consider the gaps in the Bill, because they point to some of the problem areas in the North sea. There is a serious problem with penalties. In Committee, I made clear my particular concern arising directly out of the Piper Alpha disaster and its close scrutiny by the 384 Crown Office in Edinburgh. There is a gap between the very serious common law offence of culpable homicide and the statutory offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Bill does not fill that gap, and we have serious concerns about the middle ground.
We are still concerned about the problem of standby vessels, the supply of boats and the lack of a uniform approach. Just last week, I obtained the most up-to-date figures available from the Department of Transport on the ages of the boats. I am told that there are now 176 standby vessels in the North sea, 48 of which are 30 or more years old and 64 more than 25 years old. That is an indictment of the Government. There are still three vessels from the 1930s operating in the North sea—the Ewan, which was constructed in 1936; the Grampian Osprey, which was constructed in 1937; and the Cam Valiant, which was constructed in 1939.
The safety regime for the standby vessels should be part of the overall safety regime in the North sea and subject to the rigour of the scrutiny of the Health and Safety Executive and the regulations that apply to the remainder of the industry. While there is that deficiency, no amount of codes of guidance will fill the gap. That problem needs to be addressed.
There is a failure properly to deal with the role of industrial relations. We welcome the Minister's statement about the Bill currently in the other place, which we hope will manage to squeeze through the legislative programme before the general election. We have a strong view, which underpins the whole ethos of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, that industrial relations are an essential part of the safety system. We cannot have bad industrial relations and good safety—the two do not mix. We want that essential protection in place as part of the statutory regime. Certainly it is one area that needs major improvement.
That said, we welcome the Bill. We are all aware that important lessons have been learnt following the Piper Alpha tragedy. Those lessons are being applied not just in this country but throughout the world. We are well aware that we are a part of the focus of the remainder of the offshore oil industry. It is looking at us carefully and the Bill is an important step forward. I welcome it.
§ Mr. ForthOur brief debate has epitomised our proceedings throughout the different stages of the Bill. Anyone reading the record will get a sense of the common purpose that we have all shared in trying to ensure not only that something effective is done, but above all, to ensure that we get the Bill on the statute book—given the constraints that are either real or imaginary, depending on one's point of view. We do not want to take any risks with the Bill, and none has been taken.
As often before, a number of themes have run through the speeches this evening. The first theme, and I can deal with it readily, was the private Member's Bill originating in another place, which has now been amended and which will have its Third Reading tomorrow. All being well, it will come to this House soon thereafter. The Bill was mentioned by many hon. Members—not just Opposition Members, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who has a long-standing interest in the matter. I believe that I can say that the Government have 385 been able gladly to respond to the points raised both in this House and in other ways, both by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend.
We felt that there was an opportunity to take that Bill in the other place and amend it with the sponsor's agreement. We wish it well in this House. I am glad to give an undertaking that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind. It is a private Member's Bill and will therefore be subject to the vagaries of any such Bill. However, I envisage no reason why it should not find its way quickly through this House before there is any reason why the House would not be able to consider it at any great length. That is something in which we can all share satisfaction.
Several hon. Members mentioned the problem of standby vessels, if I can put it that way. It is a problem of which I am well aware. I said earlier during the passage of the Bill that it was a matter in which I had taken some interest, having realised that it was a vulnerable area in the issues surrounding Piper Alpha and the Cullen report. I think that I can reassure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). We have the code, which we wanted to put in place rapidly so that we could deal with the problem of standby vessels. As I have said previously, we had to balance the need to have an effective code with the practical reality of getting an acceptable standard of vessel available to operate in the North sea in standby mode.
We have imposed a series of cut-off points, which will tighten the requirement gradually but fairly rapidly, to ensure that the vessels are satisfactory for their purpose. The regulations that will flow from this Bill—which we hope will soon be an Act—will put in statutory form the requirements that currently exist only in that code. I hope that Labour Members will accept that that is the most rapid feasible way to deal with the problem. We are keeping a close eye on it.
The Department of Transport surveyors are working closely with the HSE to oversee the upgrading of the vessels. As I said in Committee, there must be that co-operation. Part of the responsibility rightly lies with the Department of Transport. The HSE is developing its involvement and expertise in this matter, partly by bringing in the experts to whom I referred in my letter to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. It will he part of that process, and very much in the interests of the operators, to ensure that those designing the vessels 386 work closely with the HSE and others to ensure that the design of the vessels will enable them to meet the regulations that will by then be in place. They will give effect to the requirements following the Cullen report.
That is part of the process, and it would be odd if the operators, in specifying the vessels, did not want to make absolutely sure that any future vessels met the regulatory requirements in every detail. I am sure that we can say with confidence that that will be the case.
A number of hon. Members mentioned penalties. I am aware that in Committee there was a feeling that we were not going far enough in extending the penalties available. I did not, and still do not, share that view. One of the problems—the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) touched on it—is that the House can lay down penalties in many areas of the law, but the judiciary, in its different forms, may or may not choose to exercise them to the full. That problem frustrates us all from time to time in many different areas.
Even now, the average penalty imposed does not come anywhere near the maximum available, never mind those increases that will be available when the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, I feel that I can say with confidence that the considerable increases in available penalties will be a great help. I shall go beyond that: the HSE and its inspectors always have available, for example, prohibition notices which, in effect, can impose a much greater penalty than the subsequent fine on an operator who is not adhering to the existing regulations. Beyond that, were a matter to be referred by a magistrates court, to the Crown court it would attract unlimited penalties. Therefore, I do not share the pessimism of Opposition Members about this. When the measures come into effect, they will prove most effective in dealing with the problems that have been identified.
Yet again, the House has shown itself to be united in its purpose in ensuring that this important Bill is on the statute book in time to be effective and to ensure that we deliver to those working in the most hazardous conditions of the North sea the maximum possible protection under the law. That has been our intention, and it remains the intention of the dedicated people in the Health and Safety Executive and the many others involved in ensuring and guaranteeing that maximum level of safety. I am glad to give whatever support I can to that. Again, I welcome the wide support given to the Bill by all hon. Members and I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.