Flixborough (Explosion)

Mr. John Ellis (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he
will make a statement on the explosion which occurred at Flixborough, near
Scunthorpe, on Saturday 1st June, and if he will order a public inquiry to be held.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

At about five o'clock on Saturday 1st June the factory of Nypro UK Limited, situated
in the village of Flixborough in North Lincolnshire, was shattered by a violent
explosion followed by a fire which raged all the following day and may not yet have
been extinguished.

Twenty-nine people are either dead or are missing and must be presumed dead.
There is severe damage to property near the scene, less serious damage over a
wide area, and minor damage has even been reported from many miles away.

All Members of the House will join me in sending a message of deep sympathy to
the relatives of the dead and missing. I should also like to add my sympathy to the
injured and to those who have been made homeless. A tribute must also be paid to
the emergency services in the area, including the voluntary services, whose efforts
to cope with the fire and destruction and to help the injured and homeless deserve
the highest praise.

The plant is owned jointly by the National Coal Board and the Dutch State Mining
Company. It uses a number of highly flammable raw materials of which a major one
is cyclohexane in the manufacture of caprolactam. This is a raw material used in the
manufacture of Nylon 6. This is one of a small number of plants of this type
throughout the world and the only one in this country. As there is already a shortage
of this material, there will be economic problems to be added to the death and
destruction which have resulted from the explosion.

Within two hours of the incident, locally-based members of the Factory Inspectorate
were on site and they were joined late on Saturday evening by a deputy chief
inspector from London. On Sunday the Under-Secretary and the Chief Inspector
visited the site. They were later joined by three experts from our London
headquarters and an electrical inspector. The Chief Inspector has now formed an

investigation team to gather the facts as soon as possible while memories are fresh.
The team will be under the control of the superintending inspector for the area and
he will be able to call on any help that he may need. By courtesy of the police, with
whom they are closely co-operating, they have formed a temporary headquarters in
the police building in Scunthorpe. For the moment access to the plant is still limited
by the fire, but witnesses are already being interviewed

. This investigation is proceeding with all speed, but I must decide in what
framework it should now be set. Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate has been
worried for some time about the escalation of risk associated with certain new
technologies. It is no secret that the Chief Inspector is on record in his annual
reports as expressing his own concern, and that concern is now bound to be widely
shared.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill which is now going through the House will
greatly assist in relation to this kind of development, since it will provide for the
licensing of some of these plants. Arrangements for close co-operation between
planning authorities and the new licensing controls will be within the scope of the
Health and Safety Commission when it is set up. To that extent I believe that the
new legislation will be a major contribution to control in the future, but it is not the
case that all efforts to deal with this problem have been allowed to wait upon
legislation.

In 1969 the Factory Inspectorate and the Department of the Environment set up a
joint working group the object of which was to look at the implications for planning
authorities of the sitting of factories which may involve a major hazard. As a result
of this an interdepartmental procedure enables planning authorities to call upon the
advice of Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate when considering applications for new
developments. This procedure is, I believe, developing in a way which may well
provide a pattern for the future.

I am sure that the whole House will agree that it is necessary to hold a full public
inquiry into these events, but hon. Members will also understand that the problems
which are raised by the explosion are not confined solely to the matters for which I
hold responsibility. I will urgently consult with my colleagues to decide the form the
inquiry should take and the terms of reference it should be given.

Decisions about this must clearly be taken as soon as possible, but I believe that the
House and the country will also appreciate that there is a double problemfirst,
how to ensure that the public inquiry is properly rigorous and far-reaching and,

second, to learn immediately, if we can, whether there are first aid measures to be
taken to prevent any repetition of this terrible tragedy elsewhere.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr John Ellis Mr John Ellis , Brigg and Scunthorpe

May I first pay my condolescences to all those who have been bereaved or injured in
this disaster? May I also thank the police, firemen, ambulance and hospital workers,
teams from the steelworks, and all voluntary associations typified by the Salvation
Army, who worked together so magnificently and well? May I also thank mayors and
chairmen, their executives and workers, including the new Humberside authority,
for the role that they played and are continuing to play? Last but not least, may I
pay tribute to my constitutents who, as I saw throughout a night of horror and
terror, refused to panic in the face of other dangers and rumours which fortunately
did not materialise?

May I now thank the Minister, and in particular the Under-Secretary, for his and his
Department's efforts? Will he add his representations to mine to the Prime Minister
on the need to improve organisation nationally and to have one senior Minister in
charge to co-ordinate at this level? Arrangements were plainly not adequate in this
respect.

Will my right hon. Friend immediately make representations to his ministerial

colleagues so that the homeless, those needing the help of social security, and so
on, can be speedily helped?

Regardless of the inquiry, will my right hon. Friend immediately review safety
procedures in similar chemical plants and look at the possibilities of restricting large
amounts of chemicals and gases to be processed and stored, with a view to
preventing any recurrence of tragedies on such a disastrous scale?

Finally, will my right hon. Friend agree that the cost in terms of grief and misery that
my constituents have had to suffer and are still suffering on the altars of wealth and
so-called technical achievement is too high for a so-called civilised society to bear,
and will he now concentrate his and the Government's attention on ensuring the
safety and well-being of the community and ending this rape of the environment?

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

I am sure that the whole House appreciates the strength of the emotion which my
hon. Friend shows on behalf of his constituents in the horror which he and they have
had to face over the past few days.

I hope that arrangements will be adequate to deal with the immediate situation, but
if there are any ways in which we can improve them we will seek to do so. I hope to
proceed to my hon. Friend's constituency with him later in the week to see whether
we can add anything to what has been already done by those who have done so
much to deal with the immediate problem.

I think that most of the other questions my hon. Friend put to me were dealt with in
my main answer. Certainly, there is no question in our minds but that there must be
a full public inquiry of the most far-reaching character. Nothing can be hidden in a
matter of this character. However, hon. Members will appreciate that, to have the
knowledge that we need to deal with the immediate situation, we cannot wait for
the full inquiry in order to take full action on these matters and we will be seeking to
do so in the best way that we can. We will also seek to co-ordinate as best we can
the social services and the health and education services to assist in dealing with
the problems.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Geoffrey Howe Mr Geoffrey Howe , East Surrey

Will the Secretary of State accept that the whole House will join him in extending
very deep sympathy to the relatives of those who have died and to those who have
been made homeless and also in extending gratitude and praise to those in the
emergency services and voluntary organisations who have brought so much help so
quickly?

Will the Secretary of State also accept that I for my part follow the reasoning behind
his decision to separate the inquiry into two halves, but there is widespread anxiety
to get at the cause of this incident as quickly as possible through the investigation

team which is now at work and, in particular, to exclude any suggestion of sabotage
if that is the right conclusion?

In the light of that investigation, will the Secretary of State consider also whether
the interdepartmental procedure he described which enables consultation to take
place ought not as an early step to be tightened to require consultation when
developments of this kind are in hand?

Can the Secretary of State give the House some indication of how quickly it will be
possible to repair the economic damage from this disaster?

Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that I am sure the whole House will accept
the decision to establish a full public inquiry into the matter? Because of the
breadth of multiplicity of interests involved, will he give further consideration to the
establishment of an inquiry comparable to that established into the Aberfan disaster
under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act which combines authority with fairness and
enables us to draw the lessons which should be learned for the whole of society
from such a disaster?

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

To take the last question first, we will consider every possible form of inquiry and
see which we think is best suited to deal with this case. We do not exclude the
proposal made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman for an inquiry under the
Tribunals of Inquiry Act.

It is not possible for us to estimate the amount of economic and other damage
which has been done until at least we are able to get on to the site. That has not
been possible yet. Therefore, it is not possible properly to answer some of the
questions which right hon. and hon. Members and the country obviously wish to
have answered. It would be unwise for me to try to answer some of them before we
have further information.

As for making arrangements under the interdepartmental procedure obligatory

rather than voluntarynot that they are voluntary in present circumstances, as I

understand itthe Health and Safety at Work Bill, which is now in Standing
Committee, and even more so the regulations that can be made under that Bill, can
ensure that these procedures can be made much tighter and much more effective
than anything we have had in the past. This is one of the main purposes of the Bill.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Cyril Smith Cyril Smith , Rochdale

Will the Secretary of State note that the Members on the Liberal Bench wish to be
associated with the expressions of sympathy to relatives and with the expressions
of thanks for the excellent job done by the emergency services?

Can the Secretary of State give the House any indication of when this factory was
last inspected by the inspectorate? Secondly, can he give us an assurance that the
inquiry which he will set up will include within its ranks people who are technically
qualified in this field? Finally, can he say whether the company involved had given a
statement to its employees of the risks under which they were working such as the
company would now be required to give once Clause 3(2) of the Health and Safety
at Work Bill becomes law?

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

An inspection was carried out in November of last year and it was conducted by
those in the chemicals inspectorate who were fully qualified to do so. However, I
think it would be wrong of me to comment on what was said at that time and to say
what might be the views expressed in any inquiry now on the report which the
inspector made then.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Ian Wrigglesworth Mr Ian Wrigglesworth , Teesside Thornaby

The Minister will be aware that on Teesside we have one of the largest chemical
complexes in the whole of Europe and, indeed, the largest chemical complex in the
United Kingdom. Is he aware that in 1969 two men were killed in a tragic explosion
which occurred in the ICI nylon factory there when cyclohexane was ignited? I am
sure that the Minister understands the terrible anxiety felt on Teesside as a result of
the tragic explosion at Flixborough. Will he insure that chemical companies such as
ICI make clear to the residents in areas like Teesside exactly what risk there is in the
plant, and make it clear to my constituents and those in the whole of the
neighbourhood the dangers which are present, because there is a strong feeling
that the company has not made available all the information which it should have
done? I shall be grateful if he can given an assurance that companies will make this
information available so that the residents are made aware of the dangers which are
present.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

Of course, I understand the anxieties which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members
have expressed because of this terrible explosion, and the fears which may exist in
other areas. I should emphasise to my hon. Friend that the process on Teesside is
different from that which was in operation here and, as I said in my statement
indeed, I said it for this purposethis is the only plant of this type operating in this
country. However, I appreciate that that does not remove people's anxieties. One of
our purposes immediately will be to see what immediate steps can be taken in other
cases to try to learn more of what happened. But that policy to some extent
depends on inquiries which we are able to make.

As for the more general question which my hon. Friend raised about requiring firms
to make much more public what they propose to do and the implications of what
they are doing, I believe that all those desirable requirements are covered by the
Health and Safety at Work Bill, and certainly the passage of that Bill and the
regulations which will accompany it will mean that much fuller information will have
to be given in the future, whatever may have been the situation in particular cases
in the past.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Bernard Braine Bernard Braine , Essex South East

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what happened at Flixborough has wide and
urgent impli- cations in other areas where there is already too great a concentration
of high fire risk installations, such as Canvey Island where 30,000 of my constituents
are hemmed in by massive oil, gas and chemical storage, including 1,200 tons of
cyclohexane, the material used at Flixborough, and all of which is within a few
hundred yards of people's homes? Yet, on top of this, my constituents are being
required to accept two new oil refineries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that successive Governments have consistently
rejected the opposition of local authorities to this situation, and have ignored the
warnings that I have uttered in this House about these unacceptable risks to my
constituents? Is he further aware that his colleague the Secretary of State for the
Environment in the last fortnight has refused an inquiry into the totality of risk to
our Thamesside communities? May I ask him, therefore, whether the inquiry that he
will set up will be wide enough to take into account the matters which I have raised?
Will he also ask the Prime Minister to take a grip on the situation and order that
these two refineries cease building until such time as the findings of the inquiry are
known?

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

The hon. Gentleman naturally expresses the anxieties of his constituents on the
subject, as did my hon. Friend and as many other hon. Members may wish to do. It
is only natural that they should seek this opportunity to do so. I am not in any sense
deprecating that fact. I only say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I understand it, it is
a different process from that which was carried out in the constituency of my hon.
Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). It is a storage provision in
the hon. Gentleman's constituency and not the manufacturing process which was
involved in this explosion; so there is a distinction. However, when the hon.
Gentleman asks whether all the matters which he has mentioned will be covered in
the terms of reference of the inquiry which we are proposing, that is precisely one of
the reasons why I say to him that we must consider how wide those terms of
reference are, but we must also see how we can do this so that we can learn as
quickly as possible from this explosion whilst carrying the matter further.

The hon. Gentleman also touched upon the amenity aspects, which are extremely
important. These matters will be greatly affected and, we believe, greatly improved

by the proper operation of the Health and Safety Commission which will be set up
under the Health and Safety at Work Bill.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of John Prescott John Prescott , Kingston upon Hull East

Will my right hon. Friend accept that I, too, wish to identify myself with the
commiserations which have been extended to the relatives and with the tributes
which have been paid to the emergency services on Humberside for their efforts
this weekend?

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this incident has caused great anxiety in
my constituency, and particularly among those on the north bank who were
affected by the explosion? They are concerned at the possibility of the new
technology creating even greater explosions than were envisaged before. We have
other plants engaged in this new level of technology on the north and south banks
of the Humber, concentrated into small areas two or three miles from huge housing
estates. Would my right hon. Friend consider looking at this matter in the short term
and will he issue a reassuring statement because of the great anxiety felt by many
in the area? I realise that this is a difficult thing to do, but we shall have to make
some statement on those lines to reassure people about the further possibilities of
explosions with this new type of technology.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said, but it is a general problem
and, as I indicated in my original statement, the Chief Inspector of Factories has
himself already issued warnings about some of the developments of these new
technologies. What has occurred is bound to mean that the whole country must pay
more attention to his warnings.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Leon Brittan Mr Leon Brittan , Cleveland and Whitby

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in spite of the inter-departmental
procedures which have been referred to, there is considerable anxiety in areas such
as that near ICI Wilton, where processes of this kind are already in operation? Will
he accept that the only way of effectively allaying those anxieties is to ensure that
the terms of reference of the inquiry are sufficiently wide to investigate the safety
procedures in operation at plants other than the one in question and to make
recommendations relevant to plants everywhere in the country?

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

I understand the representations which the hon. Gentleman is making and which
have been made by others. I am certainly not proposing to limit the terms of
reference of the inquiry before we have even considered exactly what they should
be. Several of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised are now being
debated in the House of Commons in preparation for the Bill which is being put on
the statute book to deal precisely with some of these questions.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Harry Selby Mr Harry Selby , Glasgow Govan

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, while conveying our sympathy to
all concerned, consideration will be given to people who are still living in the area,
whose houses have been damaged and who need compensation for that damage?
Is he aware that following the great storm in Glasgow five-and-a-half years ago
people are still getting demand notes for their share of the repairs?

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

My hon. Friend raises the question of compensation, and, of course, many people in
the stricken area are bound to be asking the same question. I understand that the
firm issued a statement yesterday in which it said: "A committee has been formed
to take urgent action regarding compensation to all who have been affected. The
Management wish to state today that the company will fully meet its
commitments." I should add that the Government also will have to have
consultations with the firm about the composition of that committee and how the
work is to be done. Certainly that matter is being dealt with.

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr David Crouch Mr David Crouch , Canterbury

I think it is appropriate that I should declare an interest, in that I have a

considerable interest in the chemical industry and synthetic fibre industry. May I ask
the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that there is a full appreciation in
his Department, in the Home Office, in the Department of Industry, in the fire
services, the local authorities and all the other authorities which are concerned
when factories are built that, while there are dangerous processes in the chemical
industry, those dangers are known, the safety precautions exist, and that as the
economic scale is enlarged in those plants so the scale of danger is enlarged? Is the
right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that knowledge is fully appreciated in all the
departments which I have mentioned?

Link to this speech In context Individually

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

I am not sure that I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question in the terms in which
he put it. But this terrible tragedy shows that the safety precautions are quite
insufficient, and that much more must be done about it. The public inquiry will be
one way by which we shall hope to discover methods by which we can assist that
process. However, I feel that we are all entitled to emphasise in the House that,
even before this terrible tragedy had happened, the fact of the passage of the
Health and Safety at Work Bill through Parliament is evidence that we realised that
insufficient was being done. I commend to the House once again what the Chief
Inspector of Factories has himself said on this subject. He has given warnings to the
country, and our job is to make sure that those warnings are translated into
practical effect.

FLIXBOROUGH EXPLOSION (INQUIRY'S REPORT)

HC Deb 12 May 1975 vol 892 cc31-43
31

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)

I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the Report of the
Court of Inquiry into the Flixborough Disaster. My right hon. Friend deeply regrets
not being able to make this statement himself, but I know the House will well
understand the reasons why he cannot do so and, equally, why there should be no
delay in making a statement to the House on this matter.

My right hon. Friend set up the court of inquiry under Section 84 of the Factories
Act 1961 on 27th June 1974 and appointed Mr. Roger Parker, QC to be its Chairman.
The report, which was presented to my right hon. Friend on 11th April 1975, is now
available and copies are in the Vote Office. I am sure that the House will not wish
me, in presenting this report, to recapitulate the tragic events of 1st June 1974.

The court concludes that the cause of the explosion was the ignition of a massive
vapour cloud formed by the escape of cyclohexane under conditions of high
pressure and temperature consequent upon the rupture of an inadequately
supported 20 inch diameter dog-leg pipe which had been temporarily installed
between two expansion bellows as part of a bypass assembly to bridge a gap
following the removal of one of a train of reactors. The integrity of a well-designed
32
and constructed plant had thereby been destroyed.

Although other hypotheses were presented the court came firmly to the
conclusion that the disaster resulted from the failure of this 20 inch assembly and
that no prior explosion or other mechanical failure occurred.

The report says that: "the fact that the bridging of the gap presented engineering
design problems was not appreciated by anyone at Nypro, with the result that there
was no proper design study, no proper consideration of the need for support, no

safety testing, no reference to the relevant British Standard and no reference to the
bellows manufacturer's Designers Guide"." As a result of these omissions the
assembly was, in the court's judgment, liable to rupture at pressures well below
safety valve pressure and at, or below, operating temperatures.

My right hon. Friend asked the court to report on any immediate lessons to be
learned from the disaster. It has identified a number and makes recommendations
for dealing with many of them. These recommendations require careful scrutiny and
all industryespecially the chemical and petroleum industriesshould as a matter
of urgency consider them carefully and take steps to implement them.

My right hon. Friend has referred the recommendations in the report to the
Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission who has already discussed both
immediate and long-term implications in a meeting of the commission and with the
Health and Safety Executive. The chairman has assured me that the commission will
take full responsibility for pursuing the action needed to follow up all
recommendations of the report. He is confident that the legal powers in the Health
and Safety at Work Act 1974, which has come into force since the Flixborough
explosion, provides an adequate framework for action now seen as necessary on
immediate issues or long term developments. The Health and Safety at Work Act
provides powers to enable any immediate remedial measures to be required. The
Act provides very wide powers for the making of regulations, including licensing of
premises, processes or individuals where appropriate and the control of individual
factories.

33
The report contains a number of recommendations of a general nature on wide
issues such as management structure, the maintenance of plant integrity, the layout and the siting of plant. These are issues which require further study.

The commission has asked for the advice of the Committee of Experts on Major
Hazards which it set up last year and which has already started its deliberations.
The chairman of the commission is meeting the committee next week to put the
report to it. Among the questions it will consider is the conditions which would be
necessary if licensing was required in special circumstances. The committee is
already considering how the present arrangements for giving advice to planning
authorities on industrial risks can be improved.

There are a number of more immediate lessons to be learned from the inquiry's
report. The commission has already discussed these and agreed action. Since the

explosion resulted from the failure of a part, albeit a modified part, of the plant
containing flammable material under pressure, the report directs attention to the
crucial need for the utmost care in maintaining the integrity of such systems.
Therefore, inspectors of factories have been instructed to reinforce the advice on
this point which has already been given. This follows up the action started when the
Chief Inspector wrote to manufacturers 10 days after the Flixborough explosion.

It would be appropriate to issue regulations to cover these pressure systems and

the commission has instructed the executive to pursue urgently the action to
prepare such regulations. In the meantime inspectors of the executive have powers
under the Act to enforce their advice. Immediate advice will be given by the
inspectorate on other relevant matters as, for instance, the manufacture and supply
of inerting material. Technical advice on metallurgical phenomena will be provided
to industry.

The commission has instructed the executive to enter into consultations

immediately with appropriate bodies representing local authorities on the
responsibility for control of the storage of large quantities of flammable materials.

This is not a complete list, but I think it is enough to show that the commission
34
has already tackled with determination the many problems to which this report
has directed attention, and that action based on the report will be carefully
considered and resolutely pursued.

The House will, I am sure, wish me to thank the chairman and members of the
court for their report and also those who assisted the courtespecially those
scientists and engineers whose research in the service of the court has led to an
increase of our knowledge of the technical problems involved in these large-scale
chemical plants.

Mr. Madel

I am sure the House is grateful to the Minister for his lengthy statement and for
the fact that the Government have not hesitated to make a statement now that they
have had the report of the Court of Inquiry into the Flixborough Disaster.

May I ask three short questions? First, when will the advice from the Committee
of Experts on Major Hazards be available, particularly on the layout and siting of
plant and the advice to planning authorities?

The Minister referred to the executive being instructed to pursue urgently the
need to prepare regulations relating to the problems of pressure systems. May we
know when the Government expect such regulations to be published?

Third, will the Government ensure that in the consultations between the
executive and the local authorities on the question of storage of large quantities of
flammable materials the public will have an opportunity to make their views known?
As the Minister is aware, there are certain parts of the country where there is acute
public anxiety about the storage of flammable materials.

Mr. Walker

We are all anxiously awaiting an early report from the Committee of Experts, but
the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand, I hope, that that will inevitably
now be delayed because of the necessity for that committee to have a full scrutiny
of the recommendations of the court of inquiry. None the less, I am anxious that we
should be able to make a report as soon as possible. I can say that the Committee
of Experts established four sub-committees which are expected to report shortly to
the main committee.

35
With regard to regulations on pressure systems, I was astonished to learn that
apparently pressurised processes such as this process with which the report
concerns itself are apparently not at present the subject of regulations and statutory
control. We now have the powers under the new Act to make regulations. I am
asking the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to deal with this as a
matter of some urgency, but the general powers under the Act enable us to have
statutory control and statutory means of enforcement that we did not have
previously.

With regard to the public involvement in consultations which will take place on
the storage of flammable liquids, these consultations will take place with the local
authorities, and to that extent there will be public participation.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to reflect on what he has said and to draw
his views to the attention of the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission.

Mr. John Ellis

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the report says that if the recommendations are
carried out, the risk of a similar incident will be lessened? Will he also confirm that
the report draws attention to the fact that there was insufficient mechanical
engineering expertise available in the considerations which led to the fitting of the
20-inch diameter dogleg pipe which subsequently collapsed, and also the serious
fact that the post of the works engineer was vacant at the time?

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must remedy a situation in which, however
safe the basic design, it will be of no avail if adaptation and repair are not subject to
the same stringent considerations as are applicable to the basic design? Does he
agree that if this is not done, the tragedy which overtook so many of my
constituents and, I understand, one of his, is inevitable?

Finally, will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work which the Transport and
General Workers' Union and other unions did in representing their workers at the
hearing? Does my hon. Friend also recognise that they have incurred considerable
costs, and will he give sympathetic consideration to making a contribution towards
meeting those costs?

36

Mr. Walker

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising my constituency interest. I am

sure the House will want me to pay tribute to the way in which he has assiduously

pursued the interest of his constituents since the disaster occurred, in connection
with the various consideration involved.

Paragraph 226 of the report, in the summary, says: "We" that is the court
"use the phrase 'already remote' advisedly for we wish to make it plain that we
found nothing to suggest that the plant as originally designed and constructed
created any unacceptable risk. The disaster was caused wholly by the coincidence
of a number of unlikely errors in the design and installation of a modification. Such a
combination or errors is very unlikely ever to be repeated." The report goes on to
say: "Our recommendations should ensure that no similar combination occurs again
and that even if it should do so, the errors would be detected before any serious
consequences ensued." Likewise there are paragraphs in the report, in particular
paragraphs 209 and 210, which follow the point which my hon. Friend made about
the way in which the integrity of the plant was destroyed by the introduction of this
modification, and the court recommends "that any modifications should be
designed, constructed, tested and maintained to the same standards as the original
plant"," which is the point which my hon. Friend stressed and for which he says
there is obviously a need. In my main statement I said that these recommendations
and the lessons to be learned were the subject of consideration by the Health and
Safety Commission and its executive.

The report draws attention to the fact that the key post of works engineer was
vacant at the crucial time and that apparently none of the senior personnel of the
company was capable of recognising the existence of what was in essence a simple
engineering problem, let alone of solving it.

I join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the work done by the trade unions in
representing their members during the proceedings before the court, and the work
which was done by the legal representatives of those unions. As to the
37
question of costs, the report makes reference to this issue in the summary, and
lays no obligation on Nypro, in view of the commitments already undertaken by the
company, to meet any further legal costs. In the light of that conclusion of the court,
it is for the Government to give further consideration to what they can do with
regard to the costs incurred by the unions.

My hon. Friend will know that during the proceedings of the court the trade
unions involved wrote on this subject to my right hon. Friend. Clearly, a decision had
to be deferred pending the outcome of the court of inquiry. In the light of the court's
recommendation, we shall have to give careful thought to the representations made
by the unions.

Several hon. Members

rose

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is obviously an important matter, and I wish to say this to the House:
it is not often that I have control over the matters put down for business, but next
week on the day when we rise for the Whitsun Recess I shall look favourably on an
application for a short debate on this matter. Today, I remind the House, we are to
debate the Second Reading of the New Towns BillI already have the names of
about 12 hon. Members who represent new towns, all with cast-iron reasons for
wishing to speakand we have other matters to deal with before we come to the
New Towns Bill. Therefore, if the House will allow me, I shall call only one or two
more hon. Members to put questions. I repeat that I shall look favourably at any
suggestion for an Adjournment debate on this matter on Friday week.

Sir Bernard Braine

Will the Under-Secretary of State agree that this terrible disaster has wide
implications for all communities which are obliged to live close to concentrations of
oil, chemical and gas installations, and that the sooner the lessons of Flixborough
are learned the better? With regard to the implications, is the hon. Gentleman
aware, for example, that if it be trueI have not yet seen the reportthat at
Flixborough an underground pipe was fractured by an aboveground explosion, the
implications of that for places such as Canvey Island, where the main United
Kingdom gas grid and the main United Kingdom oil pipeline pass in parallel between
a sea
38
wall and a proposed new refinery, are extremely serious? May we be assured,
therefore, that the Committee of Experts on Major Hazards will look specifically at
our situation on Canvey Island?

Mr. Walker

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's continuing concern about the situation on

Canvey Island, and we acknowledge the basis of his concern there. I regret that I
cannot answer his specific question about the fracture of an underground pipe at
Flixborough, and I am not sure that it is dealt with in the report. No doubt, the hon.
Gentleman will carefully examine what the report says. As regards problems which
might arise in connection with coping with the possible fracture of underground
pipes in the hypothetical situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I think that
there are relevant recommendations in the report. For example, it is said in
paragraph 222: "In any area where there is a major disaster hazard a disaster plan
for the co-ordination of" all the relevant services "is desirable"" and the court
goes on to suggest that this problem and the need to give further consideration to it
should be drawn to the attention of the special committee. There is a relevant
reference to be found also in paragraph 194.

However, I stress to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the crucial need is
to take all necessary steps to prevent an incident of this kind occurring in the first
place. We must seek to avoid the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers by
following up the recommendations here which, I suggest, if they are fully
implemented, will minimise the likelihood of such a disaster occurring.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend agree that the lesson of the Flixborough disaster is that there
ought to be a continuing high level of inspection by the Factory Inspectorate? Is my
hon. Friend satisfied that the proposed reorganisation, which, as he knows, has been
bitterly opposed by the inspectorate in one of the trial areas at Slough, will lead to
the maintenance of such high levels of inspection? Second, does my hon. Friend
agree that the Flixborough disaster shows that the Health and Safety at Work Act
1974
39
needs toughening so that absolute duties are not weakened by codes of practice
or qualified duties?

Third, what hope can my hon. Friend give the House that the new regulations on
pressure systems which he mentioned will be produced with alacrity, since the
Health and Safety Commission has signally failed to produce the trade union safety

committee regulations in conjunction with the implementation of the Act on 1st

April, and does not my hon. Friend agree that the institution of trade union safety
committees would lead to the sort of scrutiny which would prevent further
Flixboroughs?

Mr. Walker

My hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions, and because of his

propensity to misunderstand or mishear what I say at this Box, I shall spell out my
answers carefully, if I may. My hon. Friend returned yet again to the question of
reorganisation. I regret that he chose to misinterpret my reply to him at Question
Time on the last occasion when my Department was answering Questions. Perhaps
he will do me the courtesy of looking at the correction in Hansard to correct his
misleading article in the Tribune newspaper last week. As regards the Factory
Inspectorate, I gave a full Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for
Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) last week, and I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member
for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) looks carefully at it.

My hon. Friend knows full well that the Health and Safety at Work Act was not in
operation at the time of the Flixborough disaster. It became fully operative only on
1st April this year, whereas the Flixborough disaster occurred in June 1974. Of
course, there are many lessons to be learned. Those lessons are spelled out in the
report, and we expect the Health and Safety Commission and its executive to have
full regard to them. As regards the qualifications in the Health and Safety at Work
Act, in connection with "reasonably practicable", I urge my hon. Friend to look at the
evidence submitted by Dr. Marshall, the safety adviser to the Transport and General
Workers' Union, which is referred to in paragraph 195 of the report of the court of
inquiry. Dr. Marshall having stated that "hazard analysis recognises that hazard
cannot be entirely eliminated and it is necessary to
40
concentrate resources on those risks which exceed a specific value"." On my hon.
Friend's final point, I cannot add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for
Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). We recognise the need for urgently making
regulations regarding pressure systems, and we have asked the Health and Safety
Commission to urge upon the executive the need to produce them quickly.

Since the Act has been fully operative only from 1st April, and the executive was
established on 1st January, I think that it was rather unfair of my hon. Friend to
expect the commission and the executive to move with excessive haste. These are

early days yet. There have been many meetings of the commission, and, as for
delay in producing the regulations on work safety representatives, I share my hon.
Friend's anxiety to get these put before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Dalyell

Will my hon. Friend take it that many of us who represent areas with huge
chemical complexes within them take the attitude "There but for the grace of God
go we", and we are very sympathetic? On one specific issue, did I understand my
hon. Friend to say that there has been no proper design study? If that is so, could
not a similar incident take place elsewhere? Is it a general problem? If it is, it is
astonishing news.

Mr. Walker

I am not sure that I follow my hon. Friend's question about a design study. The
report points out that the plant as originally designed and constructed did not
create any unacceptable risk, and the court said in paragraph 225 that "The
integrity of a well designed and constructed plant was destroyed."

Mr. Henderson

In common with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I am concerned
about chemical plants in my area, and an ammonia plant, in particular. Will the hon.
Gentleman take it that all of us who are involved in these matters are now
extremely concerned since the ghastly disaster at Flixborough? Believing as he does
that prevention is better than cure, will he discuss as a matter of urgency with the
Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland
whether local authorities are sufficiently
41
well staffed to be able to deal with planning applications from chemical and oil
companies, and whether some interim guidelines could be issued by the
Department to ensure that the design of any new plant conforms to the very high
standards that I am sure the Minister wishes to see?


Mr. Walker

I recognise the hon. Member's legitimate concern. That concern is shared by the
whole House. In 1972 a circular was issued by the Department of the Environment
along the lines of the action for which the hon. Member is calling, stressing to local
authorities the crucial need to have the fullest consultation with the Factory
Inspectorate, as it was then, and the Health and Safety Executive as it is now, where
there are applications for installations that might cause a major hazard.

The circular defines what constitutes a major hazard and gives advice to the local
authorities about steps they should take. I understand that since then, and more
particularly since the Flixborough disaster, the process for consultation between the
inspectorate and the local authorities has been strengthened. I hope that the hon.
Member will have regard to the passage in my statement which stressed that the
Health and Safety Executive has been instructed to enter into further urgent
consultations with local authorities.

Mr. Wyn Roberts

Will the Minister give an assurance that he will at least consider publishing any
reports that the Committee of Experts on Major Hazards may make? Is he aware
that there are no fewer than 184 major hazard sites containing more than 100 tons
of liquefied petroleum gas in this country, 23 of them in Wales, and one in my
constituency? They are causing deep concern. Is it not time that the Government at
least prohibited in future the siting of such installations in urban areas, and
considered removing those already located in urban areas to places of greater
safety?

Mr. Walker

I have said that the question of siting is being carefully considered by the
Committee of Experts. He asked whether we would consider publishing the

committee's eventual report. That is primarily a matter for the Health and Safety
Commission. I shall draw his remarks to the committee's attention, but
42
I must stress that any idea of a report listing the various hazard sites and the
degree of hazard is not on. That would be to misunderstand the purpose and
function of the Committee of Experts which is to draw up guidelines and other
general advice and guidance.

Mr. Greville Janner

Is it correct that the crux of this whole matter is that the person who designed the
temporary structure was not professionally qualified to do that job? If that is so, and
if regulations cannot be made for some time, is the question of prosecution under
existing law being considered? If not, will my hon. Friend in the meantime warn
employers that even without regulations there is plenty of power under Section 2 of
the Act to prosecute, and that this power will be used to save lives?

Mr. Walker

On the first part of the question, it would be inadvisable for me in ally way to
depart from the words of the report, and hence of the court of inquiry. It says in the
summary that "The blame for the defects in the design, support and testing of the
by-pass must be shared between the many individuals concerned, at and below
Board level but it should be made plain that no blame attaches to those whose task
was fabrication and installation. They carried out the work, which they had been
asked to do, properly and carefully. As between individuals, it is not for us to
apportion blame." It would be unwise for me to go beyond that.

As for prosecution, I understand that under the law as it was at the time of the
disaster there were inadequate grounds on which to base a criminal prosecution.
However, my hon. and learned Friend is correct in pointing out that the new Act,
particularly in Section 2, enormously widens the scope. I am advised by the director
of the Health and Safety Executive that had this disaster occurred at a time when
the provisions of the new Act were operative and effective, he would not have
hesitated to go for a prosecution on indictment.

It would be unwise for me to go beyond that, since the inquest on those who died
was adjourned and will be resumed. It is not for me, notwithstanding what I said
about non-prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive, in any way to preclude
the possibility of the papers being referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions as
a result of the findings.

FLIXBOROUGH INQUIRY

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I will, with permission, Mr.
Speaker, make a statement about the Flixborough inquiry. I said in my statement on
3rd June that I would set up a public inquiry which would deal with all the issues
raised by the Flixborough disaster. I have come to the conclusion that this could
best be done in the following way. First, we shall set up an inquiry under the
Factories Act to establish the causes 1737 and circumstances of the disaster; and
shall ask for advice about any immediate lessons which we can learn from what
happened. I have asked Mr. Parker, QC, to serve as Chairman, and Dr. Pope, ViceChancellor of Aston University, to be Deputy Chairman. The following people have
agreed to serve as members: Dr. Davidson, Reader in Chemical Engineering,
Cambridge University. Mr. Bill Simpson, Head of the Foundries Section of the AUEW. I
shall ask this court of inquiry to report as quickly as it can, consistent with a full
examination of what occurred at Flixborough. The work on site in connection with
the investigation which was instituted by the Factory Inspectorate immediately
following the explosion is now virtually completed, though metallurgical and
chemical investigations are continuing and will take some time to complete. The
information and evidence so far gathered will now be given to the members of the
inquiry. The investigation teamand all the resources of the inspectoratewill be
available to make such further inquiries as the members of the inquiry think
desirable. Secondly, this disaster has naturally raised public concern about the risk
of similar disasters at other plants of this kind. The whole matter will have to be
taken up as soon as possible by the Health and Safety Commission to be set up
shortly under the legislation now before Parliament. This was specifically
recommended by the Robens Committee. However, in order that an immediate start
can be made on the examination of these problems, I have, after consultation with
those of my colleagues who have a responsibility in these matters, decided to set
up an expert committee to begin work on the nature of the hazards presented by
these large-scale plants and on the ways in which people who work in them, or live
near them, can be safeguarded and reassured. I shall ask the committee to report in
due course to the Health and Safety Commission so that Ministers can be advised
on what further steps need to be taken, including the licensing of plants which
present particular hazards. The expert committee will later this year have the full
resources of the Health 1738 and Safety Executive to be established under the new
legislation to help it with its work. But we do not intend to wait upon the new
legislation. I am establishing immediately within my Department an organisation
specifically concerned with these major hazards; and the Home Secretary has

agreed with me that we should at a very early date bring together within this
organisation the Explosives Inspectorate and people from my own Factory
Inspectorate. This will ensure a unified organisation to deal with these problems.

Mr. Prior: May I put two questions to the Secretary of State? First, as soon as the
Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill receives the Royal Assent, will he be able to
announce the members of the Health and Safety Commission, and can we get on
with that quickly? My second question relates to the expert committee. Will it be
able to pay visits to similar plants where hazards are expected? If it willand I think
it shouldwill it be able to consult local residents to discuss with them their fears
about these plants? I think that this would go a long way to allay the fears which
may be felt by a lot of local people near these plants.

Mr. Foot: Under the legislation which is going through the House we shall proceed as
swiftly as possible to the establishment of the Health and Safety Commission in
order to get it into operation. I understand that it will come into operation in
October, and immediately after the Bill is through we will proceed to select those
who are to serve on the commission. The expert committee, of course, will be in
operation before that. I hope that it will be set up within a fortnight and in operation
in four to six weeks. It will be able to visit neighbouring areas as well as going to the
places themselves which may come within this list.

Mr. Crouch: What thought has the right hon. Gentleman given to the question of
where responsibility lies for determining what is a hazard of this nature? Does it lie
with the expert committee? Is it for the local authority to find out? Is it for the
company to decide what that hazard is? Sometimes a chemical hazard can be
relatively limited on a small scale, 1739 but magnified it can become a real hazard
to the population.

Mr. Foot: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. The expert committee and later the
commission will have full responsibility for these matters. It would not be a question
solely of relying on what the companies might say about it.

Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a factory in my constituency,
known as Allied Colloids (Manufacturing) Co. Ltd., which makes chemicals? Its
existence, because of the Flixborough disaster, causes a great deal of concern and
apprehension to my constituents living around that factory. Will evidence be taken
about that factory before the inquiry which is to be held?

Mr. Foot: I am sure the inquirynot the Flixborough inquiry but the other inquiry
will be able to take evidence of that kind. I am sure that long before that time my
hon. Friend will have sent details of information he may have on the subject to my
Department and we will look into the matter immediately.

Mr. Torney: Details have already been sent.

Mr. Foot: If the information is already there I am sure we are already inquiring into it.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to North Lincolnshire.
When he speaks to the expert committee, will he consider very seriously the
problem of Immingham, in the next constituency, where the people are very worried
about this sort of disaster? Will he put on record our thanks to the WRVS for the
work it did immediately after the disaster? Is this not an example where it would be
a good thing for this country to have the Civil Defence back in operation?

Mr. Foot: When I referred to the original disaster I made reference to the voluntary
services which acted so promptly and magnificently in the Flixborough crisis. This
refers not only to the voluntary services but to the mining inspectorate, the fire
service, the police, the Salvation Army and others. I hope I have not omitted anyone
from the list. One of the most impressive things I 1740 saw there was how the
immediate crisis was dealt with. People in many areas throughout the country are
worried because of what happened when the accident took place. It is because of
those worries that we have set up this expert committee, along the lines I am
suggesting, as well as the inquiry into the Flixborough disaster.

Mr. John Ellis: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and consideration he
has shown throughout this inquiry to my constituents who have been bereaved and
whose property has been damaged. I also thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of
my constituents for his very comprehensive statement, which shows that he has
listened to the representations made to him by my constituents and me. Does he
regard the inquiry set up by the Transport and General Workers' Union and other
unions as being helpful? Will they and other bodies in my area along with other
individuals who may have been affected, be heard before this inquiry? Will nothing
that the inquiry is doing prevent the claims of the affected people in my area being
paid out? Will my right hon. Friend look immediately at the position of the Factory
Inspectorate? I know, from cases in constituencies surrounding my own, that it is
under very heavy pressure. My right hon. Friend may need to ensure that the whole
force is strengthened to carry out the task which other hon. Gentlemen and I are
laying upon them at this time. They must be dreadfully overloaded.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for the questions but for the truly
magnificent services he gave to his constituents during the whole of this crisis and
the way, in particular, in which he assisted in ensuring that there could be
established very speedily proper relations between the shop stewards, the trade
unions on the spot and the Factory Inspectorate. We in my Department are deeply
grateful to him for all the assistance he gave to us and to his constituents during
the crisis. I have nothing to add to what I said previously about the responsibility for
the claims. On a previous occasion I gave 1741 the House a statement which was
made by the company on that matter. I said we would have consultations about it to
ensure that the claims were fully discharged. I am certain that will be carried out. I
believe that the Factory Inspectorate is the most important aspect of the matter.
Anybody who saw what the inspectorate did on the spot will realise the strain
imposed on it by disasters of this character. Therefore, there is one immediate
incontrovertible lesson to be learned from the Flixborough disaster. We must
strengthen the Factory Inspectorate. We must recruit more inspectors and pay them
more money to get them.

Mr. Kimball: Referring to the expert committee on environmental pollution which the
right hon. Gentleman has announced, will he ensure that the evidence taken on the
west bank of the river, in Amcotts village, as well as on the Flixborough site, is
considered? Would the right hon. Gentleman also draw the inquiry's attention to the
very humane and expeditious way in which the Nypro firm has been dealing with
the damage? My constituents are highly satisfied with the very fair treatment they
are receiving from this firm and the very prompt payment they have been given.
Without underestimating the human disaster and tragedy, could the right hon.
Gentleman say what progress has been made with finding alternative employment
for 500 people in North Lincolnshire who have lost good, well-paid jobs in this
explosion?

Mr. Foot: I shall not try to answer the hon. Gentleman's last question yet because I
have not the answer to it. There are other matters we have to attend to even more
urgently. The inquiry will take into account the dangers for people in surrounding
areas, as will the other expert inquiry, although that subject will come even more
within its province. The worst aspect of this terrible tragedy is the people who were
killed in the plant. That is the peril we must avoid most importantly of all. That does
not exclude all the other aspects of the inquiry.

Mr. Cryer: I welcome the Minister's statement. If he is not satisfied with the
standards pertaining at Flixborough will he assure the House that he will be pre
1742 pared to bring to the House immediately further legislation to strengthen the

Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill? Some of us feel that that Bill will not prevent
another Flixborough.

Mr. Foot: I know of the constructive criticism my hon. Friend has made during
discussions of the Health and Safety Committee. We will take into account what he
and others have said in drawing up the regulations within the next few months. Our
debates have greatly fortified the Department in proceeding along the way in which
we are to tackle the problem. I am grateful to the hon. Member even if we have had
to reject some of his amendments. I believe that the commission will be able to
carry out the task properly. It will be able to do its work. Otherwise I would not have
supported it as it stands. We must learn as swiftly as possible from Flixborough and
take that into account. I assure my hon. Friend that we will do that. If, when we
bring forward our regulations, my hon. Friend or other hon. Members think we have
not learnt fully from this appalling disaster, as we should have done, we must
debate the matter in the House and we must ensure that we do what should be
done. The most important aspect of the whole business is that we should recruit
more factory inspectors who are able to do the job. I am sure that my hon. Friend
agrees with me.

Dr. Winstanley: With regard to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's
statement and his very welcome proposals to set up an organisation to monitor
these hazards on a continuing basis, does he recognise that there is a great deal of
anxiety, which may or may not be justified, in many parts of the country about
dangers of this kind? It is, therefore, essential to establish open lines of
communication through which ordinary people can channel their fears and anxieties
to a body that can act. Will he ensure that when this body is set up it will be readily
accessible to all members of the public who have fears in this regard?

Mr. Foot: That is one of the aspects which I am sure the Health and Safety
Commission will operate when it comes into being, and it is an aspect which was
debated when the Bill went through the 1743 House. Prior to that, of course, the
Department of Employment is very ready to receive any information which anyone
may wish to offer from particular areas. Immediately we had the first reports from
Flixborough, the Chief Inspector tooks steps to discuss the need for a review of
safety precautions with the Chemical Industries Association. Letters were sent and
discussions took place with representatives of large-scale chemical plants all over
the country. So even prior to the inquiry we have tried to learn something from what
happened.
Mr. Tinn: Bearing in mind that incidents may well happen despite all the
precautions, will my right hon. Friend, in collaboration with his colleagues in the
Home Office, look into the procedures and experience that have grown up on
Teesside, which has the largest petrochemical complex in the world? Those

procedures include co-operation among public services like the police and the fire
service, private industry and public industry, in order to take action after incidents
to minimise damage, to coordinate efforts to deal with it. No doubt even on Teesside
we still have a great deal to learn. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the question
of dealing with the situation after it has arisen is also considered, as well as that of
avoiding it?
Mr. Foot: Yes, we are drawing up what we consider to be a judgment on what
happened and what we can learn about immediate action to be taken after these
disasters. But it is also the case that everyone who has seen what happened at
Flixborough for himself will agree that the Factory Inspectorate, along with the many
other services, acted with the utmost promptitude and skill.