| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 370
My hon. Friend the Minister may remember that, during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill last year, there was initially some reluctance to accept an expanded role for the Audit Commission in the National Health Service. However, my hon. Friend and members of the Opposition Front-Bench team supported the amendment that I tabled, which is now enshrined in law. I hope that the Audit Commission will be given the scope to carry out in other areas the sort of work that it has done in the National Health Service. That is essential if we are to get the best possible value for money.The area that I represent is covered by the Nottingham health authority, which has had an annual increase in funding of 8.6 per cent. over the past five years. That is a 13.1 per cent. real increase in resources over that period. In any debate on National Health Service funding, it is important to stress the very large increase in the funds that have been put into the National Health Service. I am especially proud that it has been possible to do that in the area that I represent. We have benefited greatly from the time that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Secretary of State for Health. He, like me, has a close relationship with the local health authority.
We should pay tribute to the large increase in funding and the great benefit that has accrued to Nottingham. The City hospital is currently undergoing a multi-million pound expansion, to which my constituents look forward. The Queen's medical centre is arguably the best hospital in Europe. It is enormous, and sometimes we have difficulty finding our way around it. It is a great centre of excellence. We have benefited greatly from all that is being achieved in those two hospitals, as well as from the myriad other excellent health facilities in the city.
It is right to pay tribute to the work of David White, chairman of Nottingham health authority, and David Banks, general manager, day in and day out, on behalf of all those covered by that health authority. Only last Friday, I was at the City hospital visiting a hospice, Haywood house, where so much good and caring work is done by those who work there. At this time of year, it is especially important to say in this place how much we owe to the people who work in the Nottingham health authority and who provide such a caring service to my constituents.
We are all pleased that people live longer, but we must recognise that that inevitably puts pressure on the health service. It is also important to recognise the magnificent advances in medical science, particularly during the past 10 years. Today we can do so much more than we could before, but that too costs more money, and it requires successful economic policies to deliver the sort of growth that the NHS will need if it is to continue to make the sort of progress in the 1990s that it made in the 1980s.
I am particularly pleased, not least because of my wife's work, that the problem of junior hospital doctors now appears to be being tackled. I know from first-hand experience that many junior hospital doctors work well in excess of 100 hours a week, and it is a scandal that that should have been the case for so long. It is important to recognise that it is not the Government who are to blame for that, although inevitably the health administration must take its share of the blame ; but the medical authorities, the consultants and the British Medical Association, who have failed to recognise that a solution must be found.
Column 371
Within the last few days, we have heard that junior hospital doctors are to have their hours cut to 72 hours over a period, and eventually to much fewer than that. We must recognise the importance of getting the figure below 72 hours, but 72 is a good start. I am delighted that we are to look at shift working, because that is the right way forward, the more flexible use of part-time doctors and cross- cover, which all have a major role to play. Above all, the 200 new consultants and 50 new staff grades are extremely important and will make a big difference.Finally, I reinforce a point already made so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West. In a debate about NHS funding we should stick to the facts. Let us recognise that total NHS spending in England this year will be a record £23.7 billion, an increase of nearly 45 per cent. in real terms since 1978-79. Let us recognise that the spending plans recently announced for next year bring that figure to £26.2 billion and will mean that the NHS is spending 50 per cent. more in real terms than it did when the Government took office in 1979.
Those are immensely impressive and important statistics ; whatever else divides us in the House on the thrust and future of health care, let us at least recognise that we share a common assessment of the aims and objectives of what is required in health care in Britain to make the NHS a better service. But let us also recognise the significant success that has been achieved in terms of increased funding and all that that means for the NHS and for all our constituents who use it.
9.17 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham) : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for choosing this subject for debate. I welcome the opportunity to debate the funding crisis in the NHS and to press on the Minister the demand that is being made throughout Britain and on both sides of the House for beds that have been closed to be opened and for an end to the cancellation of operations and out-patients' appointments. Special action is also needed to meet the crisis in London.
I could give hundreds of examples. My hon. Friend has given examples from her constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) gave examples from his constituency in Wales. I mention King's College hospital in my constituency. The Minister knows about that because I saw him about it in the summer with an all-party delegation of south London Members of Parliament, and I have had occasion to talk to him about it again this week and last week.
I visited the accident and emergency department of King's College hospital last Wednesday. I went there after receiving desperate phone calls from patients, staff and the community health centre. I witnessed a horrifying scene at one of London's greatest and finest teaching hospitals. I found at one of our centres of excellence a situation not unlike that which might be encountered in Romania. Its accident and emergency department was crowded, with 17 patients lying on trolleys, side by side, with not even a gap between them. They had been there all night and although doctors had said that those people needed to be admitted, it could not be done because the financial crisis affecting our entire hospital service meant that in Camberwell
Column 372
health authority in the summer more than 100 beds were closed--one in 10, including those in the emergency admission wards.The Government responded not by providing extra money but by threatening doctors who admit patients other than from accident and emergency departments with disciplinary action. It is not as though the patients in question can simply be transferred to other south London hospitals. We all know that the situation at St. Thomas's and at Guy's is no better. I understand that there are plans to close two more operating theatres at Guy's, so that four of its 11 operating theatres will be closed. I understand that more than half the obstetrics and gynaeocology beds will be closed, and that there will be no more cardiac or gynaecology surgery at that hospital after Christmas, except in emergency cases.
It is not just Labour Members who are expressing concern about the situation--although it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) could not make even a passing reference to the concern felt by his constituents, many of whom remain on waiting lists. However, I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's local press receives a copy of the Official Report containing his speech, to see whether his constituents feel that they are being properly represented by their Member of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) warned :
"Things have got so serious now that there has to be a tranche of cash to get us through the winter. I cannot guarantee West Essex that, in the next few weeks, if we go on as we are, someone is not going to die on the trolley in an emergency."
The same situation exists throughout the country. Last month, Watford general hospital decided that no more emergency operations would be performed there after Christmas. A local general practitioner, Michael Ingram, reflected the views of many people when he said :
"Highly trained and highly paid surgeons will have nothing to do, theatres will lie empty, and my patients will just have to sit at home in pain, praying that the Government allows the hospital to re-open its wards."
The result of such developments in hospitals across London is the cancellation of out-patient appointments and of non-emergency operations. Those whose operations are cancelled must wait in pain, suffering and anxiety. Some will suffer irreparable permanent damage to their health. I cite the case of Ivy Stanley, a woman of 78, who needs constant supervision because she suffers from a diabetic eye disease. Her last appointment at Charing Cross hospital with Mr. Knowden was in August. She expected a further appointment yesterday, but received a letter from the district health authority saying that it had been cancelled and that another could not be arranged until 19 April 1991. A laser intervention can make the difference between someone's sight being saved or lost.
The consequence of desperate financial problems is block cancellations, irrespective of whether the outcome is not just pain, suffering and anxiety for the individual concerned but the risk of irreparable damage to his or her health. I hope that the Minister will address those points this evening, and will acknowledge the damage that is done to people's health by the cancellation of out-patient appointments and of operations.
No account is taken of the patient's health, only of the district health authority's bank balance. Everyone in London, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Harrow, West, knows that the situation is desperate.
Column 373
The Department of Health knows it, too. Figures issued yesterday by the Department show that, from April 1989 to April this year, the four Thames regions lost 5 per cent. of their beds-- 4,311 beds lost in one year. Those figures are devastating. They reflect the picture until April this year. Since April, because of the financial crisis and the action taken to divert deficits, the position has got even worse, and the pace of bed closures has accelerated.A survey undertaken by The Independent Magazine showed that in 25 of the districts of the four Thames regions, since April this year, a further 1,762 beds have been cut. Patients are anxious and in pain and doctors and nurses are in a permanent state of crisis, as managers are pushed to take more and more drastic action. There seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel.
I hope that when the Minister responds he can tell us that there is some hope for people whose operations have been cancelled, and for the doctors and nurses who see that beds have been closed. No Minister with even the remotest commitment to the health service could allow this to continue and seek to justify it.
People in London will judge the Government by their experience of what is happening to their health care, rather than by the quantity of press releases issued by the Department of Health. The Secretary of State must take action to end the crisis in London's hospitals. He should undertake an emergency review of the situation there, and make a statement to the House when we return in the new year. His response cannot be to continue to confine the flame to supposed bad management and to announce new money which is not actually there.
In the past decade we have lost 16 per cent. of hospital beds--71, 149 beds have been cut from the national health service between 1979 and 1989. Throughout the country the situation is worsening this year.
I refer the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) to the fact that in central Nottinghamshire, since April, 24 beds have been cut, and in Nottingham between April and November a further 70 beds were cut. It is unfortunate that he did not see fit to mention that in his speech.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell rose--
Ms. Harman : I had better get on. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance to speak, and I do not want to take up the Minister's time, because we are all hoping that there might be light at the end of the tunnel.
The examples from Lothian, Wakefield, Christie hospital in Manchester and throughout the country show the same picture--beds closed and operations cancelled.
Last night, the Secretary of State issued a press statement, which was clearly intended to give people the impression that help was on its way. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned that. Sadly, help is not on its way. It is bad enough for the Government to preside over the closure of beds and wards, and the cancellation of operations, but it adds insult to injury to give people false hope that things will get better. The Secretary of State's press release was entitled, "Cash Increases for All Regions". However, he was merely re- announcing sums already announced in the autumn statement. His statement last night will not reopen one single closed bed.
Column 374
Tonight, the Minister has the chance to say which closed beds, in all the areas that I have mentioned throughout the country, will be reopened. Will a single bed be reopened as a result of last night's announcement? Which cancelled operations will be reinstated as a result of the announcement made last night? Will it make any difference to people who have to wait overnight on trolleys in King's College hospital? I fear that it will not.I welcome the announcement that the Government are slowing the pace towards the introduction of capitation-based funding, but it appears to be a slowdown in the creation of the infrastructure of the internal market. Apparently, they are not ready to recognise, and to take practical steps to redress, the underfunding of the NHS. It is a pity that the slowdown in the introduction of the capitation-based funding does not signal a change of mood in the Department, following the arrival of a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. If there had been such a change of mood, the first act of the new Secretary of State would not have been to opt 56 hospitals out of the national health service, against the wishes of local people. People are waiting for their hospitals to be restored so that they can obtain the treatment and care that they need, when they need it. They do not want a two-tier system, which forces them to "go private" because that is the only alternative to waiting in pain and suffering ; nor do they want the NHS to be commercialised, with hospitals competing to offer the cheapest contract. It is because we listen, and know what people want, that the next Labour Government--despite what was said by the hon. Member for Harrow, West--will abolish the internal market, return the hospitals that have opted out to the local health service and end the underfunding of that service. Even when fully funded, the NHS is not perfect. It needs to change and to move forward--but the most fundamental change that it needs is a change of Government.
9.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who tabled this subject for debate. I am particularly indebted to her for the opportunity to assess the respective NHS funding records of the present Government and their predecessor. Understandably, the hon. Lady did not speak on the subject that she had tabled, except when my hon. Friends and I intervened.
The fact is that, since 1979, the present Government have increased the total funding of the NHS by an average of 3 per cent. per annum in real terms, while the last Labour Government increased it by a real-terms average of 1.5 per cent. We have increased the funding at twice the rate of our predecessor. To talk of a funding crisis, as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has done, is to prompt the question : how much worse would the position be if Labour had remained in office, increasing funds at the rate that it was able to achieve?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, this is the first Government in the history of this country to be able to demonstrate that we fund the NHS more generously than we fund the defence budget. The last Labour Government cut the NHS capital programme by 16 per cent. in real terms, whereas we have
Column 375
increased it by 62 per cent. That is our record, and that is why I am so grateful to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich for giving us the opportunity to debate it.NHS funding, however, is not the whole story. What matters to patients is not the level of funding, but the level of activity--the number of patients whose conditions are treated by the NHS, and the number of ill people who present themselves for treatment and leave in an improved condition. Since 1979, the NHS has provided its patients with a dramatically improved service : as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West pointed out, we have seen a 20 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients treated, and a virtual doubling of the number of day cases treated. Whether we measure the service in terms of the resources put into it or in terms of the number of patients treated, the present Government's record is one of which we can and should be proud.
Mrs. Dunwoody : Will the Minister tell us whether his waiting lists are going up or down?
Mr. Dorrell : With pleasure. The waiting list for in-patients is now 6 per cent. lower than it was when we came to power in May 1979. Although the total number of in-patients treated has risen by 20 per cent., the number waiting to be treated has fallen. Moreover, half the total number of patients treated by the NHS as in-patients are admitted immediately, without having to go on to a waiting list, while 50 per cent. of the other half are admitted within six weeks. Some patients have to wait a long time for treatment, but the great majority of NHS patients are not the victims of long waiting lists. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich suggested that, in his announcement yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health attempted to fudge his way, as the hon. Lady put it, out of the problems that face a few district health authorities this year. There was some coverage of that issue in this morning's papers. The £81 million that has been set aside to reduce the unacceptably high level of NHS creditors has not been properly reported and is in danger of being misunderstood. That money is to be provided in next year's budget. It will not be provided in the current financial year. The money will be the subject of an accurately targeted programme to ensure that it is used to reduce the number of creditors. They are the residue of inadequate financial control in previous years. The money will not provide us with the opportunity to fudge our way out of some of the undoubted difficulties that face a few district health authorities this year.
Both the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) spoke at length about bed closures. Labour spokesmen find that bed closures are the best means to demonstrate what they believe to be our inadequate provision of NHS beds. Bed closures are, in part, a measure of the improvements in the quality of health care that is offered by the NHS. The majority of treatments now available under the NHS require shorter stays in hospital. There are fewer beds in the NHS, but we treat more patients. Patients do not want to spend time in hospital. If we are ill, we want treatment in hospital and then to be allowed to go home. If we treat more patients in fewer beds, that does not mean tighter
Column 376
management but the delivery to patients of a better health service. Advances in modern medicine enable conditions to be treated in a way that is less traumatic for the patient, which means that they have to spend shorter periods in hospital.Ms. Harman : Would the Minister have us believe that the cuts in NHS beds throughout the country, in response to the financial crisis, are good?
Mr. Dorrell : If by any mischance the hon. Lady ever became a Department of Health Minister, I hope that she would recognise that there is no point in keeping open beds that reflect the health treatment patterns or methods of 10 or 20 years ago. We can treat conditions now that entail shorter stays in hospital because modern medicine is less traumatic for the patient ; he or she is able to recover from the operation or treatment in a shorter period. That benefits the patient. There is no need for us to apologise about that. It reflects medical progress, about which I, at least, am proud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West referred to laundries and insisted that it was in the interests of the NHS that they should be the subject of competitive tendering. I agree with him entirely. During the past 10 years competitive tendering has saved the NHS £200 million. That money is now available for better quality health care for NHS patients. That is important progress. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the difficulties caused when health authorities hoard land. I agree that that is an inappropriate use of public resources.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) asked about prescribing methods, particularly the prescription of a drug that he pronounced in full but which, if he will forgive me, I shall confine myself to describing, as most doctors do, as EPO. The relevant factor in that case is which doctor has clinical responsibility. It is important that a patient who is prescribed a drug is confident that the doctor prescribing it is clinically responsible for managing his condition. That criterion has always determined such matters in England, and I am sure that the same is true in Wales.
I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's questions on the regional elective surgery centres and the future of the open-heart surgery centre to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Welsh Office, who I am sure will reply to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) asked about the importance of the Audit Commission. He played a distinguished role in ensuring that it was given the opportunity to comment on conditions in the NHS, and I am glad to join him in welcoming its contribution.
The hon. Member for Peckham asked for an element of integrity in this debate. I entirely agree and should like to conclude by making an offer to her--that in approaching the subject we start by accepting each other's bona fides. If the Government had wanted to dismantle the national health service, they have had 12 years in which to do so. We have not done so, because we believe in its future and want to develop it. Our record shows that we have been able to develop it, and we shall go on developing it because we believe in it.
Column 377
North Sea (Safety)
9.41 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : It is difficult not to reinforce the robust and able defence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health of Government policy on the health service. The part of the preceding debate that I heard showed that we are winning the arguments, as usual. I wish him well.
This afternoon, it crossed my mind to raise a point of order but, knowing how pressed we were for time, I refrained from doing so and thought that I would spend the first minute of this debate on the matter. When I moved new clause 1 on capital punishment on Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was one of several hon. Members who intervened in my speech. He made a point about miscarriages of justice. I obviously misunderstood what he said, because I said that I did not agree with him. Having had the opportunity of checking Hansard, I should like to put the record straight and say that I agree with him very much. More to the point, are not we very fortunate to have the Hansard writers and printers doing such a splendid job for us, along with all the other staff? I should like to take this opportunity to wish them, and you, Mr. Speaker, a happy Christmas.
I am glad to have the opportunity of raising an issue on the Adjournment under the Consolidated Fund Bill for the first time. Many subjects demand and deserve our attention, and, like many other hon. Members, I never find it easy to decide which should take priority when dropping you, Mr. Speaker, a note before the ballot on what subject I might wish to raise. Pressing local constituency matters may demand too much attention, and sometimes we fail to raise often enough wider and more general issues that are of great importance. I believe this to be one such issue.
Christmas is a time for the family, but many people will be working over the Christmas holiday in our hospitals, in police forces and fire stations or in ensuring the essential supply of energy to cook the Christmas lunch. At the beginning of that energy chain are the men who work on the oil and gas platforms around our coast, particularly in the North sea. In the light of recent developments, I felt that it would be opportune to discuss before the recess safety on North sea installations.
I should declare a personal interest in this subject, as my father-in-law and my brother-in-law have worked for many years on North sea platforms as engineers. My father-in-law was involved in drilling many of the oil wells before production commenced. Offshore installations present unique safety problems. A production platform is a community in its own right, which encompasses drilling operations, a refinery and nothing less than a hotel. All those functions are squeezed into a space of a few hundred feet each way--even rather less than we enjoy at the Palace of Westminster. There is also a helicopter landing area on each platform. On land, such operations would be spread over tens of acres. An oil platform is not just compact, but must be self-sufficient in an emergency ; there is no question of waiting for the fire brigade to arrive. Therefore, the means of surviving an emergency while staying on the platform are crucial and critical. The means of escape and evacuation, if necessary, are equally important.
Column 378
Oil and gas platforms represent extremely complex technology that is sited in a uniquely hostile environment. Recent events reminded us just how hostile that environment can be as huge waves and storm force winds took the lives of six men in a fishing vessel, washed over an oil installation and took lifeboats away. When I look out to the North sea from the safe haven of Filey on the north Yorkshire coast, I am struck by a grey sombre sight, particularly at this time of year. When the wind is blowing from the north-east, I find it remarkable that oil and gas operations can be maintained at all. Tragically, over the years, there have been a number of incidents involving loss of life, of which the Piper Alpha disaster was perhaps the worst. As the House knows, on 6 July 1988 a series of explosions ripped through the Piper Alpha platform, following what Lord Cullen believes was a gas leak caused by night staff in the gas compression module who tried to restart a pump unaware of the fact that a safety valve had been removed.Following an 80-day inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen, sweeping changes in North sea safety were recommended. The Government immediately accepted those recommendations when the report was published and brought to the House on 12 November. This debate provides an opportunity for the House to demonstrate its concern that all those recommendations should be implemented without delay and for the Government to report progress and give a more measured and deliberate response.
Some feel that the Piper Alpha tragedy was perhaps the worst in the history of oil exploration and extraction in the world. As a result of that disaster, 160 men lost their lives--it must never, never happen again.
Other tragedies have occurred even since the Piper Alpha tragedy, which underlines the dangers of oil and gas operations in the North sea and the urgent need for improved safety. In the past two and a half years, there have been at least 30 serious incidents and nine deaths on installations off our coasts. Even the day before the Piper Alpha disaster, management on Shell's Brent Alpha platform, east of Shetland, evacuated part of the installation after a gas explosion. Three months later, there was a serious fire on the Ocean Odyssey drilling rig, again after a gas blast, which killed a radio operator--thankfully, 66 workers were rescued. Only last July, six crew and passengers on a Sikorsky S61 helicopter were killed when it hit a crane in the Brent field. In 1988, two other S61s were ditched and 34 men were rescued. In November last year, a rig, Interocean 11, sank in bad weather and the crew was rescued by helicopter. Last January, an accommodation platform in the Brent field, Safe Gothia, was evacuated after winds snapped two anchor cables.
Since oil and gas exploration began in the 1960s, about 500 lives have been lost in the North sea. I am sure that the House wishes to pay every tribute to the bravery of the men who have helped our economy and who put up with such dreadful conditions. At this Christmas time, we should send every sympathy to the families and loved ones of those who have died.
The tragedy of the Piper Alpha disaster is that, as Lord Cullen's report showed, if more had been done beforehand it might have been avoided. Sadly, that is true of many other disasters of recent years. The two dreadful incidents at football grounds in Yorkshire--at Bradford and at Hillsborough, in Sheffield--the Clapham rail crash, the
Column 379
sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise all come to mind. In all those cases greater attention to detail would have prevented loss of life.Following Piper Alpha, many have argued that the implementation of the recommendations of the 1980 Burgoyne committee should have gone further. I expect that there will continue to be disagreement among hon. Members on that point for some time, particularly among those who have a special knowledge of the industry which, I must confess, I have not. However, there are two points on which we should be able to agree.
First, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy told the House on 12 November :
"In 1980, the Government accepted the majority view of the Burgoyne committee, which was set up by the previous Labour Government. It said that, on balance, it believed that the best case for safety in the North sea was to leave the matter with the Department of Energy."--[ Official Report , 12 November 1980 ; Vol. 180, c. 333.] In 1990, 10 years later, Lord Cullen recommended that, on balance--again, it is a matter of balance, as my right hon. Friend said--the best case is for transferring responsibility to the Health and Safety Commission. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the majority committee in both cases and they are to be commended for that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also pointed out that North sea operations have become more complex over the past 10 years and that the Health and Safety Commission has developed its expertise. More importantly, Lord Cullen found no evidence that the Department of Energy put production before safety.
The second point on which we can agree is the role of the owner of Piper Alpha, Occidental. Lord Cullen concluded that there were significant flaws in the way in which safety was managed by Occidental. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked the Secretary of State on 12 November whether Occidental would be prosecuted. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as the families and communities of those who were killed, shared the view that Occidental should be prosecuted. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was surely right immediately to send Lord Cullen's report to the Lord Advocate, and there the matter must rest for the time being.
The House must now ensure that, in future, North sea operations are safer then they have been in the past. Safety must be paramount. We all recognise the inherent dangers in working in the North sea, but we must not take unnecessary risks with other men's lives. The Piper Alpha disaster suggests that we may have done so in the past. We must never do so again.
The whole House has rightly given a warm welcome to Lord Cullen's most impressive and penetrating report. The extent of his deliberations is revealed in the fact that the weighty document that I hold in my left hand is only the first of two volumes.
Drawing, no doubt, on the experience of his assessors, Lord Cullen has provided a most comprehensive analysis of the conditions necessary for the safe management of offshore installations. I am sure that the report contains lessons for the safe management of other industrial activities. The report is the most significant landmark in the evolution of offshore safety since the most recent legislation--the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971.
Column 380
Lord Cullen's report rightly concludes that safety in such a demanding environment as the North sea cannot be secured by fixed rules or off-the-peg solutions. We need a flexible approach and the ability to evaluate the best compromise between conflicting safety objectives. Solutions have to take account of the varying circumstances of individual installations. That is why Lord Cullen was right to suggest that every installation must be assessed. He provided a comprehensive list of what a good safety management would incorporate. It would need to cover"organisational structure, management personnel standards, training, for operations in emergencies, safety assessment, design procedures, procedures for operations, maintenance modifications and emergencies, management of safety by contractors in respect of their work, the involvement of the work force (operators and contractors) in safety, accident and incident reporting, investigation and follow-up, monitoring and auditing of the operation of the system and systematic reappraisal of the system in the light of the experience of the operator and the industry."
I make no apology for listing the important objectives which Lord Cullen identified. I am sure that the House will agree that the recommendations rightly place the responsibility where it belongs--with the owners and operators of the installations. The oil industry is one of our most dynamic industries. It has shown great inventiveness and resourcefulness, not least in maintaining the economic viability of North sea production when world prices fell sharply in the mid-1980s. I gladly acknowledge, too, that the Government have played their part by keeping an open mind on taxation issues and making adjustments where the case has been made. The industry deserves credit for its adaptability and ingenuity. The oil industry should also have the freedom to apply its drive, adaptability and ingenuity to safety problems. It is tempting to say that there must be definite rules and a clearly prescribed approach, but such an assertion is fallacious. In real life--in the practical world--reasonable safety objectives often conflict with each other, and Lord Cullen recognised that. A better standard of safety depends on achieving the best trade-off between those conflicts, and not in a prescriptive, rule-book approach.
I particularly welcome Lord Cullen's report for its clear recognition that the operators must play a more extensive and fundamental role in choosing the best means in each case to attain the defined standards. A programme of work for the installation of emergency shutdown valves on offshore platforms is also important. With the approach of the 31 December deadline- -another reason for having the debate tonight--I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to bring the House up to date on the progress that has already been made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan) : I may be able to help my hon. Friend on this critical point. Oil companies have generally made good progress with the installation of emergency shutdown valves--to date more than 134 valves have been fitted and a number of others are expected to be completed by the end of the year. However, a number of applications for temporary exemptions have been received and have been rigorously scrutinised in detail by my Department's inspectors. In considering those applications, my inspectors have taken into account the fact that, in all cases, emergency valves exist but are not optimally located.
Column 381
Therefore, I have decided that a number of new compulsory measures must be implemented by operators to enhance safety until the new valves are installed in those cases where production is to be permitted to be continued. They include reducing the pipeline operating pressures, switching from live crude oil production to dead crude oil and introducing enhanced operating procedures. We have received applications for 53 valves, of which we have agreed 25 exemptions. Some 24 have been withdrawn after discussions with my inspectors and four have been refused. Rigorous conditions will be attached to all such exemptions in order to enhance safety. In addition, applications in respect of four valves on the Texaco Tartan, Mobil and Beryl Alpha platforms have been rejected on the basis of information received.Mr. Greenway : I thank my hon. Friend for his important statement, which clearly could not come too early either in this debate or in general terms. I am sure that those involved will welcome his statement for the clear way in which it set out the progress that has been made and what more needs to be done. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have other interesting matters to report to the House when he responds to the debate.
It is also right that, within the North sea, there must be proper controls and monitoring of safety standards. They must be more flexible than in the past, but nevertheless remain defined, understood and enforced. That places substantial demands on the enforcement agency, which must deploy a high level of expertise to be able to evaluate and respond to new approaches brought forward by the industry. That will not be a cheap option, but I am convinced that it is right.
Lord Cullen was correct in feeling that we should be circumspect about legislating safety into an industrial activity. The disadvantages of over- detailed legislation were highlighted by the Robens committee that began its work 20 years ago and published its report on health and safety at work in 1974. Its objections to over-detailed legislation on safety matters still seem to be valid and were in many ways vindicated by what Lord Cullen said in his report. Safety must spring from the initiative and active concern of the company and its own determination to tackle safety problems. It has to find the right system, and the means, and to put them into effect. It must then ensure, by training and monitoring, that they are applied and continue to be applied.
I think that it will be accepted on both sides of the House that it is essential that companies involve all their workers. I am aware that there has been some controversy about union recognition in the North sea installations. That is a quite separate issue from safety. Whether they are members of staff, employees, production workers, sub-contractors, members of unions or not, they must all be properly involved in safety. In a highly critical safety area such as offshore installations, every worker must perceive his proper contribution to safety, and have the knowledge and training to play his part. That must mean better communication than in the past.
I refer for the final time to volume 1 of Lord Cullen's report, which dealt with why the explosions occurred. He made one important statement :
"From the evidence I conclude that this"--
the failure of the system--
Column 382
"was due to a failure in the transmission of information under the permit to work system and at shift handover".So even at the most mundane level of operations, communication between staff--each member of staff understanding the others' roles and the importance of every procedure that he carries out--cannot be given too high a priority.
Safety must not merely be sold as a philosophy or some vague concept to the worker by means of exhortation. Dialogue with the worker and involvement in everything he does is essential to a safe working environment.
Lord Cullen's report was also greatly to be welcomed because it faces up to the difficulties and tackles them squarely. It proposes a framework that is flexible as to solutions but ensures that all the right questions have been asked. It avoids detailed prescriptions for hardware or management systems, but it puts the initiative and responsibility where they belong--with the operators and employers. Equally, it provides a stringent basis for probing examination by the regulatory body.
There will have to be real dialogue, not a rigid imposition of predetermined rules. The regulatory body will need a high degree of expertise and, more importantly, adequate resources. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made general promises in that direction, but I hope that the Minister will say more this evening about these points. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) told the House on 12 November during questions on the statement about the publication of the report, the new regulatory body should and must be independent and seen to be so. That view is shared throughout the industry and this House.
I make no apology for returning to the critical importance of monitoring. It is not enough for proper principles to be endorsed by management in the form of manuals of safety left standing on the shelf gathering dust, or in the workplace. The principles must be put into and kept in effect. I referred earlier to the Clapham railway tragedy. The report on that incident showed what a contrast there can be between sound principles and their adequate practical implementation. It is right to emphasise monitoring and the new proposals for systematic audit by the operator and for the audit and inspection of that activity by the regulator.
Lord Cullen does not make the point, although I believe it strongly, that the insurers have a distinct role to play in monitoring and enforcing standards. The Piper Alpha tragedy claim was, I understand, for £1.4 billion. Insurers will surely be asking themselves whether the disaster could have been avoided if Lord Cullen's proposals had been in force before it happened. The claim was for £1.4 billion, but it should not take the loss of the lives of 167 men to reach a proper definition of an adequate safety regime for operations in the North sea. The insurers have continuous contact with and influence over the companies that they insure. Just the other day, an insurance representative told me that a private insurance company would have refused to insure King's Cross underground station as a private place because the fire safety arrangements were clearly inadequate. The Cullen report is the basis for effective regulation of safety and has been recognised as such. The oil and gas industry is important to our economy. It has made a major contribution in the last decade, and I am sure that it will continue to do so in the next decade and into the next
Column 383
century. But it is a dangerous industry, and we must maintain proper standards within a dynamic system that is capable of growing. I am glad that the Government have been able to accept all the recommendations. They must now ensure prompt and effective implementation of this highly significant report's blueprint for the future. That will require careful planning, a systematic approach and, as Lord Cullen recommends, proper consultation about contractors' interests. It will also mean new staffing and training for the regulatory agency.A separate offshore safety division at the Department of Industry was set up on 10 December. I first read about it in The Engineer and I understand that it is under the direction of Tony Barrell, who is the current director of technology in the Health and Safety Executive. That is a significant first step and will help to ease the transfer of responsibility for offshore safety from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Commission, as Lord Cullen recommended. The commission has welcomed that transfer, but has again called for more Government resources to do the job properly. The House should not be under any illusions about the costs involved in assessing every offshore installation. As the Health and Safety Commission chairman, John Culler, has said, those costs will be substantial. Resources must be found so that Lord Cullen's vision for a safer North sea will soon become a reality. The lives of husbands, fathers, sons and brothers working in the North sea this Christmas deserve nothing less.
10.13 pm
Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, South) : I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for raising this issue, because it is not debated often enough. I hope that, in the new year, we will have an opportunity fully to discuss all the implications of the Cullen report. Not only is this a vital industry employing almost 50,000 people, but it plays a vital part in the country's economy. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy made a mini-statement on the installation of shutdown valves. It is worth reminding the House of the circumstances in which the issue of shutdown valves was raised. Those valves were a major cause of the scale of the Piper Alpha disaster. There were no shutdown valves in a safe place on the platform and tonnes of gas were released on to the platform when the valves which were in place there were damaged by explosion. The cause of the disaster was the failure to have adequate cut-off mechanisms between the surrounding platforms, the Tartan and MCPO1, and Piper Alpha. As a result, all the gas in the pipeline was released to Piper Alpha.
I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy on 14 July 1988, just eight days after the disaster, setting out the case for emergency shutdown valves to be located on the sea bed, a safe place away from the structure, so that, if a similar incident occurred, the valves would be at no risk whatever.
About a month later, I received a letter from the head of safety in the Department, saying that it accepted the argument for sub-sea valves and intended to legislate as quickly as possible in the circumstances. That commitment has been watered down somewhat, although I am aware that many of the companies in the North sea have decided that, without Government regulation, they will install
| Next Section
| Home Page |