House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Apr 1995

Column 183

association questions the need for some way of recovering the inevitably higher costs that councils in the south-east face in running their schools. These considerations are not limited purely to teachers' salaries. They read across into other expenditure areas and other employment areas within schools.

We are interested in considering whether the present methodology could be improved, and we shall consider carefully the different representations that we have received on the issue. In doing that, however, we must take account of all the factors--I have listed only a few--that cause education costs to vary throughout the country. My hon. Friend spoke with great feeling about the share of budget retained by the Derbyshire LEA.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Squire: As echoed by my hon. Friend.

As both my hon. Friends are aware, the level of resources retained by LEAs has to be a matter for them to determine, subject only to a minimum requirement that they must delegate 85 per cent. of the potential schools budget to schools.

In 1994-95, Derbyshire just managed to achieve the minimum requirement. Despite an intervention from a sedentary position that I heard earlier, I must say that the matter has not yet formally been advised to my Department. I understand that preliminary signs for the current year, 1995- 96, are that Derbyshire will be in the middle of the range when it comes to examining the amounts that authorities hold back.

It is important that we should encourage delegation, but not for delegation's sake alone, which would be foolish. It is important that the scheme should command the support of schools within an LEA. It is clear, however, from our experience of grant-maintained schools, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire made correct and proper reference, that the more that schools control their own budgets, the better value for money they get, to the benefit of the pupils in their care.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a difference between the potential schools budget and the allocation of 85 per cent. and the general schools budget? If we consider delegation over the two budgets, we see that the figure is substantially lower than 85 per cent.

Mr. Squire: There is a difference between the two budgets, from which I was endeavouring to protect the House. In terms of the potential schools budget, 85 per cent. is covered by regulation. I readily confirm that there are at least two separate figures involved.

My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a national funding formula. Here we are in extremely interesting waters. I need no persuading that there are attractions in principle in a national uniform system that is simple to understand, more manageable to operate and demonstrably fair and transparent. As I am sure other

Column 184

Ministers have said in other contexts, however, it is not quite as simple as that. There are several strategic questions.

My hon. Friend made it clear that he would apply a national funding formula to GM schools and non-GM schools. He will understand immediately that that is not necessarily the outcome of such a formula. If it were to apply only to GM schools, what would be the position of LEA schools? My hon. Friend recognises that that question would arise. If a national funding formula covered all schools, what would we do about local discretion, which presently allows local authorities to spend more or less of their education SSA on a school as they deem fit? Where in all this would SSAs fit in?

In terms of principle, the local management of schools and the common funding formula have already demonstrated the tensions that can be created between self-evident ideals. How do we reconcile the simplicity argument with meeting a wide range of needs? I say with certainty as someone who has wrestled--I hope advantageously--with the common funding formula over the past year or two that there is a difficult trade-off between simplicity and meeting the needs of schools. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to see schools with higher expenditure finding relief within the funding system. The issue is topical and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sympathetic in principle. However, I urge my hon. Friend and other supporters of a national funding formula to allow us to proceed carefully. The worst option of all would be to produce an entirely new formula that contained within it, because of the speed with which it had been created, the seeds of great and significant problems. I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend on that issue and that he accepts that we are open to persuasion.

The central factor, to which all my hon. Friends have referred, is the glowing success of the GM movement and self-governing in schools in general.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, once a school has become grant-maintained, the county cannot close it?

Mr. Squire: I confirm that the county cannot close it. All school closures, by definition, come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Although a county can comment on the position of a grant-maintained school, it does not have the power to close it. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

By controlling their budgets, as hon. Members have said, grant-maintained schools control their own destiny. We have heard all the advantages, but I shall not repeat them, because time does not allow me to do so. I do not wish to suggest that grant-maintained status is the only precondition of success, as there are good schools that are not grant-maintained, but there is a disproportionate number of successful schools in the grant-maintained sector. That is striking. It is the freedom that grant-maintained schools enjoy, to release energy, enterprise and commitment, that allows schools to realise success throughout the country, and many found that impossible under local authority control.

Column 185

Bull Bars

2 pm

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Mr. Ian Farnworth, aged 17, of Whitley Bay, was killed last November by a bull bar. His father asked me to mention his son's name in today's debate, because both his parents, his surgeon, Mr. Charles Goring, and the local newspaper, the Newcastle Evening Chronicle , are convinced that Mr. Farnworth would be alive today if the vehicle that hit him had not had a bull bar. I could fill the next half an hour with a litany of similar sad stories. This one is particularly harrowing because it involved a young man in the prime of life, who had just left school and was about to embark on his first job. His life was destroyed by a part of a vehicle that has no practical value and is merely a fashion accessory.

There are many other vivid reports. I shall mention one of them, but I will not mention the man's name because I do not have the permission of his family. The son of a man killed in Cleveland described his father's injuries. He said:

"My father's spine was broken in five places and his pelvis was so bad that his leg virtually fell off. His body was shattered. The doctor said it was as if he had been hit by a ten-ton going at 70mph. The bull bars made a terrible impact."

The man was hit not by a truck but by a police van, travelling, as in the other case, below the speed limit.

These terrible adornments on cars concentrate the impact of the collision on a tiny area rather than a larger area, as would be the case if someone were struck by a car that did not have a bull bar. I am grateful to the researchers in this country, including the Transport Research Laboratory, and the researchers in Germany, New Zealand and Australia, who have sent me a huge number of reports and information, all of which come to the same conclusion: bull bars turn slight injury accidents into serious injury accidents, and serious accidents into fatalities.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject today. I shall give him one example--a personal example. My son, two years ago, when he was two, was involved in an accident in which a car hit him. The car was probably travelling at about 10 mph at the time. He ended up with a very bloody head injury, which caused him and his parents enormous distress for 24 hours, but fortunately that was all it was. If that car had been equipped with bull bars, my son might not be alive today, so I hope that the Minister will pay due attention to the debate that my hon. Friend has introduced.

Mr. Flynn: There is a particular peril for children, because the height of the bar is often the same height as a child's head. The research from Germany shows that 95 per cent. of children would be expected to survive the impact of a crash at about 20 mph, but a vehicle fitted with bull bars would inflict life-threatening injuries on all children if it were travelling at 12 mph, and that they could possibly die even at 10 mph. Those are horrific figures. In fact, the German researchers stopped using the plastic domes to represent a child's head in any of their trials because they were shattering at such low speeds.

The argument against bull bars has been proven. Figures from the TRL, backed up by all the other research, show that the fitting of bull bars in the United Kingdom

Column 186

could lead to 35 additional deaths and 350 additional serious injuries each year by 1996. But things are far worse than that, because, as the Royal Automobile Club pointed out--it has conducted a splendid campaign on this matter--the figures were based on a projection of 2.4 per cent. of the vehicle fleet being fitted with bull bars. Now that they are increasingly being fitted to delivery vans, pick-up trucks--even--ambulances--the total potential market for bull bars is about 12 per cent. of the UK vehicle market. If we extrapolate from those figures, we are talking about an additional 175 fatal accidents and an additional 1,750 serious accidents. What is the purpose of bull bars? They started in Australia, and even as long ago as 1980 the Australians said that they were dangerous and that they had no useful purpose other than in agricultural use. In Australia, they were known as "roo" bars, because kangaroos were attracted to vehicles and the bars were used to protect the headlights of vehicles. There is a case to be made, as many people have told me, for the use of bull bars on farmland and so on. It is quite reasonable that they should be used, like other farm implements, on agricultural land, but banned on the road. It is quite simple to make them demountable, as many of them are at the moment. That is simple. We are talking about the cars that are used on public roads.

I am grateful to the Minister and to his predecessor for the many letters that they have sent me, which have been considerate and thoughtful. They understand the position precisely, but the area with which I disagree is that they have not taken any effective action to reduce the numbers. The Minister told me in July last year that his Department was asking the motor industry to act and not to fit bull bars or advertise them. Unfortunately, that was a failure. Only one company--Volvo, I understand--has banned them, to its great credit. I received a letter from a gentleman in London, who told me that, in the interests of road safety, he wanted to fit two additional lamps on his Rover Discovery, but the only way of fitting them was to install a bull bar and to screw them to the frame. So to achieve the safety that he needed on the road, he had to do what he thought to be unsafe and install a bull bar. The rest of the industry has not responded to the Government's attempt to remove bull bars and reduce their number. In fact their number is increasing.

There have been other attempts by the Government to reduce the use of bull bars. In 1992, the Government asked the TRL to consider whether a code of practice could be a way of avoiding the increased risk in the short term until the European directive could be agreed and implemented. The TRL carried out a very limited test programme. It showed that the suggested code was impractical, because a prototype bull bar made to the code gave a worse test result than a standard bar.

Sadly, the TRL, in a letter that was written a week ago today, tells me that it does not see any further research taking place, apart from the police statistics that are being collected, because it does not have a sponsor for further research. It is a side issue, although an important one, but no one has a vested financial interest in saving lives, particularly those of people whose identity we do not know. It would be terrible if the work of the TRL was skewed into serving the motor trade, which is mainly

Column 187

responsible for encouraging these bars, rather than serving the interest of the future casualties and their families; we need someone to undertake that research.

The insurance companies have been helpful and are concerned. The Norwich Union told me that, when such devices are fitted to vehicles after manufacturing stage as modifications and the appropriate modifications have not been notified to it, it would consider voiding policies if it believed that bull bars had contributed seriously to the accident. The insurance trade is doing a great deal of research in that area. But there seems to be no way out.

In a letter to me in the early part of this year, the Minister suggested that we have to rely on a European directive which is on its way. I shall not give the figure from memory, but the Minister said that a large number of casualties might result from future accidents in the European Community. But we are informed that the directive is unlikely to come through the machinery of the European Union for at least a decade. Commissioner Neil Kinnock assures us that there is no need to wait for that directive, and that we can act now.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): It is possible for vehicle owners to be required to inform their insurance companies if they make modifications to their vehicles, especially if the result is to make them less roadworthy. There are regulations which the police and others can enforce for vehicles in an unroadworthy condition. Given that roadworthiness is designed to protect the road user, which should include bicyclists and pedestrians as much as the person inside, should not insurance companies invalidate insurance if bully bars or injury bars are put on the front of vehicles? Is not it open to Government to say that, unless putting a bull bar or bully bar on the front of a vehicle reduces the risks to other road users, such vehicles are unroadworthy?

Mr. Flynn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has a distinguished record in opposing bully bars, as he rightly called them. The Royal Automobile Club has identified two pieces of legislation which can be used now in order to prosecute owners of vehicles with such bars because they are in an unroadworthy condition. There has been one conviction in the Manchester area. That remedy can be taken up immediately.

The suggestion that there can be some kind of soft bull bar was investigated in several countries. Australian researchers came to the conclusion that it is not possible to design a bull bar which is friendly to pedestrians because even a soft bull bar is more dangerous than a standard vehicle. Regardless of the specific design, severe head and pelvic injuries seem to be the inevitable consequence in a collision with a pedestrian where a bull bar is fitted. During his period as a Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) told us that one of the great improvements in casualty reduction was achieved by making the front of cars

pedestrian--friendly so that the front of the car absorbs the force of the collision by giving. Everyone is at more risk from a bull bar, even the driver of the car and his passengers. The effect of a bull bar is to make the car a more rigid object so that the force of the impact, instead of being taken by the body of the car, is taken by the passengers. There are also other disadvantages.

Column 188

Bull bars certainly pose a greater risk to cyclists and pedestrians. The Pedestrian Association has given me a great deal of information. Pedestrians and cyclists who have written to me feel intimidated by such bars. The psychology of those who add them to vehicles is difficult to understand. They seem to be part of a fashion for having vehicles that look threatening and dominating on the road. They are big and they look aggressive. That fashion has reached unreasonable proportions. A huge number of such vehicles are on the road at the moment, reflecting the growing popularity of bull bars.

Bull bars appear to be a fashion accessory. They in no way add to the safety of vehicles. Not one researcher has come up with the idea that they make a vehicle safer. There is a hallelujah chorus from those with a vested interest in the safety business and other road matters saying that they are highly dangerous and should be banned. The only argument in their favour comes from the farming community. I have already said that a case can be made for their use on farms. A case can also be made for the jobs provided by the manufacture of bull bars. Nudge bars, as they are called, are manufactured within a few miles of my constituency and almost certainly my constituents are involved in that. One local firm from Gwent has written to the Secretary of State about today's debate. But the interest in those jobs is very much secondary to the interests of future road casualties.

The Minister must tell us today in clear terms what his views are and take this opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement that there is no answer to be found in Europe within the foreseeable future and there is no chance of devising an acceptable bull bar. We know that people will die and hundreds will be injured every month because of the growing fashion for crash bars.

The Government must act now. The Minister has in his hands today the chance to save lives. There is a growing awareness of the danger. I look to local papers, such as the Evening Chronicle (Newcastle) and other papers such as The Independent on Sunday and The Times which have led campaigns on the subject, to highlight every single accident, every death and every serious injury that can be put down to a bull bar. I give an assurance that I will bring to the attention of the House every case that I hear of where a bull bar has resulted in a fatality.

The Minister cannot introduce legislation tomorrow, but he can take the course taken in Manchester, where a man was found guilty of driving a car in a dangerous condition, and ensure that the laws that are there are implemented. Most of all, he can send a clarion call from the House today to warn all those who manufacture bull bars, advertise them or profit from them, who are about to buy them or who already have them on their cars, that the time of such bull bars is limited, that a ban will come in the foreseeable future, so it would be foolish to invest in them now.

We want those who would otherwise choose to have bull bars to avoid the terrible experience that might result. None of us ever expects to collide with a pedestrian but, sadly, it happens. Children run into the road unexpectedly. We want to avoid people suffering the terrible trauma of having the guilt of a death on their consciences and the dreadful agony of bereavement for parents. I ask the Minister to make a clear statement today, not of concern which I know he genuinely has, but of action.

Column 189

2.16 pm

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on bringing forward this important subject. As he implies, I welcome the opportunity to outline the present position on the subject and to say how we can take matters forward. I am grateful for the contributions from other hon. Members to this necessarily short debate. The Government are committed to improving all aspects of road and vehicle safety so as to reduce the terrible toll of deaths and injuries on our roads. We have been concerned for some time now that the fitment of bull bars on road-going vehicles will do nothing to help us meet that objective.

Let us be clear. As the hon. Gentleman suggested in his speech, I suspect that the majority of bull bars currently seen on vehicles are fitted as fashion accessories, as he described them. A macho fashion accessory is an adequate description of what they represent. No one denies that in some off -road circumstances they may be of practical value, but few vehicles which carry them are being regularly used in such circumstances. Therefore, it is difficult to see how they provide any worthwhile benefits.

Some bull bars are quite crude in nature and design. I make it clear that such devices can only be detrimental to the safety of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists who, if they come into contact with a vehicle fitted with such apparatus, will almost certainly suffer more severe injuries. One need only imagine, as has been said, what happens when a child's head comes into contact with a bull bar in the unfortunate event of a collision. Given that both are at the same height, it is not difficult to divine which would come off worse.

The Transport Research Laboratory, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport, West, supports that view. It was asked to carry out impact tests using an instrumented child-size headform and other instrumented impactors on a bull bar, to demonstrate the severity of the possible impact and compare it with the severity of collision with a normal flexible vehicle bonnet. The research showed that, if the fitting of vehicles with bull bars continued unabated, it could result in an extra 35 deaths and 350 serious injuries per annum in the United Kingdom among vulnerable road users.

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that, because that research was necessarily based on extrapolation from a proportion of the vehicle population, any underestimate of that proportion could mean a higher figure. I believe that he and I--and, indeed, all other hon. Members--agree that, given the current needless loss of life on our roads, which still amounts to nearly 80 deaths a week, we are not prepared to contemplate 35 more deaths and 350 more serious injuries with equanimity.

Because of those findings, our agreement about the seriousness of the issue and our concern about the increasing use of bull bars, we have taken steps to gather evidence of a slightly different nature--evidence of specific injuries caused on the road by bull bars. Sadly, because of the way in which the police collect accident data, until a recent initiative taken by my Department no specific evidence about the impact of bull bars was available.

Column 190

Towards the end of 1993, we asked all police forces to identify specific injury accidents during 1994 involving vehicles fitted with bull bars, using the "special studies" box on the normal STATS 19 accident reporting form that the police must complete for every injury accident. Analysis of the information gathered from that exercise will be used to supplement the earlier Transport Research Laboratory estimates, and I expect the results to be known towards the end of the year. We agree, then, that the problem is serious and that we should do all that we can to end such needless loss of life. The hon. Member for Newport, West asserted that the Government were dragging their heels. I understand why he should make such an assertion, given the frustration that surrounds the issue; but in no sense are we dragging our heels. Bull bars are not banned in Germany, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, Sweden or any other safety- conscious country; indeed, the United Kingdom is probably ahead of all the others in recognising the seriousness of the problem. Let me add that, if other Europeans were as aware of the safety problems as we are, we should not have to battle so hard in Brussels to win the safety standards that we all want.

We welcome what has been said by Transport Commissioner Kinnock--a friend of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I am delighted to see in his place. I know that he welcomes the elevation of his former right hon. Friend, and sends him his good wishes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Keep it up.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman asks Commissioner Kinnock to "keep it up". No doubt he will ponder that message.

Commissioner Kinnock simply said that, under European law, there was unlikely to be any obstacle to member states' banning bolt-on accessory bull bars. I fear that he actually meant that his directorate, the transport directorate, would experience no difficulty. That is comforting-- the same applies to us--but I fear that, as ever when we are dealing with the European Union, it is not the whole story.

This important issue has been raised with me by, for example, Christian Wolmar of The Independent , who--as the hon. Member for Newport, West knows --is rightly concerned. The bull bar itself is not E-marked--marked with a European approval mark, which means that identification of bull bars that are European type-approved would be difficult. Legislation would fail to prevent the use of bull bars on many vehicles, because the more popular vehicles have been type-approved with their optional-bolt-on bull bars fitted at the time of their European type approval. That answers the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). Thus, the vehicle and bull bar are, as a whole, European type-approved. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend--who, as usual, has been hugely helpful to Ministers--that the remedy that he offers would not be available in such circumstances.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The most important thing, surely, is to ensure that fewer vehicles have bully bars, to persuade more vehicle owners to remove them and to make people understand that they are a deliberate threat to others. Can my hon. Friend also tell us why, although

Column 191

cars are usually constructed so that they collapse to protect those inside, idiots put hard objects on cars that will kill those outside?

Mr. Norris: I am about to deal with that--but it is an important point, and I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. As I have said, vehicles fitted with bolt-on bull bars have European type approval. I stress that virtually every Member of Parliament--regardless of party or, indeed, absence of party--agrees that the free circulation of European type approved items cannot and should not be impeded within the European Union.

Mr. Flynn: We are aware of the European laws. Under the Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and other legislation, successful prosecutions have already been carried out, and the RAC tells us that legislation already exists in Britain to stop the use of dangerous bull bars on public roads. Why on earth do we not implement that legislation?

Mr. Norris: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman yet again that what he has said is simply not true. Let me assure him unequivocally that, if it were possible to ban such fitments, the Government would not hesitate to do so. The reason why the Government do not do so is that they cannot ban the fitment of items that are

Column 192

in receipt of European type approval as fitments to vehicles, which receive a number of complex European type approvals.

That is a matter of some frustration for the Government, so we have taken two actions. First, we have pressed the virtue of the new directive on pedestrian protection, which we believe is the way to proceed in such matters. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, it has the virtue of concentrating on the softer front, which is an important part of road safety.

Secondly, we have told manufacturers that although we do not have the power to legislate in this area--as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but I know that he is a fair-minded man--they have it within their power to take action now. Some have been prepared to do so openly; others have taken note of what we have said. It is an important area and I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to bear it very much in mind.

We will press not only Commissioner Kinnock but the other directorates within the Community to ensure that this valuable aid to reducing road deaths is proceeded with. I strongly anticipate that it will be the British Government, once again, who will be the first to bring about, in due course, the welcome abolition of this accessory. It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Column 191

Stormont Fire (Doyle Report)

3.30 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the report by Sir Reginald Doyle on the fire which took place on 2 January 1995 at Parliament buildings, Stormont, and the implications of that incident for fire safety precautions at other Crown buildings in Northern Ireland.

I have this morning placed copies of Sir Reginald's report in the Library of the House, and in the Vote Office.

Although I am glad to note that Sir Reginald has concluded that the overall standard of staff safety in Crown buildings is generally satisfactory, his report points up serious shortcomings, both in relation to the Parliament buildings fire itself and to wider procedures dealing with fire safety matters. Several of his findings are deeply disturbing, and I am determined to address the shortcomings in the most serious manner.

Sir Reginald's view is that the most likely cause of the fire at Parliament buildings was an electrical fault in the wiring below the Speaker's chair in the Commons chamber. He considers that it is improbable that the fire was started deliberately. His conclusion on the cause of the fire is in accordance with the findings of the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory, assisted by an independent electrical consultant.

A number of matters relating to the fire give me very serious concern. First, the watchkeepers in Parliament buildings did not detect the fire and incorrectly attributed an unusual smell to new lagging on heating pipes.

Secondly, part of the first floor of the building was not patrolled because one section was subject to restricted access from 1992 as it had been set aside for political talks.

Thirdly, there was no water supply to the fire hydrant system at Parliament buildings when the fire broke out owing to a valve at the Stormont reservoir having been closed, despite the fact that non-availability of water had been reported 18 days before the fire to the Department of the Environment staff.

Fourthly, over a period of nearly five years, there was no fire drill in Parliament buildings even though there was official guidance that a fire drill should be carried out at least once every 12 months.

Finally, some fire brigade appliances did not approach the building by the agreed access--Massey avenue--but approached it by the Upper Newtownards road entrance, which was locked on 2 January 1995 as that date was a public holiday. I shall deal with those in turn. The watchkeepers have been interviewed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Reginald Doyle and their personnel officer in the Department of Finance and Personnel. They reported that on their regular patrols of the building they found no evidence of fire. Their written instructions are being revised with regard to the timing of patrols, the reporting of unusual circumstances and access to all parts of the building.

Further investigations have shown that, in addition to part of the first floor being inaccessible, the Commons chamber itself has customarily been regarded by the watchkeepers as outside their remit because it was normally locked. It is clearly wrong that any portion of

Column 214

the building should have been inaccessible to the watchkeepers. This has been rectified, and the management of the entire building has now been made the responsibility of a single Department, the Department of the Environment.

As for the absence of water in the fire hydrant system, it is clear that no action was taken to seek out the cause and to restore the supply following reports on 15 December 1994 that the system was dry. Three officials have been reprimanded. In addition, the Department of the Environment has reminded the contractor and the consultant responsible for the current contract at Parliament buildings of their continuing obligations in respect of maintenance of existing services and installations during the period of the contract. Sir Reginald notes that, by chance, the lack of water at the building was not a significant issue, owing to the prompt action of the fire brigade. On the question of fire drills, there can of course be difficulty in setting a convenient date for a trial evacuation in a building that is often used for meetings with the public, but a gap of five years is inexcusable. It indicates that fire precautions were not accorded proper priority by management in Parliament buildings. I have taken steps to ensure that those responsible for these matters in all Crown buildings in Northern Ireland are in no doubt about their responsibilities, and of my continuing concern that those responsibilities are properly exercised. An accelerated training programme for premises officers is being implemented by the works service of the Department of the Environment; Departments have been reminded of their obligation to comply with the fire precautions guide, which provides advice on fire safety matters. Some aspects of the guide require revision or clarification, and that work has been initiated.

On the question of access, the fire brigade has been reminded of the agreed access route. Sir Reginald finds that, in the event, the resulting delay amounted to less than one minute.

The cost of restoring the Commons chamber as it was is estimated at about £1.5 million. I have authorised the Department of the Environment to proceed with the work, which will be part of a general refurbishment of Parliament buildings extending over two years at a cost of £20 million.

It is clear from the report that fire safety precautions have simply not been given a sufficiently high priority. As Secretary of State, I greatly regret that. Sir Reginald notes that at the time of the fire a refurbishment scheme for Parliament buildings had been under way since February 1994, concentrating on health and safety and fire precaution work. That programme had been extracted from a more extensive and general programme identified in the mid 1980s, but delayed first because of the need to relocate DOE staff into other accommodation and latterly because of other financial priorities. Obvious difficulties are involved in arranging the refurbishment of aging but heavily used public buildings, but I accept that Government are responsible for doing it in order to ensure proper health and safety standards. Sir Reginald comments that fire safety work, once identified as necessary, should be carried out as a matter of urgency and should not be allowed to wait until it can be incorporated in a wider refurbishment scheme. I accept

Column 215

that, and have made it clear to all Departments that health and safety provision is of such fundamental importance that it must merit high priority in expenditure plans.

I have accepted all Sir Reginald's recommendations, and have instructed a senior official in the Department of the Environment to ensure their urgent implementation and report progress to me on a quarterly basis. A task force under his chairmanship has been established, and has already met on three occasions.

Sir Reginald indicates that the overall standard of staff safety in Crown buildings provided by fire alarms, escape routes, the protection of escape routes, fire extinguishers, hose reels and other means is generally satisfactory. However, he considers that the legislation for Crown buildings is not satisfactory, and recommends alternative informal safeguards to ensure that Crown buildings comply with the standards set out in the Fire Services Order (NI) 1984. That recommendation is accepted, and applications for all certifiable buildings are being submitted on an accelerated--but also prioritised--basis. The objective is to have complete certification coverage within two years. A comprehensive and definitive list of all Crown buildings requiring certification is being compiled. For the protection of the fabric of buildings, modern fire detection systems will be installed on a phased and prioritised basis in buildings where it is considered necessary. In addition, an urgent review has been initiated to identify buildings in which the installation of sprinklers or gas flood systems might be justified. I am grateful to Sir Reginald Doyle for his report, which I believe will lead--through the implementation of his recommendations--to a general improvement in fire safety arrangements in all Crown buildings in Northern Ireland.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I want to express our thanks for the courage and professionalism of those who tackled the blaze, especially the police and the firefighters. We are greatly relieved that the fire did not result in loss of life.

I agree with the Secretary of State about the recommendations in the report, which is deeply disturbing. I am pleased that he is determined to address the shortcomings in policy. I am equally pleased that he accepts that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure proper health and safety standards. It is sad that it has taken a fire to make those policy shortcomings transparent. It is clear from Sir Reginald Doyle's comments that the Government's responsibility to protect public property and individual safety has been neglected in Northern Ireland. The exemption of Crown properties from the formal obligations under the Fire Services Order (Northern Ireland) 1984 should not stop the Government ensuring that buildings are kept up to the necessary standards. At a minimum, those standards require adequate means of escape for staff, means for ensuring that the escape can be used at all material times, means of giving warning and means of firefighting.

As the Secretary of State explained, the fire probably went undetected for as long as eight hours, the staff patrol bypassed the area, the new detection system was not connected and there was no water supply at the hydrants.

Column 216

The alarm and firefighting provisions at Stormont castle were inadequate at the time of the fire and it is clear that the minimum standards were not complied with.

I want to ask four specific and direct questions. First, the report refers to the Government's review of fire safety legislation and enforcement. I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that the report said that there was

"no reason why the Government should not announce that in future fire precautions legislation"

will apply to Crown properties. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House why the Government have made no specific response to that recommendation, which was made last summer? Will he now make it clear to the House that none of the more than 1,000 Crown buildings in Northern Ireland will be immune from fire and health and safety regulations?

Secondly, the Secretary of State announced that he will publish a quarterly report, to be produced by the Department of the Environment, on the implementation of Sir Reginald's recommendations. At the same time, will he tell us the date on which he will publish a list of all the Crown buildings requiring certification? Thirdly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommend the reallocation of funds within the Department of Economic Development to respond to the four-year backlog of buildings waiting to be inspected?

Finally, the report also refers to the lack of awareness of contractors about where their specific responsibilities lay. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government's policy for restructuring Departments and for contracting out services has led to confusion and a lack of transparency and accountability between those who make policy and those who implement it? What recommendations will he make to alleviate that chaos?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her tribute to those who tackled the fire so extremely effectively. As Sir Reginald Doyle pointed out, it was only their very prompt action that saved the building from much worse damage, because there was no water in the hydrants. I am also grateful for the hon. Lady's endorsement of the Government's approach to this serious report. The hon. Lady referred to exemptions for Crown buildings from the Fire Services Order (Northen Ireland) 1984, which is the legislation that applies to Northern Ireland. It relates to the first of her specific questions. There are difficulties inherent in applying that legislation, with its sanctions, to Crown buildings. These are matters of policy for the Home Secretary in Great Britain and for me in Northern Ireland and I should like to reflect on the matter and consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about the quarterly report that I mentioned and about the progress being made by the task force. I did not say that I would publish the quarterly reports and I do not think that to do so would be necessarily appropriate. What is important is that they are made quarterly, because regular progress and regular monitoring are necessary.

I believe that the third of the hon. Lady's questions--she will correct me if I am wrong--was about the list of buildings that have acquired certification. I have said that our target is that work on the whole backlog shall be

Column 217

completed in two years. Of course I shall be perfectly prepared at any time to answer questions about the progress that is being made. The hon. Lady's last question was about contractual obligations. I am not aware of any standard form of contractual obligation. I am given to understand that in this case there was a clear contractual obligation to maintain existing services on the part of the consultant and the contractor. As I have said to the House, each has been reminded of the importance of those obligations during the currency of the contract.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East): I join the Secretary of State in thanking Sir Reginald Doyle for a useful and thorough report and, on a personal level, for the courtesy that he extended to me when I provided him with evidence and proposals. I also join the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), in congratulating the RUC and in particular the fire brigade, whose professionalism stemmed the spread of the fire.

I welcome three things that the Secretary of State said in his statement. First, I welcome the undertaking that he is determined to remedy the shortcomings. Will he specifically state whether he is prepared to do so immediately in financial terms? We need more fire inspectors on the ground to reduce the length of time that it will take to inspect all Crown buildings. We need the resources to make the necessary changes to Crown buildings that the inspection report identified.

Secondly, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that he intends to restore the Commons chamber at Stormont. Will he confirm that it will be restored as closely as contractually possible to its former glory with all, let us say, the British trappings that it had previously? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he says that fire precautions were not given sufficiently high priority, it was because complacency had trickled down from the highest level to produce the incompetence that the report suggests?

For more than 18 months I have raised issues relating to fire safety in Crown buildings. They have been virtually ignored at the very highest levels. If heads are to roll on Stormont lawn, let there be some easily recognised heads among them.

Next Section

Home Page