|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
In addition to the councils concerns and complaints received on the basis of health and safety, the site is a regular source of complaints and concerns about the environmental impact. As a condition of the current regulations governing authorisation of the site, the company is required to submit reports of any abnormal emissions, which in its opinion could have an impact on the community. Since the factory opened seven years ago, it has submitted 306 such reports. That level of environmental nuisance has a disproportionate impact on the local authority.
This Council notes with grave concern yesterdays fire at the Sonae plant in Kirkby and calls on the Health and Safety Executive to carry out a full and thorough investigation into this event, particularly in view of this Councils concern for the safety of the employees...and...the surrounding community.
Sonae is one of the biggest issues in my constituency and has been for several years now. The history of problems and the regularity of successful prosecutions against the company raises serious questions about the health and safety of the work force and residents. There have been many calls for the plant to be closed down, and I have to confess that I have some sympathy with that point of view. I do, however, recognise that closure is not a zero sum option. First, and importantly, some 200 jobs would be lost. Secondly, any legal action would be protracted and costly, and decisions could be reached that had national significance for the industry as whole. That could place a significant burden on Knowsley council, which is only a small metropolitan borough council. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could draw that problem to the attention of her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Rosie Cooper: After such a catalogue of incidents and serious injury, would my hon. Friend say that Sonae must have one of the worst records of any industrial unit in the country? What will it take to make the site safe for employees, as well as for his constituents, my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley South (Mr. OHara)?
Mr. Howarth: I was just coming to that. The seriousness of the problem leaves no room for complacency. For that reason, I support Knowsley councils resolution, and believe that the HSE should carry out the most comprehensive investigation possible into the cause of last weeks fire. It needs to bear in mind the fact that, had the fire got out of hand, it would have caused serious injuriesand worseto employees. Moreover, had the wind been in the wrong direction, the acrid smoke from the fire could well have caused respiratory problems to residents in the vicinity.
I hope that the HSE investigation will involve an examination of all the risks associated with the process at Sonae, together with any appropriate recommendations for preventing such risks. Unless and until the HSE can be satisfied that the plant can safely reopen, and guarantee the health and safety of the workforce and residents, I believe that the plant needs to remain closed.
Mr. O'Hara: I have been listening very carefully to the catalogue of disastrous incidents that my right hon. Friend has set out. They have happened over a long period: some seem to be related to the hazardous nature of the process being undertaken in the factory, but others appear to be avoidable. Does he agree that the HSE should look at both those factors?
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. On some occasions, poor management at the factory has caused incidents to happen, but that is a local problem that ought to be resolvable. I do not want to paint a totally gloomy picture, as there have been improvements in management at the factory, but problems in the past have caused concern.
The process involved in the manufacture of chipboard is controversial all over the world, and Knowsley is no different in that respect. Some believe that the process will never be safe, regardless of the measures that are taken, but my concern is that the HSE should do everything in its power to ensure that it is as safe as possible. As I said a moment ago, I believe that the factory should not reopen if the safety of the work force and the local community cannot be guaranteed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) for securing this debate. The issue that he has raised is of concern to many people living and working in the vicinity of the Sonae factory in his constituency. It also affects the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who have attended this debate.
My right hon. Friend has described a worrying series of incidents at the plant since it began operation in 2000. I am sure that anyone listening shares his concerns, which he also raised in 2004 with my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) when she was the Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions with responsibility for the HSE.
Many of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East has raised tonight relate to the health and safety of people working at, and in the vicinity of, the Sonae plant. As such, they rightly fall within the remit of the HSE. However, he has also raised other concerns that relate to environmental matterssuch as noise, dust, smoke, emissions and water pollutionover which the HSE has no regulatory powers. He has correctly identified that responsibility for those falls to the local authority, Knowsley metropolitan borough council, and the Environment Agency. Later on, I shall make some observations about how different bodies may be able to co-operate.
My right hon. Friend also explained that the agencies to which I have referred have taken enforcement action against the companyinvolving both prosecution and the issuance of various
enforcement noticeswhere there have been failures to comply with regulations and breaches of operating conditions.
As my right hon. Friend knows, I shall deal in this debate with those matters that fall within the remit of the HSE. I hope to give him assurances about the action that the HSE is taking in dealing with the Sonae site, and about what it has done in respect of other incidents in the past.
As my right hon. Friend indicated, residents around the factory have had concerns about its operation since it was commissioned. Those concerns include the environmental impact of wood dust blowing from the wood yards, the increase in traffic volume, noise, water pollution and the catalogue of incidents that he highlighted.
I turn to the incident that took place last Tuesday, 20 February. I assure my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire and for Knowsley, South that the incident is being thoroughly investigated by the HSE. An initial visit was paid on 20 February while the emergency services were still on site, so it was possible to make some preliminary observations of the site and the circumstances to inform the composition of the HSEs investigation team. At this stage, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will appreciate, it is too early to reach firm conclusions about what happened, but it appears that a mechanical seal on a thermal oil line in a manifold room failed, releasing hot oil that subsequently ignited.
According to our information, the fire was quickly noticed and emergency plans were put into operation. The plant was safely shut down and evacuated without injury to any member of the work force. The fire was confined to a small section of the plant, but heat and smoke from it caused damage to a control room and to some of the cladding on the building. The fire was quickly extinguished by the fire brigade once firefighters were on site, but the thick yellow and black smoke from the fire was carried by the wind, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. Fortunately, as he said, last Tuesday the wind was blowing away from the nearest residential estates and the smoke was carried over nearby industrial estates.
The HSEs investigation will seek to establish the cause of the release of the oil, the source of ignition and whether the companys systems for maintaining the equipment were adequate. The investigation will also seek to establish whether the company should have been able to control the fire without resort to the fire brigade and how and why the effects of the fire were not confined to the manifold room. I assure my right hon. Friend that if the HSE considers that the companys plans for bringing the plant back into operation will leave anyone exposed to imminent risk of serious personal injury, the process will be prohibited until all measures that the HSE considers suitable are put in place.
On the factorys record on health and safety issues, the latest incident followsbut is considerably less serious thanthe explosion that occurred on 1 June 2002, when a worker was severely injured and there was massive damage to the plant and buildings, which put the factory out of action for about three months. There is no doubt whatever that the company had a poor record of compliance with the Health and Safety at
Work, etc. Act 1974, particularly from the opening of the plant until the end of 2002. During that period, as well as the explosion I have just mentioned, there were several other accidents, some of which were serious. Workers at the factory raised their concerns with the HSE and as a result inspectors paid many visits to the factory and took robust enforcement action in the appropriate situations.
An indication of that poor record is that the company was prosecuted four times in its first three years of operation. After an incident in 2000, when an employee was trapped in a machine during commissioning, a penalty of £15,000 plus costs of £16,700 was imposed. Penalties and costs were imposed following an incident in 2001 when another employee was trapped by machinery. For the circumstances of the explosion in June 2002, the company was fined £70,000, plus £77,000 costs. An accident involving a forklift truck in 2002 attracted a penalty of £12,000, plus £13,000 costs.
At this stage I must apologise to my right hon. Friend that a promise to place in the House of Commons Library a copy of the report of the investigation into the 2002 explosion has not yet been fulfilled. Although the prosecution following that incident was eventually concluded in 2006, the commitment was overlooked and I have now arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.
In addition to the prosecutions that I have outlined, the company was served with a number of improvement and prohibition notices. Again, there were disproportionately more than were served to other similar-sized employers, an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire raised. Those covered subjects ranging from the preparation of risk assessments and safe systems of work to the prohibition of the use of certain plant and processes until there were suitable arrangements and procedures for their safe use. Formal enforcement notices were also served on some contractors working under Sonaes control.
I have no hesitation in saying that the management of the company in those first three years of operation fell well below the standard that HSE inspectors would expect of a large company operating a process with significant hazards and risks to both its work force and people living in the surrounding areas. That is why the HSE took extensive enforcement measures against the company. At the time, many of the senior management team did not appear to understand the basic requirements and concepts of health and safety legislation.
As my right hon. Friend indicated, in 2002 there was a change of management and the appointment of a new managing director and chief executive officer with a firmer background in the industry and a grasp of health and safety requirements.
During 2003 and 2004, it was apparent to HSE inspectors, as they concluded their investigations into the 2002 explosion and paid routine visits to the plant, that the new CEO was bringing about noticeable improvements to the companys heath and safety arrangements. In 2005, a routine visit established that the new management team had a stronger sense of responsibility for health and safety than existed before. The company appeared to be taking a proactive
approach to health and safety and had identified concerns. That action, together with a reduction in the number and severity of reported injuries, indicated that the company was beginning to self-regulate and take responsibility for hazards and risks.
I understand that there is now in place a health and safety management team, including a full-time health and safety manager with a background in and extensive experience of the chemical industry, a full-time fire safety adviser and a full-time environmental manager. There is also a joint management and trade union health and safety committee on which the Amicus convenor sits along with a number of union-appointed safety representatives. A management committee oversees issues raised by the safety committee.
It appears that the current management arrangements are bringing improvements to the site because neither the trade union and its safety representatives nor any other employee has raised any
issues with the HSE since the explosion in 2002, a clear change to what happened before that.
Until yesterday, the HSE was not aware of the recent history of fires at the plant described by my right hon. Friend. I give him my categorical assurance that in investigating the latest fire, the HSE will now be looking at the previous fires to see whether they should have been reported, why they happened and what actions were taken by the company to prevent further outbreaks. I will ensure that he is fully advised of the outcome of those investigations.