ICL Factory Explosion (Public Inquiry)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-374, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on the ICL factory explosion.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that, three years and three months after the factory explosion that claimed the lives of nine workers, badly injured many more and devastated the community of Maryhill, the companies involved, ICL Plastics and ICL Tech Limited, have pled guilty to breaches of health and safety legislation; recognises the dignified and responsible way in which the families of those involved in this tragedy have conducted themselves throughout this difficult time; notes the support and assistance given by the STUC and the families' lawyers throughout, and further notes the call by the families and their supporters for a wide-reaching public inquiry into the circumstances of this case and looks to the Lord Advocate to facilitate such an inquiry.
On 11 May 2004, employees of two companies, ICL Tech and ICL Plastics, arrived for work as usual. It was warm and sunny as the staff made their way into the former Victorian paper-mill to begin another working day. The companies specialised in plastics and plastic coatings, and production was largely carried out on the ground floor, with offices on the second floor.
At approximately 12 noon, the builder Kenneth Murray went into the basement to pick up his tools. He switched on the lights—it is presumed that that simple act was the trigger for the tragedy that became known as the Stockline explosion. What is known for sure is that nine workers died, 33 were injured, some very seriously, and 17, although not injured, were placed at risk of death. One 82-year-old passer-by was injured by flying debris.
For four days, up to 200 firefighters from all over the United Kingdom toiled in dangerous conditions to find those who were missing. For four days, Maryhill Road, normally a busy commuter route, was unnaturally quiet. For four days, the families of those who were missing waited for word of their loved ones. For four days, workers at nearby Community Central Hall did not go home, but stayed at their workplace, offering much-needed support to those who waited and searched. For four days, offers of help poured in from Maryhill and beyond, as people with no direct connection to the tragedy tried to do something to help. Over four days, the death toll rose until, on 14 May, the body of the last missing worker, Tim Smith, was found. Finding Tim signalled that the recovery exercise had ended and that the investigation would begin.
For over two years, Strathclyde Police, the Health and Safety Executive and the area procurator fiscal's office were involved in a painstaking investigation into the cause of the explosion. What did the £1 million investigation reveal? Could the explosion have been avoided?
In 1969, the company had pipework installed to feed liquefied petroleum gas into the factory from a tank outside in the yard. The installer was a marine engineer, the brother-in-law of the chairman and chief executive of the companies. Whether that installer had any experience of that type of work was disputed in court. What was not in doubt was that the installation did not conform to the regulations that were in place at the time, and that the fittings on the pipe were neither galvanised nor wrapped to prevent corrosion. Five years later, an exposed section of the pipe was buried when the level of the yard was raised. Over the years, that pipe corroded, allowing LPG fumes to enter the basement area that had been created. Kenneth Murray's flicking on of a light switch was enough to cause the catastrophic explosion.
Could the explosion have been prevented? From the evidence that was presented in court, the answer seems to be that over the years a number of opportunities were missed, but which could have made a difference. First, had the pipe been laid according to the regulations that were in force in 1969, it might not have corroded. Secondly, had the pipe remained above ground, its deterioration would have been evident. Thirdly, had routine inspections of the pipe been undertaken, the corrosion could have been identified and the corroded section replaced—at a cost, as was revealed in court, of just £405. Finally, had proper health and safety assessments been carried out over the years, the potential danger of a corroding pipe would have been clearly understood.
When the case came to court, the two companies pled guilty to breaches of health and safety legislation and were found guilty. In fining each company £200,000, the judge said that the fines were not meant to equate to the lives lost, the injuries received or the suffering inflicted. As he remarked:
"These are not things that are capable of being expressed in terms of sums of money."—
a sentiment that the bereaved families share.
How do we ensure that such a tragedy never happens again? The families and their supporters, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, my Westminster colleague Ann McKechin and the thousands of people who have signed the petition firmly believe that a full judicial public inquiry into all the circumstances of the case is needed.
By law, any death at work is automatically the subject of a fatal accident inquiry but, given that such an inquiry would be relatively limited in scope, we believe that a full inquiry initiated jointly by Holyrood and Westminster is required, not least because health and safety issues and the conveyance of gas through pipes are matters that rest with the UK Government.
We want all the issues that are raised by this case to be aired in public, not just those that we were able to hear about in court. In addition, the inquiry must have the scope to examine whether new legislation needs to be introduced to deal with such situations.
The relatives want an inquiry to consider why the number of accidents and injuries in workplaces in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the UK and why the number of prosecutions is so low. They also want the inquiry to give due consideration to the level of fine that can be imposed.
The Lord Advocate has said that a decision will be made on this issue by the end of the month and we are grateful to her and to the Procurator Fiscal Service for meeting us. We are also grateful to the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Peter Hain, for meeting us in the past few weeks. They have heard directly from the families why a full judicial public inquiry is needed; I hope that they will realise that those families also represent all the other families who have lost loved ones, and those who have been injured at work. They also represent all those who waited, worked and watched with them during what were the longest four days of their lives.
To honour the memory of the nine people who died, we must do all that we can to ensure that such an avoidable tragedy never occurs again. That is why the families' call for a full judicial public inquiry must not go unheeded.
I pay tribute to the work that Patricia Ferguson and others have done in assisting the victims and their families after the terrible events of 11 May 2004. I associate myself with the motion and echo the comments about the dignified and responsible manner in which families who were caught up in this dreadful event have conducted themselves. No one knows how they would cope in such tragic circumstances until they are thrown into them. The motion is trying to ensure that no one else will ever have to experience what these families experienced.
Lessons must be learned, but that cannot happen until all the facts are held up to public scrutiny. The fact that the guilty plea means that fewer lessons can be learned has to be addressed. I agree that a wide-reaching judicial public inquiry into the circumstances of the case will lead to such lessons being learned. I am encouraged that our First Minister, Alex Salmond, has asked the Lord Advocate to consider the matter and that she will report back by the end of the month.
The comment of ICL Plastics on the disaster inadvertently reinforced the need for a public inquiry. The company said:
"Whilst we have pled guilty to the criminal indictment we faced and have apologised unreservedly, we refute the suggestion that our working practices were persistently or routinely deficient or that we treat our employees unfairly."
The company might well refute that suggestion, but that is just one of the reasons why all the evidence that exists must be scrutinised thoroughly and in public. Let us get to the truth; let us have the public inquiry.
At the time of the disaster, the Health and Safety Executive had only 68 inspectors to police 81,000 workplaces, so an inquiry should investigate the relationship between the Health and Safety Executive inspection regime and workplace health and safety regimes, and the effectiveness—or otherwise—of that relationship. A public inquiry is not just about justice for the victims and their families; it is, as I have previously said, about learning the lessons, and ensuring that such an incident cannot and will not happen again.
On justice, I am aware that compensation, whether in cash or any other form, cannot remove or make up for loss and suffering. However, the imposition of two £200,000 fines as the total sum of the consequences for ICL Plastics—for nine workers' lives lost and 40 workers injured—just does not seem to cut it. I understand the reasons behind the limitations on such fines—it was noted in the "The ICL/Stockline Disaster" report that the cost of fines might even be passed on to workers, who are most endangered by safety offences.
An alternative—or an addition—to fining companies would be to have an equity fine system, which has been developed by lawyers in the United States of America. Such a system would target guilty parties effectively and leave at least some form of positive legacy for victims, their families and affected communities. It would allow courts to order guilty companies to issue a quota of new shares to be administered by a state-controlled compensation fund. My colleague Bill Wilson has lodged a motion on equity fines, which I hope that members will have a look at.
However, today's debate is about the call for a public inquiry. I reiterate my support for a wide-reaching public inquiry, and once more I pay tribute to the dignity of the families of all those who were tragically affected by the terrible events of 11 May 2004.
I thank Patricia Ferguson for bringing the debate to the chamber and for her work on the issue.
I welcome the recent independent report on the ICL/Stockline disaster. The Health and Safety Executive has chosen not to comment on the report in detail, but it says that it
"rejects the generalities of the accusations against HSE and its staff."
Whatever the Health and Safety Executive says about generalities, it would be remiss of us not to put the Stockline disaster in the context of what has been called the Scottish safety anomaly. The report highlights the rates of fatal and major injuries for Scotland as compared to those for the UK as a whole: the fatality rates for Scottish employees are on average 58 per cent higher than those for employees in the UK overall. The report states:
"HSE's attempts to explain this ‘Scottish anomaly' have produced unsatisfactory conclusions."
The issue has been raised in the Parliament through motions that Cathy Jamieson and I lodged. It has also been pursued by the STUC, which has proposed a commission on health and safety in Scotland to address the problem. The issue is not just about the higher accident rates; there have also been lower prosecution rates and smaller fines.
It is vital that a public inquiry is held into the circumstances and causes of the explosion. I fully support the call for an inquiry and I hope that the remit will be broad enough to allow consideration not only of the specifics and why the company and regulatory authorities failed to prevent the disaster, but of the wider context in which the accident occurred. Only by considering the Stockline disaster and its relevance to the generalities of health and safety in Scotland can we hope to address the unacceptable record and improve the working lives of the people of Scotland.
I, too, thank Patricia Ferguson for bringing the matter before the Parliament. The events at the Stockline factory were truly horrific and it is entirely appropriate that the Parliament takes the opportunity to debate the matter. When people go to their work, they are entitled to expect that they will work in a safe environment and the relatives of people who go to work have the right to expect that their loved ones will return home safely at night. I pay tribute to the dignified manner in which the relatives of the Stockline victims and those who were injured on that terrible day have conducted themselves since then.
As we know, there was complete deficiency on the part of the company, which had to answer in the High Court for its negligence. It was fined appropriately. However, some questions clearly still require an answer. As Cathy Peattie rightly said, the regulatory authority and the Health and Safety Executive appear to have fallen a great deal short of what we would have expected of them. That did not come out in the court case.
The law is quite simple: in certain circumstances—for example, when a person dies in prison or at work—it is a requirement that a fatal accident inquiry be held by the sheriff in the jurisdiction of where the accident happened. That would be the bottom line in this case. There would have to be a fatal accident inquiry after which the sheriff would recommend where he or she thought that there should be improvements in the way, for example, a particular work process was carried out. In this case, the inquiry would highlight the failures of the inspectorate.
However, the fatal accident inquiry system is not exhaustive. Bill Butler could confirm that the Justice Committee has considered certain aspects of the operation of the FAI system. We are awaiting responses from the Executive. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a much fuller inquiry will be carried out into the operation of legislation that is now more than 30 years old. We need to know whether that legislation is still effective and is still compatible with changed times. We have to learn the lessons of Stockline, but it is doubtful whether the existing system of fatal accident inquiries would allow a satisfactory examination.
I am content to leave the matter in the hands of the Lord Advocate. However, if there were any dissatisfaction with the approach taken to any inquiry held by the sheriff, I would not see any problem in extending the inquiry along the lines that are suggested in Patricia Ferguson's motion.
This is a sombre debate. Matters of this type will always be tinged with sadness. If there are lessons to be learned, we must learn them. I am content to leave it to the Lord Advocate to determine the way in which an inquiry would take place. However, clearly, the views of the relatives have to have primacy.
I thank Patricia Ferguson for securing this very important debate. I pay tribute to her tenacity in pursuing justice for the families and others who have suffered greatly from this terrible tragedy. She has shown us all what an MSP for an area can do when a tragedy such as this one happens. She was one of the first ones down there—I was there as well—and I congratulate her on all the hard work that she has done.
I also want to praise many individuals and groups—for example, the fire brigade, the ambulance crews and the workers of Community Central Hall. In particular, I praise Gary Gentle for the excellent work that was done and for the comfort that was provided to many people. As Patricia Ferguson said, Community Central Hall in Maryhill was open for 24 hours on those days. Staff sometimes went for 24 hours, or even longer, without any sleep, just so that they could offer food, tea and coffee and could provide basic comfort. They set up an incident room so that people could have access to emergency telephone calls from the police and the ambulance service. Those people cannot be praised highly enough for the comfort that they gave to suffering people.
I went along—Patricia Ferguson was there too—to talk to people who did not know what had happened to their family members. Nobody knew who had been involved, and nobody knew who would come out alive and who would come out dead. Speaking to those people was gut wrenching.
The comfort that was provided by ordinary individuals as well as by groups was something to see. Patricia Ferguson mentioned someone who was killed in the explosion who was an acquaintance of my brother. I was not directly affected as relatives were, but I know exactly what people were going through. That is why I signed the motion; I also signed a petition on the matter, and I whole-heartedly support a full public inquiry into the disaster.
Patricia Ferguson went into great detail about the evidence that has emerged. I believe that the Stockline disaster was caused by years of neglect by the company. The Government watchdog was meant to regulate the factory but, according to reports out today, it did not do so in the proper manner. According to the Sunday Herald,
"Eight experts from four universities have condemned ICL Plastics and the Health and Safety Executive … for failing to prevent the gas explosion".
Those are not my words but the words of experts, who said that conditions in the factory were poor, safety rules were broken and corners were cut to save money. That is why we need a public inquiry. Lots of questions need to be answered, and we need to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again. In a public inquiry, questions would have to be asked of the HSE's role in the matter. Were assessments properly carried out? Were workers' concerns listened to? Should spot checks be carried out by the HSE? All those issues have to be raised, and only a public inquiry will bring the truth out.
The families of the people who died in this terrible tragedy deserve to know the truth. I urge the minister to press for a public inquiry.
I join other members in thanking Patricia Ferguson for securing the debate and for speaking so movingly about the events of three years ago. I apologise if I am unable to stay until the end of tonight's debate.
Some members have touched on the harsh reality behind the debate: Scotland appears to have a substantially worse health and safety record than the rest of the UK, with a death and injury toll that is still far bigger than it needs to be. Some industries are worse than others. Over the years, as a solicitor handling accident claims, I have been in factory premises representing both pursuers and insurers. I have had the opportunity to see a snapshot of what goes on. It is fair to say that, even in my experience, the difference between the best firms and the worst firms is stark. It is also true that many accidents are predictable and avoidable.
Like other members, I visited the site of the Stockline disaster just after the accident. I saw for myself the extent of the devastation, and the dedication and professionalism of the chief fire officer—or deputy chief fire officer, as he was then: Brian Sweeney and his staff. I have had the chance to read both reports on the criminal court case, in which the judge, Lord Brodie, described the breach of health and safety laws as
"at the lower end of the scale".
The independent report produced by the Universities of Strathclyde and Stirling paints a rather different picture. It describes an authoritarian style of management, an absence of employee consultation, high risks posed by the presence of many dangerous chemicals, homemade and antique equipment, a lack of a health and safety committee, and a lack of risk assessments required under the control of substances hazardous to health—or COSHH—regulations.
Even more worrying, as Bob Doris mentioned, is the fact that the report suggested that HSE inspectors were unable to comprehend the complexity and gravity of the hazard to which workers in the plant were exposed. It also touched on the numbers to which Bob Doris referred. There were reports of a range of industrial diseases caused by exposure to the plastics chemicals, and a suggestion of structural issues with the building, to say nothing of the apparent lack of training provision and inadequate extraction equipment.
The report is compelling and hair-raising. I am not qualified to judge its accuracy and comprehensiveness—as I understand it, it was not designed to provide a causal link to the accident—but it casts a cruel light on the state of affairs at Stockline before the disaster, which was the worst since Piper Alpha. To my mind it provides a compelling case not just for a public inquiry but for a wide-ranging judicial inquiry that can consider those matters in context. Such an inquiry should not be limited to the accident; it should consider the more general implications for accident prevention and good practice, because I suspect that Stockline was not an entirely untypical industrial unit in Scotland.
In my experience, bad health and safety practices are sometimes associated with declining businesses that lack the cash, the insight or the capacity to modernise processes and equipment or to move to more modern, purpose-built premises. That is a challenge that we need to address as a society through the structure of any grants or support that might be available, but the suggestion is that Stockline did not fall into that category and that the parent company was cash rich. That brings us back to the HSE inspectorate. Responsibility for the HSE is reserved to Westminster and any public inquiry should involve the United Kingdom Government as well.
The facts—a £400,000 fine, nine people dead and 33 people injured—are a telling commentary on some aspects of the way in which we approach things in modern Scotland. A wide-ranging judicial inquiry should be carried out. I am keen to support Patricia Ferguson's motion.
I join others in congratulating Patricia Ferguson on securing this important debate, although I am sure that it is a debate that she would have preferred never to need to bring to Parliament.
Like others, I pay tribute to the dignity with which survivors and their families have conducted their campaign and have sought to bring those who are responsible to account. None of us in the chamber can begin to imagine the emotions that they have experienced—the grief, the frustration and the despair. We cannot imagine the anger that they must feel at the fact that their loved ones went to work in the morning and did not come back at night. As Bill Aitken rightly said, we should all be able to expect that our loved ones will return to us.
As members will be aware, I have long had an interest in corporate culpable homicide. It began after the deaths of four of my constituents in a gas explosion in 1999. The similarities between that case and the Stockline case are, quite frankly, alarming. Dangerous, explosive gas leaked from a pipe that was not properly maintained into a building that contained people, something triggered an explosion and innocent people died.
Stockline, like Transco, might not accept that anything in their working practices led to the tragedy, but—call me old fashioned if you like—I believe that a pipe needs to be maintained over a period of time to ensure that it is safe and secure. I do not share the views of those companies and neither did the courts. However, in this case, the absence of a full trial means that the full facts have never been explored and tested. They have never been put through the wringer of public scrutiny in a way that will enable people to understand why their family members did not return home that night and why they live with the physical and mental injuries that that explosion inflicted on them.
I support Patricia Ferguson's call for a joint public inquiry by the UK and Scottish Governments. There have most certainly been failings in the way the company conducted itself and in the way the HSE managed the case. We need to learn the lessons.
For too long, Scotland has been the capital of industrial deaths in Britain. This Parliament owes it to the people who have died in this case, in the Transco case and in other cases to ensure that the lessons are learned and that those who are responsible are held to account. A full public inquiry in this case will give us an opportunity to do that. The UK Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill provides a new legal framework, but I remain to be convinced that it is sufficiently robust to deter employers who are hell-bent on putting profit before public safety. This Parliament might, in time, need to act for itself.
I, too, pay tribute to Patricia Ferguson for enabling this Parliament to express not only its concern but its anger about what happened in this tragedy. The tragedy affected the people in the factory, but it is not just a Glasgow issue—there are families in my area, Renfrewshire, who also grieve as a result of that dreadful disaster.
As other members have said, one of the factors that has marked what has happened since the tragedy is the dignity of the survivors and the families. Another is their determination—ably supported by Patricia Ferguson and the STUC—to see a number of developments: they rightly want justice for themselves and for their loved ones, but they also want to ensure that such an event never happens again. They want to see lessons being learned so that others will not have to suffer as they have suffered. We can do a small thing to help them get the reassurance that others will not suffer, but we cannot directly and immediately offer them a solution.
Robert Brown outlined some of the dreadful things that were done—or not done—in the factory but, unfortunately, the legal remedies are complex. A great deal of deliberation and debate will be required to resolve them. They cannot be resolved by the Parliament or by the Scottish Executive or Government on its own—something needs to be done in partnership with the UK Government. That is why Patricia Ferguson is right to call for a full judicial inquiry. We need to know all the circumstances of the tragedy. We need to know what happened and why it happened. We also need to shine a light on the way forward. We must look into the dark recesses of our legal system to see what can be done and how something can be changed to ensure that others do not suffer in the future.
That is easy to say—we all made similar statements when Karen Gillon raised the Transco tragedy. We all said that something like that should never happen again. Not only did it happen again, it happened on a much bigger scale. God help us as to what might happen in the future if we do not learn the lessons and apply our minds to coming up with suitable remedies.
Patricia Ferguson is right to say that a full judicial inquiry should be held to give us the framework for looking for solutions to give other workers the assurances that they deserve. I think that that can be done, but it is a matter of will. I am heartened by the support from across the political parties. This is not a party political issue. I am heartened that so many people are speaking with one voice to say that we owe it to those who have suffered to ensure that something comes from this.
Patricia Ferguson eloquently described the tragic events of 11 May 2004 and the immediate aftermath. It is clear that she has discharged diligently and with dignity her duties as the constituency representative of many of those involved. It is appropriate for me to pay tribute, too, to the member of Parliament, Ann McKechin, and to Ian Tasker of the STUC for the considerable work that they performed throughout and in the years subsequent to the tragic events. The tragedy appears, from the very fact of the guilty pleas, to have been avoidable.
I join all other members in paying tribute to the outstanding work of the emergency services in the immediate aftermath—not only the fire, police and ambulance services but the health workers in Glasgow's hospitals, who I understand undertook a mammoth effort to deal with the human carnage.
The First Minister stayed to hear Patricia Ferguson's speech. Unfortunately, he has had to leave to attend to other duties, but he told me that yesterday evening he personally met the families involved. As members would expect, he has taken a personal and very close interest in the outcome of these matters.
Following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the Lord Advocate decided that it would be appropriate to hold an inquiry in public into the circumstances surrounding the explosion at the ICL factory on 11 May 2004. The Lord Advocate must decide on the type of inquiry. I know that Patricia Ferguson, along with Ann McKechin and others, has met the Lord Advocate and made representations about the inquiry's scope and remit.
As Patricia Ferguson knows, the decision is not for me but for the Lord Advocate to take. I wanted to inform the Parliament about the decision clearly, so I can quote that
"The Lord Advocate intends to make arrangements for the families to be notified of her decision on which type of Inquiry is to be held before any formal public announcement is made."
As members may be aware, three kinds of inquiry are being considered. The first is an inquiry under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which the relevant UK department would hold. The second is a fatal accident inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976, which the Crown would lead. The third option is to hold a joint inquiry with UK ministers under the Inquiries Act 2005.
The Lord Advocate has met Lord McKenzie, the UK minister with responsibility for health and safety, to discuss the inquiry options that are available and to obtain his views on the possibility of inquiries under the 1974 act and the 2005 act. As Patricia Ferguson knows, the Lord Advocate has also met the families of victims and of survivors of the tragedy to listen to their views on the type of inquiry that they feel should be held and on the matters that they believe should be aired in public.
In preparing for the debate, I studied yesterday evening a report prepared by the Universities of Strathclyde and of Stirling on the ICL/Stockline disaster—Robert Brown and others referred to the report. It is correct for me as part of the Scottish Government to say that in referring to the report, I do not prejudge any of the issues that are involved or express any view on the Government's behalf on the report's contents. However, anyone whose heart is not made of stone could not but be moved by some of the report's contents and by the chilling narratives in it from some of the workers.
As members have correctly identified, it is clear that a number of questions need to be pursued in the inquiry. They include questions about exposure to chemicals such as styrene and trichloroethylene, about ventilation—or the lack of it—in relation to exposure to hazardous chemicals and about the Health and Safety Executive's role. Having read the whole report yesterday evening, I had better say no more in that regard. It is clear that all those issues must be fully investigated.
The explosion was one of the most serious industrial tragedies that Scotland has seen. The Government and the First Minister are determined that an inquiry should be held, which will provide a proper focus and a full opportunity to answer the questions that members have been right to raise in the debate and will ensure in so far as is possible that such an incident never occurs again.
Meeting closed at 17:49.