page 1 1 Friday, 11th July 2008 2 (10.34 am) 3 ALISTAIR DOUGLAS MCNAB (continued) 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Ellis, I think you are going to be next; 5 is that right. 6 MR ELLIS: Thank you, my Lord. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Looking at the points you want to put, as far 8 as the first group is concerned, I mean, I fully 9 understand that the Competent Persons Regulations did 10 not come in until after the period we are dealing with 11 here. I am not sure you really need to labour that 12 point. I think that is now part of the contemporary 13 vocabulary in this subject, but in those days those 14 Regulations did not exist. 15 MR ELLIS: I am much obliged. It will enable me to shorten 16 the first matter. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Otherwise please carry on. 18 MR ELLIS: Thank you, my Lord. 19 Examined by MR ELLIS 20 Q. Mr McNab, I would like to ask you some questions 21 starting in relation to paragraph 39 of your statement. 22 I wonder if I could ask that document 011479 be up 23 on the screen, please. 24 Mr McNab, looking at paragraph 39 of your statement, 25 you refer to the proposal in the letter of 4th January page 2 1 and the way you put it as being the starting point for 2 Calor's competent person risk assessment and you go on 3 to say the expectation was that Calor would identify if 4 the pipe was showing corrosion and needed replaced or 5 advised when it next needed checked. Indeed you refer 6 to the phrase "competent person", with or without 7 capital letters, on a number of occasions in your 8 statement. 9 It light of what his Lordship has just said, can 10 I just check with you that by using the phrase 11 "competent person" in relation to the agreement in 1990 12 between Calor and the HSE you were not intending to 13 imply that the duties that came in the later Regulations 14 had been undertaken at that stage? 15 A. No, I recognised that the Regulations came in in 1989 16 with a 4-year transition phase. What I can't recall 17 exactly and I looked last night I don't have access to 18 the Regulations I do have my personal copies of the HSE 19 instructions from that era. So I agree with what you 20 are saying. I didn't see competent person in the light 21 of those Regulations particularly. I was thinking of 22 competent person in terms of HS(G)34. If you recall 23 I said that I was trying to build back up my 24 recollection of 1992 as best as I could. 25 Q. Thank you. I wonder if I could move on. Can we agree, page 3 1 just thinking of this letter dated 4th January, that 2 what Calor did in the letter was to make a proposal that 3 the condition of the pipe be ascertained by two specific 4 actions, being a visual examination of the riser pipe 5 and a pressure test? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. You would, I think, accept that in that letter Calor did 8 not undertake to do anything to ascertain the condition 9 of the pipe other than proposed visual examination 10 pressure test? 11 A. Yes, I think I was asked to comment on that yesterday, 12 as I recall, and I entered a debate about what the riser 13 pipe meant, if it did mean below the soil surface or 14 ground surface to the horizontal and I tried to refer to 15 my understanding of 1992 and now that that's what the 16 riser pipe was. 17 Q. But whatever precisely was meant by visual examination 18 of the riser pipe, you agree there are two specific 19 actions proposed by Calor? 20 A. Yes, I agree the terms of that letter. 21 Q. Do you accept that in that letter, Calor do not 22 undertake to carry out a risk assessment if that means 23 anything beyond the two specific actions in the letter? 24 A. It's certainly clear that risk assessment is not 25 mentioned in the letter. I've commented on that, if you page 4 1 like, using terminology that I recall as being in use 2 within the chemical industry and gas industry and indeed 3 HSE and my thought process there was, if you recall, 4 I mentioned HSG65, Successful Health and Safety 5 Management, which was published in 1991 and does talk 6 about risk assessment in 1991, so it refers risk 7 assessment back to the Health and Safety at Work Act 8 rather than risk assessment in terms of how we now see 9 risk assessment as a defined term under the relevant 10 regulations. 11 Q. If I understand you are using later terminology to help 12 explain what you saw the situation as having been in 13 1989 -- 14 A. Yes, and went back to what John Ives I recall -- and 15 again, I think we discussed this yesterday -- in terms 16 of me looking through file entries, I seem to recall 17 John Ives' letter did refer to a competent person 18 assessing, some phraseology. I can't quite recall. 19 Q. Perhaps I can explore it this way: when in paragraph 39 20 of your statement you mentioned your expectation, can 21 I ask is the expectation as discussed by you arising 22 from what was said in the letter of 4th January anything 23 more than an expectation that Calor would carry out two 24 specific actions and take further action if either of 25 those two actions to reveal the problem? page 5 1 A. I maybe did not explain this very well yesterday, but in 2 terms I think I did discuss it, was that my expectation 3 is built around my recollection, my best recollection of 4 what was going on in 1992. So what I thought, what 5 I believe was Calor's custom and practice of that era. 6 Q. Just thinking of the letter though, just to be clear as 7 to what your expectation was, was your expectation that 8 Calor would carry out the two specific actions they 9 proposed and only if they revealed the problem consider 10 further action? 11 A. Yes, but there's a further aspect which again I thought 12 I touched on yesterday but we could perhaps explore more 13 now which is not just custom and practice but also my 14 understanding was that what Calor did, whether it was 15 during the tank exchange or any testing, was to satisfy 16 Calor that it was safe to continue supply through the 17 civil contract. 18 Q. But insofar as the letter itself was concerned, you 19 would accept that what was being suggested was two 20 specific actions and the expectation was that those 21 would be carried out and if they alerted a problem, then 22 further action might be taken? 23 A. That's my understanding, yes. 24 Q. Thank you. 25 Now I wonder if I could move on to a different page 6 1 topic, still in relation to paragraph 39. You in there 2 also refer to Calor's knowledge of the age and 3 installation history of the pipe. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Can I ask you a couple of things about that. First of 6 all, by reference to the installation history, are you 7 saying that Calor had knowledge of how the pipe was 8 installed? 9 A. No, I can't say that. I've not heard anything from 10 witnesses I've heard over the last day and a half that 11 allows me to say that perhaps an assumption I've made -- 12 perhaps an assumption I've made thinking about trying to 13 think back to 1992 and what would the Health and Safety 14 at Work Act section 6 duty be. 15 Q. Just following on that same part of your statement, in 16 respect of Calor's knowledge of the age of the 17 installation, can we agree that HSE were also aware of 18 the age of the installation? 19 A. Yes, I accepted that yesterday from Alistair Gunn's 20 report and I believe a file entry by Sue Johnston or 21 Monica Finan. 22 Q. I would like to ask you, moving on in your statement to 23 paragraph 55 -- this is the last series of things 24 I would like to ask you about -- in paragraph 55 you 25 speak of having no option but to accept ICL assurances page 7 1 that Calor said it was safe and this may refer back to 2 what you say in paragraph 53 in which you refer to being 3 sufficiently persuaded by the company that pressure 4 testing and the riser pipe condition checking had been 5 done as per what you refer to as the 1990 agreement? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You also go on to say the pipe did not require action at 8 that time. I would like to explore those comments with 9 you just a little bit. 10 First of all, can I be clear whether or not you are 11 asserting that you understood that more had been done on 12 the two specific actions to ascertain the condition of 13 the pipework mentioned in the Calor letter of 4th 14 January? 15 A. No. I think I said yesterday that I couldn't exactly 16 recall a conversation. In fact, I can't recall 17 a conversation with Mr Stott or his manager. 18 Q. You also in paragraph 55 refer to your acceptance of ICL 19 assurances that Calor said that it was safe (that is 20 referring to the pipework) and did not require 21 replacement immediately. 22 Again, can I ask are you saying anything beyond that 23 it was your understanding that Calor carried out two 24 specific actions mentioned in the letter of 4th January? 25 A. No. page 8 1 Q. And would the understanding be or would your 2 understanding be that the results of those two actions 3 had been carried out but the results had not shown any 4 problem with the pipe? 5 A. Yes. I refer back to what I said to an earlier question 6 that you posed that I'm assuming that Calor have 7 concluded at the time of the test that it is safe to 8 continue supply from Calor to use it. 9 Q. You are not saying, are you, that Calor expressly said 10 that the pipe was safe? 11 A. I can't recall a conversation with Mr Stott so I clearly 12 can't comment. I accept I've put some looser wording 13 than I would have liked with hindsight into that 14 paragraph. 15 MR ELLIS: Thank you for that opportunity, my Lord. No 16 further questions. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McNab, this may be straying a little bit 18 into a later phase of the Inquiry, but I was struck by 19 something that Mr Tyldesley said, that if Calor had not 20 carried out some subterranean examination of the pipe 21 then I think he said they should have been ashamed of 22 themselves. 23 Would you accept that if you have a company like 24 Calor whose business it is to supply the product, that 25 if they were to undertake responsibilities in relation page 9 1 to pipework of the customer there would be huge 2 commercial implications, would there not? 3 A. Yes and that's why I've referred to a civil contract. 4 I wish to help but I'm conscious that we're straying 5 into -- I've already mentioned section 6 of the Health 6 and Safety at Work Act. It is actually still an ongoing 7 debate. I mentioned this I think yesterday that 8 I investigated more recently on a domestic gas incident 9 and I've asked questions of our legal advisers of the 10 HSE as to exactly what applies, domestic is different 11 I accept from commercial in terms of section 6 wouldn't 12 apply to domestic. 13 As I say, I wish to help but I don't wish to stray 14 into my trying to interpret matters that I as an 15 inspector know full well in a public Inquiry, a court or 16 tribunal is the only place that can give a definitive 17 interpretation of that and I wouldn't wish to do that. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I have taken you in a direction in 19 which you do not wish to go at this stage. 20 A. I'm happy to go, your Lordship, on that basis. If you 21 wish an opinion from a practitioner with experience I'm 22 happy to give it with the proviso that I'm not a court 23 or tribunal. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we are going to have to face up to 25 this question when we get to part 2. page 10 1 A. Could I maybe just -- one thing I could say I think is 2 factual, not taking us into territory I have difficulty 3 with, in terms of what I am trying to get at here 4 user/site occupier I would be looking at -- in that era 5 up until the Pressure Systems Regulations we have heard 6 about in 1989 I would be looking at the overlapping 7 legislation under the Health and Safety at Work Act. 8 My reference for that would be HS(G)34 which does 9 talk about the general duties across sections 2 to 6. 10 So, therefore, for the user I as an inspector and the 11 HSE would be considering section 2 regarding employees, 12 section 3 regarding any non-employee duties, ie 13 contractors, members of the public off site and section 14 6 would not apply. 15 Well, sorry, that depends on the product but in 16 terms of the gas supply issues section 6 would not apply 17 to the user. 18 In terms of the gas suppliers, I say that in plural 19 because there is a further gas company involved later, 20 then in my view -- sorry, I am incorrect there. The 21 second gas company came after the 1989 regulations. So 22 up to 1989 for a gas supplier I would be considering 23 section 3, that is the duty to their own employees; 24 section 4, which would be the conduct of an undertaking; 25 and section 6 and in particular the big question which, page 11 1 as I say, I cannot answer is section 6 (4) and (4) (c) 2 which is to do with how far does a duty holder as 3 a supplier have to go in terms of information and my 4 understanding is that that's bounded by section 6 (7) 5 and it's also refers back to section 4 conduct of an 6 undertaking. 7 So that's as far as I feel I could go without 8 straying beyond my capability as a non-lawyer. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that, Mr McNab. We will return 10 to that subject later I am sure. 11 Mrs Stacey? 12 MRS STACEY: Thank you, my Lord, but I have no questions for 13 Mr McNab. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McNab, thank you very much for your 15 evidence. 16 (The witness withdrew) 17 MR MARTIN: My Lord, the next witness is John Powell. 18 JOHN POWELL (called) 19 THE CHAIRMAN: You will be taken through your statement by 20 Mr Martin, Counsel to the Inquiry, and then there may be 21 one or two other questions as we go on. 22 MR MARTIN: Thank you, my Lord. 23 Examined by MR MARTIN 24 Q. Mr Powell, I think you are happy to read the parts of 25 your Inquiry statement which comprise your evidence and page 12 1 I shall interrupt you, if I may, from time to time just 2 to ask additional questions. 3 Do you have a copy of the statement? I hope you 4 have the one that was provided to you yesterday because 5 that is obviously the one we are all working from? 6 A. I have a copy, yes. 7 Can you hear me all right? 8 Q. Yes, thank you very much. Just remember in particular 9 the lady doing the transcription has to hear the 10 evidence so if you keep in contact with the microphone 11 that would be much appreciated. 12 So far as your Inquiry statement is concerned, in 13 paragraphs 1 to 11, I think you set out the background 14 to your evidence, in particular your professional 15 qualifications. I do not think I need to trouble you to 16 read through those. 17 We should note you retired from the Health & Safety 18 Executive in April 2005 and you had begun in your first 19 job at the Factory Inspectorate in 1973. You set out 20 your experience and qualifications, you are a chartered 21 chemist, doctor of philosophy, a member of Royal Society 22 of Chemists and have a diploma in safety and hygiene. 23 Between paragraphs 5 and 8, you summarise your 24 progression through the Factory Inspectorate and the 25 Health & Safety Executive. If you would not mind taking page 13 1 that as read and if I could ask you to begin reading, 2 please, at paragraph 12. 3 A. "It is important to obtain a full background of the 4 codes and guidance in place for factory inspectors and 5 health and safety inspectors in order to put 6 decision-making in action at any premises into context. 7 "When I joined the Factory Inspectorate the practice 8 was that every four years a general visit to premises 9 would be carried out. This was a complete inspection of 10 the premises which the Inspector was attending. 11 "We were required to carry out thorough inspections. 12 An example of this is shown in ..." and I refer to HSE 13 report on inspection file entry of 2/6/1970. 14 Q. Could I have 11402, please. 15 Is this the sort of document you are talking about? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. This is just so far as the chronology is concerned and 18 of course your evidence is dealing with events in 19 a sense much earlier than the recent witnesses, this 20 just gives an indication of how these were set out in 21 1970. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. We have heard, for example, that in the left-hand column 24 under the date of a visit there is normally a code 25 reference for the type of visit it was. page 14 1 We can see, for example, on this page the last one 2 which was a Mr Sefton in December 1970. We know that CV 3 means check visit. 4 A. The team would be going to check whatever was raised at 5 the Gen visit on his earlier visit. 6 Q. Can I ask you if you help the Inquiry, if you take the 7 first one the visit, the code letter is N. What did 8 that mean? 9 A. It was new. So it was a new premises and obviously 10 reading on here at the request of the FPO (Fire 11 Prevention Officer) had drawn the Inspector's attention 12 to it. Clearly he has not called it a GenN, a general 13 new visit, because presumably he only looked at the 14 matters which I am reading on here, the matters which 15 the FPO brought to his attention and in column 3 he has 16 put, "Return file to me", so he has returned file to me 17 and you can see a couple of months later he's carried 18 out the FJ New. So he has done a thorough inspection of 19 the new premises. 20 Q. So is this page, in effect, indicating the start of this 21 factory being recognised in its -- in the form that it 22 was at least in 2004 so far as HSE or then the Factory 23 Inspectorate -- 24 A. That would be my interpretation. 25 Q. As you have indicated in the second entry that was page 15 1 FGenN, a general visit to premises which is a full 2 visit? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Does the F just mean full? 5 A. No, F for factory, O for office, S for shop. 6 Q. So F means factory, general means a general, and N means 7 new premises? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. If you carry on then, please, reading from paragraph 14. 10 A. "The practice of the organisation was that factory 11 inspectors would be moved every three years if married 12 and every two years if single. This meant that 13 different inspectors would be going into premises and 14 bringing different views and expertise to the 15 inspections. 16 "At that time the rule was that you were not allowed 17 to go into the premises without having the file in your 18 possession. Eventually HSE moved to the first computer 19 system, SHIELD. This was probably around about 1980. 20 "The files which pre-dated SHIELD but were late 21 called SHIELD files. At a later stage HSE went on to 22 FOCUS recording. This was a computerised system for 23 maintaining files but inspectors could request the 24 earlier SHIELD files to take with them to inspections." 25 Q. We have heard from other witnesses that entries later in page 16 1 time had a stamp put on them, first with SHIELD and then 2 later with FOCUS. So that was simply a reference to the 3 fact that the SHIELD or FOCUS computer operator had put 4 in whatever information was appropriate. 5 May we take it that the one on screen, of course 6 back in 1970, does not have these stamps because that 7 system had not started at that stage? 8 A. That's correct. What it does have is ticks, though, on 9 there and if you have a look in the column 3 you will 10 see "returned the file to me", there would be a tick 11 there. So the administrative officer will tick that to 12 return it and there will also be various other initials, 13 presumably by looking again in the first entry column 1 14 at the bottom there's an initial there and that 15 I presume is the administrative officer who has ticked 16 that she has entered that file and there is a tick by N 17 as well and you can see other initials around all the 18 administrative team. So they would record the sort of 19 visits, the actions to be taken and what action was 20 still needed. 21 Q. If you return to paragraph 15 and just read on, please. 22 A. "What also affected the maintaining of files was the 23 weeding of them. 24 "I can't understand how this file remained so much 25 intact as HSE had regular programmes for weeding of page 17 1 files. 2 "Staff received instructions on the weeding of them. 3 For example, if there was asbestos in premises the 4 records pertaining to that would have to be kept. 5 "I'm surprised that the ICL file hasn't been 6 weeded." 7 Q. What do you actually mean by weeding in terms of what 8 was done by the Inspectorate or HSE later with such 9 files? 10 A. Well, if there were no issues which had been identified 11 but they had to keep the information on file, then after 12 a certain period reports of visits copies of letters and 13 things like that would be taken out and would be 14 destroyed. That had been going on well before I joined 15 the Inspectorate and, as I say, I was surprised to see 16 that the amount of information. 17 Just as another example is that I understand none of 18 my letters that I sent at the time which refer to in my 19 report are now available. So some weeding had gone on 20 at that time but obviously not as much as I would have 21 expected based on the information that is still around. 22 Q. Was that done simply to save space? 23 A. There was a lot of information, a lot of pieces of 24 paper, you know, so you can imagine how many premises 25 that the offices were responsible for and clearly the page 18 1 files would get too unwieldy, if you had to take a file 2 out to a premises with you which was this big 3 (indicated) which you could do in some cases, then that 4 was a problem. But there was certain information the 5 HSE decided needed to be retained for future purposes, 6 sometimes up to 40 years. 7 Q. Did that happen? Did that weeding process happen before 8 the SHIELD computer system came in and, if it did, did 9 that mean that certain information would still be 10 retrievable from the computer even if the paper file had 11 been weeded and items destroyed? 12 A. The weeding system came in before I joined in 1973 so 13 there was weeding going on then. I can't remember what 14 happened at the time SHIELD came in. 15 Q. Thank you very much. 16 Carry on with paragraph 19, please, and could I have 17 page 11470 on the screen and just read on, please. 18 A. "Something else that is worthy of note is the inspection 19 rating given to premises and kept on file. This can be 20 seen in HSE report in the inspection file [and that is 21 the one that is shown on the screen]. Inspection 22 ratings were introduced some time during in 1980s. 23 "Rating was given by inspectors on the basis of 24 various criteria as noted on the rating. Employers, 25 owners or self-employed were rated on their management page 19 1 of safety, health and welfare issues. 2 "They were also rated in relation to the size of 3 a problem, whether it be a single severe incident or 4 long-term health hazard in terms of employees and public 5 at risk. The management's ability to maintain 6 acceptable standards in the foreseeable future was also 7 rated. 8 "If the rating was over 40 there would be an 9 automatic visit from an HSE inspector the following year 10 but in some instances, an inspector might feel that the 11 rating in one particular section justified an early 12 visit without an overall high rating." 13 Q. If we look at this form, we can see that it is dated 5th 14 March 1993 and there is a FOCUS input stamp in March 15 1993 with initials next to it, which again is exactly 16 what we would expect, I assume, in terms of how it ought 17 to have been dealt with. 18 The name is ICL Plastics Limited the address is 19 Grovepark Mills and then there are, I think I am right 20 in saying, three questions or propositions, as it were, 21 and then against those figures are filled in in boxes, 22 ultimately with a figure in the right-hand box on each 23 line and then a total which is the inspection rating 24 total at the bottom of the form. 25 A. Correct. page 20 1 Q. The 33 at the bottom is the figure for this particular 2 inspection rating by reference to what you say about 40. 3 So it wasn't as high as 40 but it was obviously 33. 4 Was that a figure which was approaching a high 5 rating threshold or was the sort of figure that was 6 relatively straightforward for a firm that had 7 acceptable ratings through the process? 8 A. I don't know, you know, what was average figures at all. 9 Certainly from my experience some firms were given over 10 40 at my visit, some were given under 40. The other 11 issue on here is that at the end of the year a figure of 12 3 would be added on to there. So it would become 36 the 13 next year. Although I have mentioned this figure of 40 14 here, the HSE may decide that to lower that or to raise 15 it for various reasons. So it wasn't sort of in tablets 16 of stone but 40 was the figure that I seem to remember. 17 Q. The adding of 3, we have heard about from other 18 witnesses, came about, at least one of the ways was if 19 an inspector put in an FI83 form; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. That then triggered this system of an arithmetical 22 addition of 3 per year and I suppose -- and I am using 23 an assumption about this -- I suppose that means that if 24 the rating score on the form was close to 40 then 25 clearly adding 3 to whatever the figure was would get it page 21 1 over the 40 sooner than if it was further way? 2 A. 37, 38 or 39, clearly the following year would take it 3 over 40 so it would bring it into the inspection range. 4 Q. I understand that. Thank you very much. 5 Could you then return to your witness statement, 6 please. At paragraph 23, I think you explain that you 7 were aware of the premises having seen the coverage of 8 the disaster because you and your wife had actually been 9 there as a customer at one stage at least at the 10 Stockline Plastics retail outlet; is that correct? 11 A. My wife had been there as a customer. I'd taken her 12 there and she had gone in and ordered it because at that 13 time there was quite a lot of premises that had factory 14 shops and I didn't like to go in to the factory shops, 15 places that I could actually visit or inspect later on. 16 So my wife went in and ordered the materials that we 17 needed. 18 Q. But in paragraph 24 although you recalled the premises 19 for that reason, you could not recall anything of your 20 official involvement which I think is fair to say had 21 been about 30 years, not quite 30 years before? 22 A. 1975/76. My only knowledge is from the files and the 23 papers I've got. 24 Q. We can see in paragraph 25 that the file begins at page 25 11389. I don't need to ask for that just now. page 22 1 Could I have 11406, please. 2 When it comes up Mr Powell if you would begin 3 reading at paragraph 26 of your statement. 4 A. "On 22nd August 1973 [this was in fact about four weeks 5 after I joined the Factory Inspectorate] I visited the 6 premises of ICL Plastics Limited with Allan Sefton. 7 Mr Downie, Director, was seen at that stage. 8 Mr Sefton's visit was to carry out a check in relation 9 to alternative means of escape in case of fire from the 10 offices on the second floor of the building, a matter 11 raised at an earlier visit. His entry shows that an 12 alternative means of escape was now clear and the people 13 working in the office had been instructed in its use. 14 Further rebuilding work was continuing on the second 15 floor and more offices were to be added. Mr Downie 16 informed us of the involvement of the Master of Works 17 Department of the Glasgow Corporation in the building of 18 the offices and advised also that a Fire Prevention 19 Officer was paying fairly regular visits. Mr Sefton 20 noted on the file that 'This firm appears to be 21 expanding rapidly and because of the materials used and 22 stored, it does present a considerable fire risk. 23 Mr Downie, the occupier, does not take a responsible 24 attitude, especially as fire matters are concerned and 25 for this reason I believe that this firm should be kept page 23 1 on a high fire risk list'." 2 Q. Carry on please. 3 A. "On the file under the column marked 'assessment' [that 4 is column 4] it is noted that there was to be a planned 5 special visit (a PSV), the reason for this being a fire 6 in 1974. Mr Sefton signed the entry for 22nd August 7 visit on 7th September 1973 and it was countersigned by 8 the then District Inspector, Mr Gifford Mann. Mr Mann 9 was the District Inspector in the Factory Inspectorate 10 for the Glasgow West District. At that time, factory 11 inspectors would send all their reports to the District 12 Inspector who would read and sign them if in agreement 13 with the proposal or recommendation by his factory 14 inspector. When I was in charge of the team of 15 inspectors (from 1987) my own practice was to check the 16 reports of all trainees but to ask more experienced 17 inspectors to identify areas of reports for me to look 18 at. The effect of Mr Sefton's recommendation to have 19 a planned special visit (PSV) for fire in 1974 should 20 have been that admin support staff in the Factory 21 Inspectorate would record that PSV on a register. If 22 a visit had taken place in 1974, this should have been 23 recorded on the file but there is no such entry. 24 I cannot comment as to why the planned special visit did 25 not take place. I cannot now recall if the Inspector page 24 1 would get a list of PSVs in his area or if the Inspector 2 checked the list and made arrangements to carry out the 3 PSVs in his patch." 4 Q. Why you make that comment is because despite what is 5 said in the entry of 22/80/73 the next recorded visit in 6 fact did not take place until October 1975; is that 7 right? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Just so we understand -- again, if you can help us, 10 Mr Powell -- the coding, the coding of the visit on 22nd 11 August 73 was F, for factory, CV, which we know is check 12 visit, I don't think we have seen /J before. 13 What did that mean? 14 A. Joint. 15 Q. Is that because there were two officers? 16 A. That's because Mr Sefton and I visited together. So we 17 tended to put we were -- the code said that we would put 18 it as a joint visit. 19 Q. Could I have page 11403, please, and 404, if the two can 20 be put together. Thank you very much. 21 Could you read the next paragraph, 28, of your 22 statement, please. 23 A. "Looking at the entry by Mr Sefton for his visit to the 24 premises on 2nd June 1972, Mr Sefton's recommendation at 25 that time, in fact, was: page 25 1 "'The means of escape are fully enclosed and due to 2 the responsible attitude now being shown by management, 3 I believe that this firm can now be taken off the high 4 fire risk list', and there is an entry under column 5 at 5 page 5 which states: 6 "'Change item 30 to medium fire risk.'. 7 Item 30 would refer to number 30 on a number of 8 items which would be noted on the front cover of the 9 files which were formerly used by the Factory 10 Inspectorate and HSE. The outside cover of the file had 11 a log of many items which were of importance at 12 a particular premises. The outside of the file would be 13 marked where there was a change. 14 "The entry of 2nd June shows that, in fact, the 15 premises had been changed to medium fire risk. 16 Therefore, when Mr Sefton stated on 22nd August that he 17 believed that the firm should be kept on the high fire 18 risk it was not in fact on at that time, but rather 19 changed to medium fire risk." 20 Q. Could I have page 11406, please. The same one as 21 before. 22 If you read on, please, under paragraph 29, item I, 23 entry of that date. 24 A. "Entry of 1/10/75 pertains to a visit carried out by me. 25 The entry down the left-hand column shows that this was page 26 1 a FGen means Factory General Inspection, OGen Office 2 General Inspection, FPSV fire, means factory planned 3 special visit fire." 4 Q. Forgive me, in your Inquiry statement, again, FPPSV you 5 have fire planned special visit. In fact, the FPSV 6 means factory planned special visit but the word fire 7 also appears? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. 31, please. 10 A. "I don't know if I had had training in LPG at this 11 point, although my recollection is that although there 12 were quite a few premises using cylinder LPG, I don't 13 recall a lot of bulk storage at factory premises. 14 I have noted on the file entry that Mr Woodford, 15 Managing Director of ICL Technical Plastics Limited, and 16 Mr Wilson, an electrician were seen. I noted on the 17 file entry that conditions in the factory had 18 deteriorated considerably. In particular the means of 19 escape, the storage and use of highly flammable liquids 20 and materials and the guarding and machinery give rise 21 to serious concern. I have noted details under various 22 headings." 23 Q. I think we can take the one of "Occupation" I hope as 24 read and you may be asked questions about it. I am 25 happy to do that. page 27 1 So far as "Means of escape" are concerned, I think 2 as you indicated you had noted that the premises were 3 taken off the high fire risk list following the previous 4 visit on 2nd June 1972 we looked at a moment ago; is 5 that right? Then although it was intended that they 6 were put back on on 22nd August 1973 but that does not 7 appear to have happened? 8 A. No. 9 Q. You were asked about that. You have said that you were 10 asked about Dr Sefton's entry and stated that the firm 11 should be kept back on. 12 Does this appear to have been either an omission, 13 Mr Powell, or perhaps a misunderstanding that keeping on 14 perhaps implied it had never been taken off or whatever? 15 A. I'm afraid I just couldn't comment on that at all. 16 Q. Perhaps you should read 32, please. 17 A. "I noted the building was four storeys in height with 18 a basement area at the Hopehill Road end. At that point 19 I noted the top floor and part of the second floor were 20 unoccupied and it was proposed to seal off the top floor 21 in the near future. The staircases at the front and 22 rear of the building would make good means of escape 23 once the partitions had been brought up to the necessary 24 standard." 25 Q. If I can ask you to stop there we can take the remainder page 28 1 of that and the next three paragraphs as read. 2 I wonder if you could look at the model to your 3 left. I do realise your recollection may not be clear 4 enough for this but this is model of the mills building 5 as it was before the disaster. At front of the model 6 closest to you, next to the model of the gate opening, 7 there was a stair tower which other evidence suggests 8 was added to the original mill at about the beginning of 9 the 20th century. 10 Although it is not shown on the model, Mr Powell, 11 can you recall that there was another staircase at the 12 other end of the building on the other side and the 13 furthest away point from where you are positioned 14 relative to the model? 15 A. I would have to have a look at my prosecution report 16 which contains a sketch that I did at the time and that 17 would be the only thing that I could do. 18 Q. We are going to let you look at that later. It was just 19 in case you could remember on the model. 20 A. Nothing else. 21 Q. Could you then go to paragraph 35 and read that by 22 reference to entries that we have already seen -- 35 of 23 your witness statement. 24 A. "I do not know if those operating out of the premises 25 required a fire certificate from the outset but clearly page 29 1 the Fire Authority visited the premises fairly regularly 2 as shown on file entries 17/4/73 and 22/8/73. 3 Q. Thank you. Just carry on, please. 4 A. "Section 45 of the 1961 Act [that is the Factories Act] 5 defined the factories to which section 40 applied." 6 Q. Could I have 11403 and please 1404 and, Mr Powell, when 7 they come up could you just read on. 8 A. "File entry dated 10/11/71 states 'No fire certificate 9 issued as yet'. This does not make it clear if the fire 10 certificate had been applied for but not granted at that 11 stage or it was deemed unnecessary. 12 "File entry of 2/6/72 states that the visit by 13 Mr Sefton was carried out regarding the high fire risk 14 and to discuss the results of the section 148(1)b 15 (sic) inspection by the Fire Authority. The Factory 16 Inspectorate having responsibility for the inspection 17 enforcement of the means of escape under section 41 of 18 the 1961 Act." 19 Q. You have noted in your Inquiry statement that the 20 reference to section 148(1)b is as it is stated on the 21 form. 22 What does that actually refer to and is it an error? 23 What is the reason for your confirmation? 24 I think it is on the third line of the entry which 25 is -- thank you very much -- yes, being highlighted. page 30 1 A. I think that is to do with Fire Authority practice. I 2 think that whatever was in force at the time for the 3 Fire Authorities they could carry out these section 148 4 visits to premises which either had a fire -- or had 5 applied for a fire certificate but didn't have a fire 6 certificate in place at the time. So I think that that 7 section 148, I am not too sure what the (1)b stands for 8 but certainly I seem to remember the 148 was something 9 that the Fire Authority, it was something they did. 10 Q. The sentence goes on: 11 "148(1)b inspection carried out by the Fire 12 Prevention Office." 13 Is the Fire Prevention Office a reference to the 14 Fire Brigade rather than the Factories Inspectorate? 15 A. That's correct. That's the Fire Authority at the time. 16 Q. Thank you very much. If you would carry on then, 17 please, I think at 39 you say that that responsibility 18 was remove by the Fire Precautions Act. 19 We then turn to highly flammable liquids in -- 20 A. Mr Martin, could I just mention a bit about that 21 particular section because I don't know whether it comes 22 out clearly, but the 1961 Act, as in previous Acts, 23 contained requirements as to the means of escape in case 24 of fire. 25 I referred to section 40 and the requirement for page 31 1 certain factory premises to have fire certificates and 2 there is responsibility on the occupier of the factory 3 to apply for a fire certificate. He could still operate 4 without a fire certificate as long as he had applied for 5 it and this would require the Fire Brigade, usually 6 through the Fire Prevention Officers to go in to carry 7 out inspections. 8 Once the Fire Brigade issued a fire certificate, 9 then the copy was sent to the Factory Inspectorate and 10 under the various sections of the 1961 Act, there was 11 a responsibility for the Factory Inspectorate to carry 12 out checks to ensure that the fire certificate has been 13 complied with. 14 The responsibility was removed, as I have said, by 15 the Fire Precautions Act which came in, I think, round 16 about January 1977. So from January 1977 the 17 responsibility for issuing a fire certificate and 18 monitoring the compliance with that certificate lay with 19 the Fire Authority, not with the Health & Safety 20 Executive. 21 Q. So if I understand this correctly, the importance of 22 that is that after a fire certificate had been issued, 23 the Factory Inspectorate Inspectors or HSE inspectors 24 had previously some responsibility for monitoring 25 compliance with that but following about 1977 and the page 32 1 Fire Precautions Act came in it became entirely the 2 responsibility of the Fire Brigade or the Fire Service? 3 A. With a very few exceptions and I won't confuse you with 4 those but with a very few exceptions the Fire Authority 5 was responsible for issuing the certificate and every 6 aspect of means of escape in case of fire. 7 Q. Could you return to "Highly flammable liquids and 8 materials" and begin reading at paragraph 40, please. 9 A. "I noted that there was a 1.5-tonne LPG propane 10 installation in the small yard at the side of the 11 building, serving the ovens on the ground floor and the 12 heating throughout the premises. Glass fibre work is 13 carried out on the first floor and there is a spray 14 booth on the ground floor. Also highly flammable 15 plastics were stored and used throughout the premises. 16 I noted in the entry, 'All these matters give rise to 17 serious concern'. Looked at this, I read is these as 18 meaning the glass fibre work, spray booth and highly 19 flammable plastics. The LPG installation was outside 20 the building and I was really concerned about the risk 21 of fire and explosion inside the building. In 1973 the 22 Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquefied Petroleum Gases 23 Regulations were brought in to reduce the fire and 24 explosion risks from the storage and use of those 25 materials. My experience at that time was that greater page 33 1 importance was placed on highly flammable liquids than 2 on LPG. 3 "I noted that mostly old machinery was used on both 4 plastic and wood and that guarding was required for 5 nearly all the machines. On that entry there is a note 6 in the right-hand columns that I've marked it for 7 a bring forward immediately and for a visit with the FPO 8 (Fire Prevention Officer)." 9 Q. Could we have 11406. 10 Are we talking about entry 11406, Mr Powell, which 11 is the entry, I think you made on the second page, also 12 11407? 13 A. I think I need the page, Mr Martin. Sorry ... 14 Q. I think it is item 3. 15 A. You are correct, yes. It is the bottom of 06 and then 16 all of 07. 17 Q. There you say, "Highly flammable liquid materials" and 18 you refer to the tank. 19 I do not think in the evidence, Mr Powell, we have 20 heard previously about a 1.5-tonne tank. We have heard 21 about 1-tonne tanks or tank and we have heard about 22 2-tonne tanks. 23 Is there any significance in you referring to 24 a 1.5-tonne tank or was that just a general description 25 you used? page 34 1 A. An educated guess is that I was told it was a 1.5-tonne 2 tank. 3 Q. So we are talking about the same thing, however you have 4 described it? 5 A. I don't know whether it was the same thing or not, 6 whether it had been replaced or not but at the time 7 I was there I was told it was a 1.5-tonne tank. 8 Q. Thank you very much. If you could then return to your 9 witness statement, please, paragraph 41 on page 9. 10 A. Is it 42? 11 Q. I beg your pardon, 42. 12 A. "However, there is a further entry for 1st October 1975 13 from which it looks as though I was concerned, went back 14 to the HSE office and contacted the Fire Authority, 15 going back to the premises later on the same day." 16 Q. Is this the one towards the bottom of 11407? The date, 17 I am afraid, is a little bit unclear. I think it has 18 had a hole punch through it but it said, "Joint visit 19 with Mr Reid and with ADO Birmingham". That is an 20 officer from the Fire Brigade a Subofficer Carroll? 21 A. That would appear to be my second visit. If you look 22 under the date you will see a J in there, joint, joint 23 visit Mr Read. Mr Read, I think, at that time was 24 a (1)b Inspector, which was the grade of class 2. So 25 I revisited with him and you can see with the Assistant page 35 1 Divisional Officer and Sub-officers from the Fire 2 Authority. 3 Q. Paragraph 33. 4 A. "On that occasion I attended with Mr Read who I think 5 was a 1(b) inspector who had taken over from Mr Sefton. 6 I was a 2(q) at the time -- Q standing for qualified. 7 I was obviously sufficiently concerned that I thought 8 I required another inspector to go back with me to the 9 premises. Mr Read and I had attended there with the ADO 10 (assistant divisional officer) Birmingham and Subofficer 11 Carroll, both Fire Prevention Officers, when we met with 12 Mr Woodford. 13 "I have noted in the later entry for that day that 14 a considerable amount of effort had been put into 15 tidying up the place with rubbish having been removed 16 from the premises and many of the machines put out of 17 use. The HFLs (highly flammable liquids) had been 18 collected together and we were informed that the company 19 was awaiting the delivery of a skip. The fire officers 20 who had attended with us were concerned re the means of 21 escape but I have noted that they did not consider that 22 there was an immediate risk." 23 Q. So it does appear, Mr Powell, the company had actually 24 acted on what you said within the date because the 25 tidying up at the very least had happened since your page 36 1 visit, presumably in the morning or in an earlier part 2 of the day? 3 A. Certainly it would appear that some action was taken. 4 Q. Paragraph 45, please? 5 A. "I noted further that during the visit the firm 6 (apparently Mr Woodford) agreed to stop all work in the 7 basement area and to improve the means of escape from 8 the corner of the ground floor where spray painting and 9 coating processes were carried out. I have remarked 10 upon my discovery that a self-employed printer occupied 11 the first floor of part of the premises at the rear of 12 the building, the lack of alternative means of escape 13 from there giving rise to concern. 14 "There is a further viz file entry 3rd October 15 1975." 16 Q. Could I have 1148, please, which is the next page. 17 Thank you. 18 A. "Page 9 of the report on inspection file. This entry 19 showed that I attended again on that day for a joint 20 visit with Mr Carroll, FPO, and Mr Wallace, the Building 21 Control Officer. I had noted that Mr Woodford and 22 Mr McColl were seen. This was a visit to ensure that 23 the required alterations to the means of escape would 24 meet the standards of the Building Control Officer. 25 Either I or the Fire Authority, most likely the Fire page 37 1 Authority, had brought in Building Control to attend the 2 meeting in order to deal with this fully. I don't know 3 if the Fire Authority had had a visit in addition to 4 this. 5 "I have noted that I spoke to some of the employees 6 from ICL Technical Plastics and Stockline Plastics 7 including a Mr George Thomson who had promised to act as 8 the employees' representative." 9 Q. Mr Powell, this sequence of entries obviously 10 demonstrates that there were three separate visits on 11 the same day and, as I understand it, it was you who 12 initiated these -- at least the second and third visits? 13 A. Sorry, Mr Martin, the third visit was on 3rd October. 14 Again, it's not shown very clearly on there. 15 Q. I see. 16 A. I think if you look at the beginning of para 46, there 17 is a further entry viz file entry 3rd October. So in 18 fact that was a couple of days later. 19 Q. I beg your pardon; my fault. I misread it as being the 20 same date. In any event, there were two on the one day 21 and then a third visit and you appear to have initiated 22 that sequence of events. Did that disclose a level of 23 particular concern or was it just tidying up something 24 that needed to be done in a fairly brief period? 25 A. I can only read what I've said in here about my concern. page 38 1 I mean, I've mentioned about certain issues in here 2 where they'd tidied up some from the highly 3 flammable materials and cleared this and stopped using 4 machines and one or two other things, but clearly that 5 doesn't mention anything about the means of escape in 6 case of fire and clearly going back with the fire 7 officers, who are the experts on means of escape in case 8 of fire, and also with the Building Control Inspector, 9 that was the purpose to try and sort out the means of 10 escape in case of fire concerns. 11 Q. Thank you. 12 Could you resume reading again please at paragraph 13 49 and could I have page 11265. I think the succeeding 14 pages are necessary also, but let us just read what you 15 say and we can refer to the document in a moment. 16 A. "Following upon the visit to the premises on 3rd 17 October, I received a report from Strathclyde Fire 18 Brigade. The report can be seen in the Health & Safety 19 Executive prosecution report file, report 20 from Strathclyde Fire Brigade dated 9th October 1975." 21 Q. That is the document, at least that is the first page on 22 the screen, is it? 23 A. I can see up in the top there is the stamp for the 24 Glasgow West District which shows 9th October. I can 25 see Gifford Mann's signature on there which shows that page 39 1 he received it on that day and it's signed on behalf of 2 the Fire Master of Strathclyde Fire Brigade. 3 Q. Could I have 11408 again, please. 4 If you read on, paragraph 50, please. 5 A. "File entry 9th October 1975 showed that I attended the 6 premises when I saw Mr Woodford and Mr McColl. The 7 purpose of my visit was to deliver improvement notice 8 22/247/75 in connection with the means of escape in case 9 of fire." 10 Q. The dates, I am afraid, on the screen entries are not 11 clear, Mr Powell, but subject to any observations my 12 learned friends or others may say, I have a photocopy 13 which has the date in on this particular page. 14 If I were to suggest -- I wonder if we could have 15 the whole page up, please -- that the first entry on the 16 page is 3rd October, that is 3/10/75 -- 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. -- and that of course is the joint visit that you 19 mentioned a moment ago, two days after the one on the 20 1st. 21 The second entry which begins "Mr Woodford and 22 Mr McColl seen", that is dated 9th October and that is 23 the entry you are referring to in paragraph 50 of your 24 Inquiry statement. Is that right? 25 A. Correct. page 40 1 Q. Then even on this version it is not particularly clear 2 but the third entry on the page which begins, 3 "Mr Woodford seen", I think, is 14th October according 4 to what I can see. 5 Is that consistent with your recollection? I know 6 it is impossible at this stage to be exact. 7 It is the one that you have signed and in 8 handwriting have dated 15/10/75. If you look at column 9 number 3, underneath the typescript (which is IN23 to 10 28) which I assume are the references to the improvement 11 notices, underneath that in handwriting somebody, 12 perhaps yourself, has written "Delivered by hand 13 14/10/75". 14 A. Looks like my scribble, I'm afraid. 15 Q. So it tends to confirm that the actual date of the visit 16 was 14th October 1975? 17 A. Looking at the series of events as are down there, it 18 would appear that we got the report from Strathclyde 19 Fire Brigade on the 9th and on the same day that I took 20 the improvement notice in relation to the means of 21 escape in case of fire which was, if you compare the 22 schedule to that on the improvement notice with the 23 schedule in the Fire Brigade's Fire Authority's report 24 would in fact match that. 25 Q. Thank you very much. page 41 1 In paragraph 51 you refer to the improvement notice. 2 Could I have up 11228, please. 3 Can you explain the numbering, the serial number 4 which appears in the top right-hand corner and there are 5 other documents so that we understand that now. 6 "I" simply means improvement notice; is that right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. 22 is the number of the notice in the series that you 9 issued that year? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. 247 is a code number for the Glasgow office as the 12 issuing office and 75 is the year? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. So it was the 22nd improvement notice issued by the 15 Glasgow office in 1975? 16 A. 22nd notice issued by John Powell in 1975. 17 Q. I beg your pardon; I am sorry. 18 You say in paragraph 53 that the power to serve such 19 notices only came in with the Health and Safety at Work 20 Act on 1st April 1975. So it was a relatively new 21 procedure. 22 Could you begin at 54 again please. 23 A. "This improvement notice was served on ICL Plastics 24 Limited stating that I was of the opinion that at the 25 premises at Grovepark Mills, ICL Plastics Limited as an page 42 1 employer and a person wholly or partly in control of the 2 premises were contravening the Health and Safety at 3 Work, et cetera, Act 1974, section 2(1) and section 4 4(2). The reason being that, in my opinion, a safe 5 means of egress from the building was not provided. 6 "I, therefore, required them to remedy the said 7 contraventions or as the case maybe the matters 8 occasioning them by 9th January 1976 and I have signed 9 and dated the notice 9th October 1975. At the bottom it 10 can be seen that Mr McColl signed 'J Stewart McColl' for 11 receipt of this." 12 Q. Could you just explain, please, Mr Powell, given this 13 was the copy kept by the Health & Safety Executive and 14 has been recovered from their files, why you signed that 15 document? 16 A. The first lot of improvement and prohibition notices 17 that came out were in pads. Inspectors were required to 18 take pieces of carbon paper around with them to put in 19 between the notices so that when we wrote -- if we wrote 20 on -- I mean, this has been typed but anyway it's all 21 part of it but if we wrote on the top copy that it went 22 through to all the other copies that we needed, the copy 23 for our files, the copy for the employee's 24 representatives and others. 25 So what you are asking about this one in particular page 43 1 here, although I've got it signed, clearly there was no 2 way in which my signature could go through from the top 3 copy through to the other copies. So we had to sign all 4 the copies at that particular time. 5 Later on -- and I can't remember when -- but later 6 on the pads were produced that there was carbon on the 7 back of each page so that when you sign it on the front 8 it went right through to the last of the copies that you 9 had to have. 10 Q. Then obviously the signature of Mr McColl is the 11 signature of the occupier upon whom the notice was 12 served and that is just to establish that it 13 was actually received by the occupier. 14 A. That was my practice at the time. 15 Q. Could I have the next page, 11229, please. 16 I think in paragraph 56 you indicate the areas of 17 concern which were outlined in the schedule and we can 18 see for ourselves that these were: the west stairway, 19 the east stairway, the lift shaft, the plant room, the 20 basement and the lighting of exit routes. 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. That is consistent -- and I know we are going to get to 23 your sketch map shortly, Mr Powell -- it is consistent 24 with my suggestion that there were stairways, one at 25 each end of the building? page 44 1 A. I'll accept that. 2 Q. Paragraph 57, please. 3 A. Can I just ... (Pause) 4 Can I just say as well, in relation to what I said 5 before, that this schedule should match exactly what was 6 in the schedule of the report delivered to me earlier in 7 the day through Mr Mann from the Fire Authority. 8 You say about paragraph 57. 9 Q. Yes, paragraph 57 of your Inquiry statement? 10 A. "In relation to item 5 [which was the basement referred 11 to in the previous paragraph] I have stated that a new 12 exit should be formed at the north-west corner of the 13 basement leading directly to open air. The existing 14 electrical powered manual actuated fire alarm system 15 should be extended to include an additional break glass 16 actuation point, similar to those already installed and 17 sited adjacent to the new exit door from the basement." 18 Q. When you say "manual actuated" you mean the sort of fire 19 alarm where there is a little button behind the glass 20 which can be smashed and sets off the alarm. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Thank you. 58, please. 23 A. "Inspectors were entitled to serve an improvement notice 24 on a person or company where there was a breach of 25 a legal requirement, ie non-compliance. page 45 1 "Improvement notices were served under sections 21 2 to 24 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974." 3 Q. I do not think I need to ask you to look at that but it 4 can be seen by others if necessary. 5 Carry on please with paragraph 60. 6 A. "I didn't use the section dealing with basement work 7 rooms which in fact was covered by section 69 of the 8 Factories Act 1961. I don't know if that provision had 9 been repealed by the 1974 Act at that time. 10 "I served the improvement notice on ICL Plastics 11 under 2(1) due to their employing persons on the 12 premises and 4(2) as the owners of the premises who had 13 control of them. 14 "Section 4 refers to control of the building so 15 I believe that this section would cover those persons 16 working in the building not in the employment of ICL 17 Plastics. I also believe that their employees could 18 have gone down to the basement and therefore covered 19 them by section 2. 20 "The power to serve notices came in on 1st April 21 1975, as I've explained. There was industrial action by 22 inspectors who refused to take on new powers under the 23 HSW Act until properly recompensed for it. For some 24 time prohibition notices would be served in life or 25 death situations, although the dispute was ongoing page 46 1 affecting improvement notices and other new powers of 2 inspectors. 3 "As at October 1975, Health & Safety Executive did 4 not have a lot of experience in serving notices. 5 "Under the Factories Act, section 54, there were 6 provisions for certain matters to be resolved by going 7 to the Sheriff for authority to serve a notice, ie there 8 were a few specified circumstances in which we could 9 seek remedy. 10 "There were training courses on the provisions of 11 the Health and Safety at Work, et cetera, Act 1974 prior 12 to its introduction. Inspectors had little working 13 experience in how it would impact in practical terms. 14 "In Glasgow we co-operated closely with the Fire 15 Authority. The Fire Authority considered that the 16 matters outlined in I/22/247/75 were not areas of 17 immediate concern. Therefore, I took the decision to 18 serve an improvement notice. I gave the company three 19 months to carry out the improvements." 20 Q. May take it, Mr Powell, that if the matters had been of 21 immediate concern, then the alternative was the service 22 of a prohibition notice? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Thank you. 25 Carry on, please, 68. page 47 1 A. "Persons on whom the notice had been served had 21 days 2 to appeal (there was a recommendation from HSE that the 3 time specified for carrying out improvements was 4 therefore not less than 28 days). 5 "The nature of the improvement required would 6 dictate how long an inspector would give an 7 employer/individual/company to carry out that 8 improvement. 9 "In this particular instance the improvement notice 10 was signed for by Stewart McColl for ICL Plastics 11 Limited. 12 "When I served the notice on 9th October, I marked 13 it for a bring forward for January '76 as can be seen in 14 file entry of 9/10/75." 15 Q. Could we have 11408, please. Just read on. I think we 16 can see it for ourselves. 17 A. "When I marked the papers for a bring forward on 1/76 18 they would have gone into a manual B/F [which stands for 19 bring forward] file. The admin staff would then bring 20 the file to me. 21 "The numbers down the right-hand side of page 9, ie, 22 1, 2, 5, 15, 18, 24, 26 and 27 were used to put 23 information on the front of an inspection file. Back in 24 1975, inspection files had a different front cover. The 25 cover would include details of the duty holder, page 48 1 particular regulations which applied to premises, 2 whether or not there were bars on the windows, 3 et cetera. 4 "As well as the changing of the particulars in the 5 front of the file, admin staff would also change them on 6 their registers." 7 Q. I think the reference in paragraphs 74 to 75 and 76 are 8 about the administration and I do not think I need to 9 take time to ask you to read those, Mr Powell. 10 Could you return to your statement at paragraph 77, 11 please, which deals with the entry on 14th October. 12 A. "The file shows that I returned to the premises on 14th 13 October 1975. It shows that I saw Mr Woodford on that 14 occasion. The purpose of the visit was to deliver 15 letters and improvement notices 23 to 28/247/75 in 16 connection with decoration and heating." 17 Q. These are identified at pages 11231 and the sequence is 18 shown in paragraph 78 to 84 of your Inquiry statement. 19 I do not think we need to look at them individually 20 unless you have a reason to do so, Mr Powell, and you 21 have indicated they were to do with decoration and 22 heating and I think they were decoration of the work 23 space and decoration of the stairs and so on and I do 24 not think we need to take up time. 25 In paragraph 85 you indicate that each of them were page 49 1 served on ICL Plastics, ICL Technical Plastics and 2 Stockline Plastics, no doubt because of their different 3 responsibility; is that right? 4 A. Correct. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Martin, I think we will stop there for ten 6 minutes. 7 MR MARTIN: Thank you, my Lord. 8 (11.50 am) 9 (A short break) 10 (12.05 pm) 11 MR MARTIN: Mr Powell, we were at paragraph 85, I think, in 12 respect of the various improvement notices. I think we 13 can take a number of the succeeding paragraphs as read 14 where you describe the contents which I do not think are 15 of direct relevance to our purposes. 16 Could I have up document 11236, please. 17 Could I ask you to begin reading -- and I think we 18 should have the schedule also, the next page of that 19 document if the two can be put up together -- if you can 20 begin reading, please, Mr Powell, at paragraph 96 of 21 your Inquiry statement. 22 A. "Improvement notice 26/247/75 was served on ICL Plastics 23 Limited and related to a contravention of the Health and 24 Safety at Work, et cetera, Act 1974, section 2(1) and 25 the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, page 50 1 section 6. The schedule attached to the improvement 2 notice outlined my reasons for my coming to the view 3 that such a contravention had occurred. In the schedule 4 I have stated that the company had not provided and 5 maintained a working environment for their employees 6 that was, so far as reasonably practicable, safe and 7 without risk to health and that effective provision had 8 not been made for securing a reasonable temperature in 9 the offices. Further, that the present method of 10 heating, namely propane gas fires could result in the 11 escape into any office of fume (sic) of such a character 12 and to such an extent as to be likely to injurious or 13 offensive to persons employed therein and in addition 14 could give rise to the risk of fire. 15 "The heating was from the bulk propane supply and 16 there was concern re the method by which propane was 17 being used to heat the building. There were flexible 18 hoses from valves which could become damaged. These 19 were referred to in my report to Mr Mann. I comment in 20 my report to Mr Mann that gas is piped from a 1.5-tonne 21 bulk storage tank (outside the building) to supply 22 valves positioned throughout the building and long 23 lengths of flexible rubber hosing are used to take the 24 gas from the these supply points to the various 25 installations. page 51 1 "There were various issues to do with the heating: 2 "1. I did think the provision which was made for 3 heating was adequate to enable the offices to reach 4 a proper temperature. 5 "2. I was concerned that fumes might be given off 6 by the fire, although I don't know why I felt that. 7 "3. Risk of fire -- my concern in my report to 8 Mr Mann was to get a better form of heating into the 9 premises. In my report to Mr Mann, I mentioned the 10 hoses but I accept that I didn't refer to that in the 11 schedule to the improvement notice, only mentioning 12 fires therein. I do not know why exactly I set the 13 schedule in that way." 14 Q. Is it fair to summarise your concerns, Mr Powell, as 15 being about, as it were, the user end of the propane 16 installation, that is to say the adequacy of the heating 17 and way in which the heaters were connected into the 18 pipework with flexible hoses, rather than at the tank or 19 vessel end of the system which obviously was something 20 that occurred later and has been addressed by other 21 witnesses? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Could I just ask, please, for 11271 to be put up, 24 please. 25 We are going to look at it again but is this the page 52 1 first page of the report to Mr Mann that you are 2 referring to? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Thank you very much. 5 On the top of page 18, item 4 of the issues to do 6 with the heating you confirm that the succeeding 7 numbered notices were served respectively on ICL 8 Technical Plastics and Stockline Plastics and that again 9 is because of their different responsibilities? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Read on from 99, please. 12 A. "Each improvement notice again deals with the heating, 13 but in each of these improvement notices the provision 14 contravened has been amended to include the Factories 15 Act 1961, section 3, as the content of the schedule 16 appended to 26/247/75 has been amended for each of these 17 two companies to include 'in each work room' and the 18 improvement notices therefore required to be varied to 19 that extent." 20 Q. That is because of the technical legal liabilities that 21 they had under the Act? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Carry on, please, 100. 24 A. "I also made it clear on improvement notice 27/247/75 25 served on ICL Technical Plastics Limited that an page 53 1 improvement notice had also been served on ICL Plastics 2 Limited and Stockline Plastics Limited and in the case 3 of improvement notice 28/247/75 served on Stockline 4 Plastics Limited, that an improvement notice was also 5 being served on ICL Plastics Limited and ICL Technical 6 Plastics Limited." 7 Q. Thank you. 8 Could I have 11409, please. 9 Just read on, Mr Powell. 10 A. "This is file entry 12/1/76, records my return to the 11 premises. In the left hand column it records that this 12 was a check visit. On that date I visited the premises 13 with a Mr Carroll, Fire Prevention Officer, to check 14 compliance with improvement notice 22/247/75 re means of 15 escape in case of fire. I've noted that at the time 16 Mr Woodford was seen. Only a small amount of the work 17 specified in the schedule had been carried out and the 18 means of escape still gave rise to serious concern. The 19 entry shows that Mr Carroll left and returned later with 20 Divisional Officers Miller and Gibb of Strathclyde Fire 21 Brigade. Following a further inspection of the premises 22 on the advice of the Fire Brigade, I advised Mr Woodford 23 and Mr McColl that I would be issuing a delayed (sic) 24 [and, I think sic is in bracket there because it should 25 have been deferred] prohibition notice which would give page 54 1 them 28 days to bring up their means of escape to 2 required standard." 3 Q. A deferred notice meant it did not take immediate 4 practical effect. The word delayed obviously means the 5 same thing but it should have been deferred? 6 A. Correct. Legally, it should have been deferred but 7 I put delayed in the report. 8 Q. The next entry, and again unfortunately the days are 9 obscured but the second entry, 13th January. 10 A. This was the following day on 13th January: 11 "On 13th January 1976 returning to the premises with 12 Mr Mann, Mr Miller and Mr Carroll to acquaint Mr Mann 13 with the premises and in particular the means of escape 14 in case of fire. Again, Mr McColl and Mr Woodford were 15 seen. The file entry shows that Mr McColl had taken 16 over responsibility for the building as well as other 17 health and safety matters. At the visit on 18 13th January, three prohibition notices were served on 19 the company." 20 Q. Can we just before we go to these documents, please, 21 note that you have given in shorthand the numbers of 22 these prohibition notices in the narrative, prohibition 23 notices 1, 2 and 3/247/76, served on the companies and 24 then in column 3 the action column or one of the action 25 columns "PN" presumably means prohibition notice by way page 55 1 of code? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Then we see the numbers again. Again underneath in 4 handwriting are the words "Delivered by hand". 5 Is that your handwriting? 6 A. It looks like my scribble again, I'm afraid. 7 Q. Underneath that has been written "F295" or "2195". 8 Is there any significance in that entry, Mr Powell? 9 A. I just can't remember what -- you can see thousands of 10 forms. I can't remember what 2195 is. 11 Q. It may be the letter P actually. It might be difficult 12 to see on the screen. It may be F or P? 13 A. Can you go back ... it looks like an F. I can't 14 remember what ... I could guess at various forms it 15 could be but I really can't remember what it was. 16 Q. Thank you very much. 17 Could we then have 11211, please. 18 This is the first prohibition notice served on ICL 19 Plastics Limited and if we go to -- keep that, please -- 20 11212, is that the schedule which applies to it? 21 A. It appears to be. 22 Q. Then the numbering it does not quite follow here but 23 could you go to 11213, please. 24 That is a prohibition notice again served on ICL 25 Plastics Limited. page 56 1 Could we just go back to 211. I could have misread 2 it myself. They are both ICL Plastics. Why were the 3 two notices served on ICL Plastics? 4 If you can put up 211213, please, and try 215 just 5 while Mr Powell is looking at his records -- that is 6 served on ICL Technical Plastics -- and 11217. 7 A. I've got -- in the copies that were sent to me, I've got 8 the 176 is ICL Plastics, 276 is ICL Technical Plastics 9 and 376 is Stockline Plastics. 10 Q. That is what I had anticipated, Mr Powell, but -- 11 A. Can we just -- the one that is on the screen at the 12 moment is dated 12th April '76. So that's a much later 13 one. 14 Q. I think the numbering that has been inserted in the 15 Inquiry statement does not quite match up to the 16 documents but let us not trouble you with that. 17 If we go back to the original one, which I think is 18 the one that matters because that is the one that ... 19 (Pause) 20 I wonder if I might just have a moment, my Lord. It 21 may be simpler if I get the hard copies so that I can 22 see myself. (Pause) 23 If you have the same hard copies as I do, Mr Powell, 24 it may be helpful for the notes if I just go through and 25 you confirm that I have accurately described the page 57 1 sequence of prohibition notices. 2 11211 is a prohibition notice addressed to ICL 3 Plastics Limited, dated 10th February 1976? 4 A. Sorry, can I stop you there? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. That was the date at which the deferred notice had to be 7 complied with. On my copy on the schedule, there is my 8 signature and 13/1/76 and also at the top right-hand 9 corner I put JAP13/1/76, Mr Martin. 10 Q. I do apologise. I am sorry to say the top right-hand 11 corner of mine on that particular legend is slightly 12 obscured again on the copy. But, yes, this one was 13 signed by you 13/1/76 according to the schedule, served 14 on ICL Plastics and it refers to the use of the premises 15 as a place of work. 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Taking it very generally. Then the schedule gives 18 a similar, if not identical, list to the various parts 19 of the building, the west stairway, east stairway, that 20 we saw previously? 21 A. Similar but not identical. 22 Q. 11213 and 214 prohibition notice, again signed by you 23 13/1/76, addressed to ICL Plastics Limited, again 24 referring to the use of the premises as a place of work, 25 again a similar schedule. Is that right? page 58 1 A. No. The one on ICL Technical Plastics only referred to 2 a particular part of the premises. That was the use of 3 the corridor for certain activities they were carrying 4 out there. 5 Q. I think this is where the difficulty lies because 213, 6 at 11213 who is the company that your copy is addressed 7 to? 8 A. Well, the one that's shown on the screen at the moment, 9 213, is the one we discussed first of all, ICL Plastics 10 Limited. There's no problem with that. 11 Q. Forgive me, I think what that means is that 11213 and 4 12 is actually a duplicate copy? 13 A. I was going to suggest that. I thought it might be. 14 Q. That is entirely my fault, I think. Can we come to 215 15 at least, that is one served on ICL Technical Plastics? 16 A. Correct and that was the one, as I say, referred to 17 a particular part of the premises, an activity carried 18 out in a corridor which was part of the means of escape 19 in case of fire. That was an immediate one, so that 20 took immediate effect. 21 Q. 216 is a notice served later -- so we are not referring 22 to at the moment on 12th April 1976 on ICL Plastics; is 23 that right? 24 A. That is certainly one served later, that's correct. 25 Q. 217 I think is a duplicate of that. page 59 1 218? 2 A. This is the third notice served on 13th January so we've 3 got there. 4 Q. This is the one served on Stockline. 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. It has the code date at the top right-hand corner, JAP, 7 your initials 13/1/76 and I think it's Stockline 8 Plastics? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. But the copy, as far as I can see, neither on the 11 principal prohibition notice, on the face of it -- I beg 12 your pardon, in the schedule again "John Powell 13 13/1/76"? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. So that is the third of the notices. 16 A. Mr Martin, the copy that I've got, actually you can see 17 my initials on the front copy and the date as well on 18 the copy that I was sent. 19 Q. Your eyesight is better than mine, Mr Powell. I do not 20 have it. In the place for signature and date? 21 A. In there. Would you like to ... 22 Q. No, I do not need to see it. I do not think it is 23 apparent on the version we have. 24 A. It is not on the version on here but it is certainly on 25 the copy I was sent. page 60 1 Q. The critical thing to be noted is this was a reference 2 to the use of the basement as a storeroom and/or work 3 room and the reason given by you towards the latter part 4 of the first column of the copy is because of the 5 inadequate means of escape in case of fire for persons 6 employed in the basement? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was this a deferred notice or was this an immediate 9 prohibition notice or prohibition notice with immediate 10 effect? 11 A. It took immediate effect. 12 Q. So that is on 13th January 1976? 13 A. Yes. On my copy, under "after" there is a little line 14 which I think showed that I crossed out "after" on the 15 top copy but it hadn't come all the way through on the 16 lower copies. 17 Q. It is my fault, Mr Powell. I cannot see that. I cannot 18 see where that would be. Oh, yes, I beg your pardon. 19 The word "immediately/after" just above it the date had 20 not been inserted because it is not after a date it is 21 immediately? 22 A. That's right, that's correct. 23 Q. Just for clarification, if we look at the schedule, part 24 1 states: 25 "This notice does not apply to persons authorised to page 61 1 go into the basement for the removal of the remainder of 2 the material in the store and the dismantling and 3 removal of the machinery from the work room." 4 That is obviously to allow, in practical terms, the 5 closing up of the basement to take place. 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Then in part 2: 8 "With the exception of the activities mentioned in 9 part 1 of this schedule this prohibition notice will 10 apply until adequate means of escape from the basement 11 are provided." 12 Is that right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. In paragraph 106 you describe the paperwork which 15 I think, in a sense, we have covered earlier. 16 In paragraph 107 you talk about the deferred 17 prohibition notice which was served on ICL Plastics 18 Limited and perhaps you should read 108, if you would, 19 please? 20 A. "I outlined in the prohibition notice that I was of the 21 opinion that the use of the premises as a place of work 22 which was under their control at Grovepark Mill (sic) 23 involved or would involved a risk of serious personal 24 injury 'because safe means of escape in case of fire 25 have not been provided for all persons employed in the page 62 1 premises'. The copy is not particularly clear but you 2 can see a line through the words on the first page about 3 halfway down under the letter (a) where it appears just 4 above the typewritten 'Grovepark Mill' the words, 'being 5 carried on by you/about to be carried on by you' are 6 deleted and underneath where there is an option at (a) 7 of a risk/an imminent risk, the words 'an imminent risk' 8 have been deleted." 9 Q. Perhaps we should look at 11211, please, just to confirm 10 that. Is that the right section that is being 11 highlighted, Mr Powell? 12 A. Yes, correct. 13 Q. The words "being carried on by you/about to be carried 14 on by you" are deleted on your copy. It is not apparent 15 on the screen, I am afraid. 16 A. Not on this copy. This is a different one from the 17 Stockline one. So the copy I have been given is the 18 same as on the screen so I can't see any deletions on my 19 copy. 20 Q. This is 20/247/176, is it? 21 A. Correct, yes. 22 Q. We will just take your evidence but it is not apparent 23 on the screen. 24 A. No. 25 Q. If we carry on then, "I assume that the deletion of page 63 1 reference" in the middle of the paragraph 108, please. 2 A. "I assume that deletion of the reference to an imminent 3 risk was based on advice from the Fire Service as if 4 such imminent risk had been present I would have not 5 issued a deferred prohibition notice, which this was, as 6 I directed that the activities should not be carried out 7 by the company or under their control after 10th 8 February 1976. The deferred prohibition notice was 9 served on Stewart McColl who signed for it. You can see 10 his signature faintly on the carbonised copy of the 11 prohibition notice. Again, I had made reference to 12 section 4(2) as ICL Plastics Limited apparently had 13 control over the premises." 14 Q. I am afraid Mr McColl's signature is not apparent on the 15 copy that I have. Could you just indicate where you see 16 it on the version you have? 17 A. It is not apparent on the version I have but I presume 18 that when I made this precognition with the Fiscal that 19 the Fiscal had a copy and I was able to point to it on 20 there. 21 Q. In paragraph 109 you refer to that schedule and we have 22 already looked at that and, as we have agreed, it is 23 similar but not identical to the schedule in the 24 previous improvement notice referring, for example, to 25 the west stairway, the east stairway and so on. I do page 64 1 not think I need take that from you. 2 Could I ask you to read 110, please. 3 A. "As outlined, the various matters which required to be 4 remedied in terms of the notice. The notice makes it 5 clear that it does not apply to persons employed in the 6 premises for the purpose of putting into effect the 7 requirements of the schedule. The basement area 8 referred to in the original improvement notice 22/247/75 9 which was served on ICL Plastics Limited was not 10 included in the deferred prohibition notice served on 11 ICL Plastics Limited. The basement was put on 12 a separate prohibition notice. 13 "Prohibition notice serial number P/247/3/76." 14 Q. Could I have 11218 on the screen, again, please. 15 This is the one served on Stockline Plastics that we 16 looked at a moment ago. 17 Perhaps we should have schedule 2, which is the 18 subsequent page. Thank you very much. If you could put 19 those both up together if possible. 20 If you could read on, please, at 112, Mr Powell. 21 A. "This prohibition notice was served on Stockline 22 Plastics Limited and outlines the contravention of the 23 Health and Safety at Work, et cetera, Act 1974, section 24 2(1) based on my opinion that the use of the basement as 25 a storeroom and/or work room under their control page 65 1 involved an imminent risk of serious personal injury 2 because of the inadequate means of escape in case of 3 fire for persons employed in the basement. The 4 carbonised copy on file of the original shows that the 5 prohibition notice was served on the company by 6 delivering to Stewart McColl who signed for the same." 7 My copy just about shows Mr McColl's signature at 8 the bottom. 9 Q. You then go on in 113 to refer to taking effect on 13th 10 January, which we have discussed, and you then note the 11 two parts of the schedule which, again, we have 12 discussed. 13 Could you begin again at 114, please. 14 A. "I think I could only have served the notice on 15 Stockline as they still had some responsibilities for 16 the basement. Stockline Plastics were not then served 17 with an original improvement notice as employers, the 18 basement having been included in the improvement notice 19 22/247/75 served on ICL Plastics. I suppose this could 20 have been done under the Health and Safety at Work, 21 et cetera, Act, section 2(1)." 22 Q. You now return to the report to Mr Mann, dated 10th 23 February 1976. 24 I think we have already identified this exists at 25 page 11271 and the succeeding pages but I wonder if, for page 66 1 the purposes of this passage because of a particular 2 item, if I could have 11319 up, please. Thank you very 3 much. 4 If you just read on, Mr Powell, and we may have to 5 pick up something in a particular document that can be 6 put up. 7 A. "The report to Mr Mann dated 10/2/76 in the second 8 paragraph refers to the basement having been vacated. 9 "I have been asked why I removed the basement from 10 the deferred prohibition notice 247/1/76 served on ICL 11 Plastics. I do not know the answer to this as obviously 12 the company would still have control of the basement. 13 They may have said that nobody was working there but 14 I have issued an immediate prohibition notice on 15 Stockline Plastics and could have served a deferred 16 prohibition notice on ICL Plastics still containing the 17 basement." 18 Q. If we look at the second paragraph, I think in the 19 typescript it is third but it is in fact the second 20 paragraph under the heading, you refer to ICL Plastics, 21 you refer to Stockline Plastics and you then say in the 22 fourth sentence: 23 "They occupied part of the ground floor and have 24 offices on the second floor ..." and is that a reference 25 to your understanding of Stockline Plastics Limited? Or page 67 1 perhaps both of the companies? Perhaps it is not very 2 clear at this stage. 3 A. I can only see what I've said down there. They would 4 appear to be Stockline Plastics is -- I would think the 5 "they" refers to Stockline Plastics, yes. 6 Q. Then the next sentence is "they" again, and that is why 7 I asked you about that: 8 "They moved out of their basement workroom store 9 instead of complying with one of the requirements of the 10 previous improvement notice." 11 Then you refer to the serving of the prohibition 12 notice. Then you go back to ICL Technical Plastics 13 occupying the remainder of the ground floor. 14 A. Can I refer to another document in that prosecution 15 report? 16 Q. Yes, please. 17 A. It's document 2 of the prosecution report. 18 Q. If you just give us a moment, please, Mr Powell. 19 This is document 6, I think -- 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Could we have 11249, please. Is this the document? 22 A. The next page, please. Could you go down to quite near 23 the bottom and highlight: 24 "Instead of improving the means ..." 25 So it is about six or seven lines up from the page 68 1 bottom. 2 Q. I wonder if that could just be taken out because it 3 might be helpful if we read the whole of that paragraph: 4 "On Monday 12th January 1976, the date of this 5 complaint, the Inspector and Fire Officers returned to 6 the premises to check compliance with the improvement 7 notice." 8 Is that one of the visits you already referred to? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. "They found that the two doors were still missing and 11 that the only work carried out during the three months 12 consisted of improving the fire resistance of two of the 13 other doors in the east stairway and sealing part of the 14 disused lift shaft." 15 That I think is a reference to the stairway at the 16 other end of the building so it is completely 17 unconnected with the basement. 18 "Instead of improving the means of escape from the 19 basement area they decided to remove all machines and 20 machinery from the basement and there was nobody 21 employed there. Mr Woodford, Managing Director of ICL 22 Technical Plastics Limited, told us that only a small 23 amount of work had been carried out due to the 24 Christmas/new year holiday period and to the illnesses 25 to their carpenter and their electrician." page 69 1 Perhaps if you just want to expand on that as you 2 wish to, Mr Powell, to assist the Inquiry to understand 3 what actually happened. 4 A. It is the sentence: 5 "Instead of improving the means of escape ..." 6 Clearly if there was nobody employed there, then 7 I couldn't serve the notice in relation to the 8 prohibition notice because nobody was employed there. 9 But my concern was that people would still be able to -- 10 an educated guess at my concern was people could still 11 go in the area to remove the machines and that is what 12 is covered in the schedule to that particular notice. 13 So what I wanted to make sure was that people could 14 still go into the area to remove the machines as seen in 15 item 1 in the schedule to the notice on Stockline 16 Plastics but I have said here there was nobody employed 17 there on that day. 18 Q. Could you return, I think we are at paragraph 117 of 19 your Inquiry statement, if you just begin reading again 20 please. 21 A. "Now with further experience, I can see that in the 22 deferred prohibition notice 247/1/76 served on ICL 23 Plastics Limited I should have said 'or other equally 24 effective means (ie, cease working there)'. My 25 explanation for this would be my inexperience of notices page 70 1 at that time." 2 Q. Just carry on, please. 3 A. "Returning to prohibition notice 247/3/76, according to 4 what I was told nobody was working in the basement but 5 there was a risk that someone could go back in. I just 6 don't know exactly what was said and can't remember the 7 discussions at the time. I think there was an element 8 of distrust on my part that people may have gone back to 9 work there. As I say, I was told that no-one was 10 employed there but the company still had machinery 11 stores in place." 12 Q. That is just a conclusion of what you have just 13 described, that is why you served a prohibition notice 14 even although it may have been that nobody was actually 15 working there. Thank you very much. 16 Carry on, 119, please. 17 A. "It was not generally the intention for prohibition 18 notices to subsist in perpetuity. The HSE had issued to 19 inspectors specific guidance on this issue. 20 "Although I have used the provisions of the Health 21 and Safety at Work, et cetera, Act there were also 22 relevance provision in the 1961 Factories Act, section 23 69, in relation to underground rooms and their 24 certification as being unsuitable for work and I could 25 have possibly used those provisions at that time. page 71 1 "You would need advice from our Legal Department as 2 to whether the prohibition notice 247/3/76 in relation 3 to the basement is still in force. It was my 4 understanding that the prohibition notice was not in 5 force at the time of the 2004 explosion. 6 "In relation to the prohibition notices generally, 7 health and safety inspectors and the Fire Authority 8 would have been going into the premises at a later 9 date." 10 Q. If I may just pause there, Mr Powell, you say in the 11 previous paragraph that it was your understanding that 12 the prohibition notice was not in force at the time of 13 the 2004 explosion. 14 Why is that your understanding? 15 A. At some stage -- and I believe it was after I'd served 16 this series of notices but I just don't know the date -- 17 we did get advice from the HSE to inspectors about the 18 fact that notices shouldn't go on for perpetuity. 19 We also got advice -- and I looked back at my 20 wording of the notice -- we also got advice that we 21 shouldn't draft notices in such a way that it would 22 appear that they would go on in perpetuity. 23 Q. This again was no doubt the development of the 24 experience of something that had been quite new in 1976? 25 A. Correct. page 72 1 Q. Is it fair to say that as far as the file reveals, 2 there's no positive indication of the prohibition notice 3 actually ceasing to have effect at any particular date 4 or for any particular reason, it is just your impression 5 based on that general experience. Is that right? 6 A. I would need to look back at the files but there was 7 a form and that is why I was -- earlier on when you 8 asked me what that form was, there were forms which we 9 had to complete to show, for each improvement and 10 prohibition notice, to show whether the notice had been 11 complied with or not been complied with. When I look 12 through my series of visits and where I've said been 13 complied with or not been complied with or extended, 14 then there should be relevant F forms, Factory 15 Inspectorate forms, which I would have had to have 16 completed at the time to show whether they had been 17 completed, whether they had been extended then 18 completed, et cetera. 19 Q. Let us just carry on through your evidence -- 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask this: I understood that it 21 was open to a person who was subject to a prohibition 22 notice to execute necessary remedial work and then ask 23 for it to be lifted. 24 Was that not the procedure? 25 A. Not at all, no. No, not at all. page 73 1 THE CHAIRMAN: So what would have happened if they had 2 upgraded the basement and carried out all the fire 3 escape work that you say was not there? How were they 4 ever going to get using the basement again? 5 A. Well, they could have used the basement if they had done 6 that work. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Without the notice being lifted? 8 A. Correct. 9 MR MARTIN: Could we have -- 10 A. Could I just go back to the time of the explosion, 2004, 11 and refer back to information I gave about the Fire 12 Precautions Act. 13 Q. Yes, please do, but I want to go back to look at the 14 form to deal with his Lordship's question. 15 A. Whichever way you want me to deal with it. 16 Q. Since it is in your mind, just say what you want to say 17 at moment and then we will go back to that. 18 A. That notice is issued on Stockline Plastics, although 19 under the Health and Safety at Work Act, it was in 20 connection with means of escape in case of fire. After 21 1st January '77, or whatever the date was, the HSE no 22 longer had any responsibilities in relation to means of 23 escape in case of fire for any premises -- well, except 24 those few special premises. 25 Q. May we take it that Grovepark Mills was not the special page 74 1 premises? 2 A. That wasn't one of the special premises. So the Fire 3 Authority who were taken in on various other visits took 4 over that responsibility, not only for -- well, they had 5 the responsibility when they went with me for issuing 6 the fire certificate but they took over the 7 responsibility for issuing fire certificates and for 8 ensuring that the certificate was being maintained from 9 January 1977. 10 Q. Could we then have up on the screen again please 11218 11 and 9. 12 This is the notice again, prohibition notice again, 13 Mr Powell. 14 Could I ask that part 2 of the schedule be 15 highlighted. 16 In response to the question asked by his Lordship, 17 if the person upon whom the notice had been served had 18 actually provided adequate means of escape from the 19 basement as a matter of fact, would that then mean that 20 the prohibition no longer applied, even if the 21 prohibition notice was never actually withdrawn, because 22 they were complying with the conditions? 23 A. Once they complied, that was fine. We wouldn't withdraw 24 a notice or lift a notice because they complied. 25 Because they complied, then the notice was -- that was page 75 1 it. 2 Q. But how you might record that they had complied would be 3 in the sort of report on visit entries that you were 4 talking about a moment ago? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. So far as the transfer of responsibility from the HSE to 7 the Fire Brigade was concerned in 1977, was there any 8 mechanism for the passing over of any prohibition 9 notices or similar notices in a situation where the 10 practical responsibility was passed at that time from 11 the HSE to the Fire Brigade so that the Fire Brigade 12 knew, for example, that there was a prohibition notice 13 in force? 14 A. I can't remember, you know, the instructions and the 15 procedures at the time. Clearly where prohibition 16 improvement notices had been served, in my experience 17 the inspector would have been in with somebody from the 18 Fire Authority, as I had done in the years before 1977. 19 So the Fire Authority would be well aware, but I can't 20 remember what instructions there were at the time about 21 passing information. Clearly some information would 22 have been passed; I don't know what information went 23 over. 24 Q. If you return, please, in paragraph 123 you talk about 25 an inspector going through the file and seeing the page 76 1 relevant entries regarding the prohibition notices and 2 that is not only because of the copies of the notices 3 themselves but in the report on visit, as you have 4 already noted, you actually stated that the prohibition 5 notices and previously the improvement notices had been 6 serve on a particular date. So it was in that 7 chronological narrative that it happened. 8 Can I ask you to return to read from 124, please. 9 A. "In 1977 it would have been the responsibility of the 10 Fire Authority to issue the fire certificate as indeed 11 it had been under the 1961 Act. I would have thought 12 that the premises would have required a fire 13 certificate." 14 Q. In 125 -- I do not think you need to read it out -- you 15 are talking about this transfer of responsibility from 16 the HSE to the Fire Authority on 1st January 1977; is 17 that right? 18 A. That's right, yes. 19 Q. Then in paragraph 126 -- perhaps you should just read 20 that, please. 21 A. Could I emphasise the last bit of 125, Mr Martin, that 22 following the introduction of the Act, Health and Safety 23 Inspectors would bring to the attention of the Fire 24 Authority any matters coming to their attention which 25 could be give rise to breach of the certificate. From page 77 1 the inspector's point of view, these would be matters 2 that are evident concern at premises. 3 In fact, to give you an example of the sort of 4 evident concern, was if there was a locked or padlocked 5 fire escape, if equipment had been piled up against the 6 fire escape and things like that. 7 Q. Thank you. 126, please. 8 A. "The prohibition notice serial number P/247/2/76 was 9 served on ICL Technical Plastics Limited with immediate 10 effect from the 13.1.76. I was of the opinion that use 11 of the corridor which adjoined the east stairway and 12 which formed part of the escape route for persons 13 employed in the premises in the event of fire, for work 14 activities and in particular the use of the chimney in 15 that corridor or for the burning off of plastic coating 16 from metal components which was being carried on by the 17 company involved an imminent risk of serious personal 18 injury and that the matters involved contraventions of 19 the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, sections 20 2(1) and 3(1) because the use of the corridor for those 21 activities affected the means of escape in case of fire 22 for persons emplo