§ 9. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the charges brought by the inspector of factories at Wealdstone sessions on the 5th April against Adams Brothers and Burnley, Limited, sheet metal workers, Harrow, for not having a machine securely fenced on the night of 18th February, when a boy's right hand was severed, and to the magistrates' refusal to state a case for appeal against their dismissal of those charges; and, in view of this firm having been thrice previously prosecuted for similar offences, the last occasions being 5th February, 1929, and 30th January, 1931, when they were convicted and fined, whether he will both apply to the High Court for a mandamus to compel the 1990 magistrates to state a case to explain their decision in respect of this occurrence and also issue instructions requiring this firm to provide that all dangerous parts of their machinery are securely fenced so as to be equally safe to every person, young and old, in accordance with Section 10 (1) (c) of the Factory Act, 1891?
Mr. STANLEYThe case to which the hon. Member refers has already been very carefully considered in consultation with our legal advisers, but it appeared that for technical reasons an appeal against the dismissal of the charges would be unlikely to succeed, and in the circumstances it was decided to take other steps to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Factory Acts. Since the charges were dismissed, a thorough inspection of these works has been carried out by the district inspector, accompanied by one of the engineering inspectors, and the firm have been given full and detailed instructions as to their obligations in regard to fencing and other requirements of the Act. These instructions will be carefully followed up and the hon. Member may be assured that all necessary steps will be taken to enforce compliance.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs the Under-secretary not aware that the same firm, who apparently had been previously warned by his inspector, had been prosecuted on no less than three occasions for not fencing round their machinery, and now that a man has lost his right hand does the hon. Gentleman not think it is time that the magistrates in that particular division compelled this backward firm to do justice to their workpeople?
Mr. STANLEYThat does not alter the question whether we should be likely to succeed if we lodged an appeal. We are advised by our legal advisers that, for certain technical reasons, there would be little chance of an appeal being successful.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs it not within the power of the Under-Secretary's Department to compel the magistrates, who dismissed the case, to reconsider it?
§ Mr. THORNEWill the Under-secretary make inquiries as to how many months it was prior to the accident that the inspector paid a visit to this factory?