CLAUSE 12.—(Prime movers.) (Hansard, 16 June 1937)

§ Mr. Graham White
I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, to leave out "in such a position or."
This Clause provides that all prime movers shall be securely fenced unless they are in such a position or construction as to be as safe for every person 401 employed or working on the premises as they would be if securely fenced. The next Clause makes similar provisions with regard to transmission machinery, and the succeeding Clause makes the same provisions with regard to other forms of machinery which are not included in Clauses 12 and 13. The question whether it is possible to hold machinery to be safe and not requiring to be protected simply because it is in a certain position, is one which has given, and must continue to give, thought to those who have responsibility in these matters. I hope that the time will come when exemptions from the necessity of fencing machinery will not be allowed. I am not unaware of the fact that if the requirements to fence all machinery were made, it would call for a good deal of reconstruction and expenditure, but it is clear that machinery which is held to be safe can only be held to be safe as long as the workpeople employed about it can be held to be in the same relative position to the machinery. That is a condition which it is clearly impossible to carry out.
My personal experience in regard to this matter has been augmented lately by a terrible accident which was brought to my attention in which a workman approaching a piece of shafting, which for over 20 years had been held to be safe and had not been the subject of any accident, was, owing to the starting of the machine, caught in the machinery and was killed. Following the accident, the inspector properly in the exercise of his power brought an action against the occupier of the factory. There will be other cases as long as permission is allowed to leave machinery unfenced, and that will be unsatisfactory both to the workers and to the employers, who will find themselves faced with serious liability in regard to machinery which they had every reason to suppose was safe. It is a matter that ought to receive some consideration, and a Bill of this kind should not pass without recognition of the fact that here is a question that requires ventilation.

Colonel Sandeman Allen
Was the shafting in the accident to which the hon. Gentleman referred overhead or on the ground level?

§ Mr. White
It was overhead shafting.

Mr. Owen Evans
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter that ought to be considered, but I hope that I shall be able to convince him that this Amendment is not necessary. This has been a provision of the law for a long time. It is the case that machinery can fulfil the provisions of the law if it is fenced, or in such a position, or of such a construction as to be as safe to people employed or working on the premises as they would be if it were securely fenced. It is a very severe provision. Machinery has to be, by law, as safe as if it were fenced. The hon. Gentleman's case really depends on showing to be true the proposition that it is impossible to make a thing as safe by position as it would be if it were securely fenced. I hope to show him that that is not correct. It is wrong to suppose that fencing always gives 100 per cent. protection. Accidents occur even when machinery is fenced. On the other hand, there are some parts of machinery which are completely inaccessible to workpeople and are safe by their position. Would it be right to require that those parts of machinery in inaccessible positions, which are from a common-sense point of view really safe, should be required to be fenced? Take, for example, the gearing that may be working a hoist. In some cases it may be 40 or 50 feet above the top of the well of the hoist, and it would be completely inaccessible. Yet under this Amendment it would be necessary to fence it.
There are a large number of machines all over the country which really are safe by position from a common sense point of view, and the Amendment would require all those machines to be fenced. While the House will take the view that all proper precautions should be taken, even involving expenditure by the occupier which is really required for safety, it is wrong to load the Statute with provisions which would be very expensive, and which would not appreciably lead to safety. The courts have taken a very strict view of this provision. In fact, I understand they have been taking a stricter view in recent years, and have been interpreting this provision in a very severe way. Partly as a result of that, and partly as a result of careful administration by the inspectors, the accidents from overhead shafting have fallen by half in the last ten years.

§ Miss Wilkinson
If a quickly revolving wheel that was quite inaccessible to the workers burst, would not fencing prevent the broken fragments from flying about?

§ Mr. Macquisten
Would not fencing cause additional metal to fall on the workers in such a case? If, as the Clause stands, the position is to be such that a piece of machinery is as safe as if it were fenced, then it would be only duplicating fencing to put a fence round it. As the Under-Secretary said, the courts are interpreting this very strictly, and if a machine is in such a position that it is as safe as if it were fenced, and an accident happened, it is almost conclusive proof that a blunder has been made. An employer will take care, not only to protect his own pocket, but from the higher motive of protecting his workpeople, to put additional fencing to prevent any chance of accident if there is any doubt about the safety. It is, however, no use adding a fence to a fence that already exists because of the construction of the machine. Industry is difficult enough to carry on as it is, and it is no use carrying out a counsel of perfection which will serve no useful purpose.

§ Mr. Silverman
It might be useful to refer to the discussion which took place on a similar point in Standing Committee. The principle of the Clause, which is accepted everywhere, is that dangerous machinery ought to be fenced, and that there ought to be no exception unless the exceptions are of such a nature as to be self-evident. In Standing Committee an Amendment was moved to leave out the words "in such a position" and also the words "of such construction," and the debate followed the line that there was no such thing as safety by position or safety by construction. Various arguments were put forward, and it was ultimately accepted by everybody that there was a distinction to be drawn between machines which were alleged to be safe by their construction and machines of which it was alleged that although by their construction they were not safe, they were obviously safe by reason of their position.
It was accepted by the Home Secretary in Committee that these two positions were not the same thing, and that the case for exempting machinery which was 404 safe by its construction was one thing, but that the case for exempting machinery which was safe by position was another. To-day no one has said that in the case of machinery which by its construction is not capable of being dangerous ought to be fenced. That exception from the general principle we may take now to be common ground. When, however, it comes to the question of safety by position, I say that in the conditions of modern factories there is not any such thing. All sorts of things may happen. I would ask the hon. and learned Member for Argyleshire (Mr. Macquisten) whether any harm is done by taking extra precautions, and is it going to impose such an intolerable burden upon industry?

§ Mr. Macquisten
It is not an extra precaution; it is a needless precaution.

§ Mr. Silverman
That is just what is in issue. In the case of machinery that is safe by construction we are agreed, but we are saying that where machinery is dangerous in itself, then the mere place in which it is in the factory cannot render it impossible to be dangerous to everybody.
The possibility that machinery which is dangerous in itself will some day involve an unforeseen accident always remains if you depend merely on the position in which the machinery is, and even if you save only one accident a year is not that worth doing? Is the burden which would be placed on industry so intolerable that industry ought not to be asked to bear it? I say that it is not. No one who knows the facts about accidents in factories would venture to say that it was an intolerable burden to place upon employers to ask them to fence all machinery that is dangerous or that is capable of being dangerous, except such machinery as, by its very construction, is deemed not to be dangerous at all.

§ Wing-Commander Wright
Will the hon. Member tell me what machinery is by its construction not dangerous?

§ Mr. Silverman
If the hon. Member asks me that question I should say there was no such thing. I should prefer—and I think this was the position taken by my colleagues in the Standing Committee—that the rule that all machinery dangerous in itself should be fenced should have no exceptions, but if we cannot have that and if we are bound 405 to except those machines which are deemed to be safe by their construction, that need not lead us to the far more dangerous position of exempting those machines which are dangerous but which are alleged to have lost their danger by reason of the position in which they are in the factory. I hope the Home Office will reconsider this question. What we ask is not a big thing and it would improve the Bill, and would be worth while if it prevented only one accident a year.

§ Mr. Higgs
There are many machines to-day which, by virtue of their construction, are not dangerous. That is the tendency of modern design, and I think it is totally unnecessary to provide protection in those instances. Such precautions as can be taken are quite unnecessary when machines are put in buildings designed entirely for those machines. Fencing may become dangerous, inasmuch as lubrication has to be undertaken from time to time. The fences are in the way and the lubricators do not always take the trouble to remove them, and they are dangerous on those occasions. Then there is the question of testing electrical machinery, which concerns this Clause very closely. Electric generators are used to a great extent, and if those generators had to be fenced it would be very detrimental to the testers to have to move the fences every time they had to put a new machine down for testing purposes. I consider that the Clause as it is is very strong and that the addition of this Amendment is very undesirable.

§ Mr. White
The statement made in answer to the case which I endeavoured to place before the House illustrates the difficulty which we have experienced from time to time in connection with this Bill in making general provisions for safety apply in every particular instance. I think that in this instance we had better rely upon the assurance which the hon. Gentleman has given that the matter will receive administrative consideration, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.