§ Regulations already made or to be made by the Secretary of State or Minister under the Factories Act, 1937, shall not have the effect of limiting the liability in damages of any occupier or other person when such liability would arise by virtue of the Factories Act, 1937, but for the operation of a regulation made under the Factories Act, 1937.—[Mr. Solley.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. SolleyI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause is intended to remove a suggestion described by Lord Justice 781 Scott in the case of Franklin against the Gramophone Company as of far-reaching and general importance. I can best indicate to the Committee the significance of this proposed new Clause if I refer shortly to the Franklin case in which a workman died from pneumoconiosis after inhaling dust caused by a metal grinding machine At first sight one would have thought that Section 47 of the Factories Act enabled the representatives of the deceased to obtain damages, because if one looks at that Section one finds, on paper, that in every factory in which processes are carried on which result in the giving off of dust of a character, likely to be injurious to the workers, precautions would have to be taken.
In the Franklin case the court was faced not merely with the provisions of Section 47, the rough purport of which I have indicated, but also with certain regulations under preceding Factories Acts called the Grinding of Metals (Miscellaneous Industrial) Regulations of 1935. It was discovered in effect that those regulations limited the general operation of Section 47. In point of fact, in the Franklin case, it limited the operation in this way, that where there was the sharpening of tools carried on in a factory, and the person who was injured was not a person who was wholly or mainly employed in the task of sharpening tools, he could not claim under Section 47, because, as in the Franklin case, he had been working close to the place where the sharpening of tools took place, and thereby sustained pneumoconiosis.
In my submission it is a grave matter when regulations are made by the Minister which, probably quite unwittingly, derogate from the general standard which is purported in such a Section as Section 47 of the Factories Act. I am certain that Parliament never intended that in regard to the fairly high standard set out in Section 47 regulations should come into operation which in particular instances would modify the operation of that and other Sections so as really to cause grave injustice. The purpose of this new Clause is to avoid in the future a case such as the Franklin Case where a workman having died, his representative could not proceed under the Factories Act because of the watering down of the provisions of that Act by regulations such as the Grinding of Metals Regulation.
782 I did not have a great deal of time at my disposal when I drafted the Clause, and it may well be, and probably will be the case, that on more mature consideration the Clause could be re-dratted in a manner which would be more agreeable to the traditions of the Parliamentary draftsmen. If my right hon. Friend would say that he will look into this matter, bearing in mind the importance of the observations of the Lord Justice in the Franklin Case, and the desirability of preventing any recurrence of such a possibility as actually occurred in that case, then, speaking for myself, and subject to what may yet be said in the Debate on this Clause, I shall be prepared to accept his undertaking.
§ Mr. PagetI do not believe it was ever the intention of Parliament when they passed the Act of 1937, which was designed to give, and did give workmen the right to certain protection, that they should give at the same time to Ministers the unrestricted right to take away the protection which had been provided. Equally, I think that the decision in the Franklin case caused a big surprise. There had been a previous case. That case, speaking from memory, had great doubts thrown upon it by the House of Lords when they considered it subsequently. There was no suggestion that these regulations made by the Minister took away the protection which Parliament had furnished to the workmen, until we came to the Franklin decision. This does seem an extremely good opportunity to put back into this amending Act what I feel confident Parliament has always intended: that this general protection should be given to workmen; and that the Minister should have power to make regulations for the purpose of implementing that protection but not for the purpose of taking away from that protection. This new Clause, which seems to do the job adequately, makes clear what I believe was always intended.
§ Mr. IsaacsI admit that when I first saw this new Clause, only a few days ago, I was not clear as to its purpose. However, having listened to what has been said, I must say I am a little disturbed if the position is that there resides in the Minister power to make a regulation which would detract from the value of the Act and the advantages given to individuals. Therefore, I should like an 783 opportunity to consider the matter. I promise my hon. Friend that if he will withdraw his new Clause, I will consult with my colleagues the Law Officers and see whether anything can be done.
§ Mr. SolleyIn view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I think that I shall be meeting the wishes of those hon. Members who agree with me as to the import of this new Clause, when I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.