§ Every machine shall be so constructed, fenced or guarded, as to prevent the breaking away or ejection of any part of the machine or of the article or any part of the article being operated on by the machine, to the danger of any person employed or working on the premises.—[Mr. Solley.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. SolleyI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause, like the object of the one we have just considered, is to remove an injustice which became apparent as a result of a decision in the courts. It was the case of Nicholas v. Austin which brought to light the necessity for a new Clause of this sort. The case in question is reported in the 1946 Appeal Cases, on page 493. If I refer the Committee very shortly to the facts of that case, and its effects, I think I shall have done my best to urge upon them the importance of accepting this Clause. In the Nicholas case, a workman was operating a circular saw and was injured through a piece of wood flying out of the machine. The machine was fenced so as to comply with the requirements of the Woodworking Machinery Regulations and with Section 14 (1) of the Factories Act. Nevertheless, it was held that the employers were not in breach of any statutory obligation, since the obligation to fence imposed by Section 14 (1) was an obligation to guard against contact with any dangerous parts of the machinery and not, as on the facts of the Nicholas case, an obligation to guard against dangerous materials, for example, pieces of wood, which were ejected from the machine. Section 14 (1) of the 1937 Act provided that:
Every dangerous part of any machinery … shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position … as to be safe to every person employed. …784 It appears that, having regard to what was said in the Nicholas case—and we must accept it because it was the decision of the highest court of appellate jurisdiction in the land—Section 14 applies only to the fencing of a machine to make it safe from the point of view of the dangerous parts of the machine. It appears also that Section 14, or any regulation hitherto made under it, does not extend to danger as a result of the ejection from a machine of a piece of wood, as happened in the Nicholas case. Section 14 (3) of the Act states:The Secretary of State may, as respects any machine or any process for which a machine is used, make regulations requiring the fencing of materials or articles which are dangerous while in motion in the machine.As far as I know, and certainly at the time of the Nicholas case, there were no such regulations. In my submission, even though the Secretary of State has power to make regulations, the position would be best met by a new Clause such as this. If my right hon. Friend would be prepared to give an undertaking that he will make regulations which would deal with this mischief—and he has power to do so under Section 14 (3)—I think I should be justified in withdrawing this Motion.
§ 2.45 p.m.
§ The Attorney-GeneralAs the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) has indicated, in the case of Nicholas v. Austin the court pointed out that the principal Act already provides power for the Minister to deal with this kind of danger by regulation. The reason the matter was originally dealt with in that way in the principal Act was that it is necessary to consider the extent and the nature of the danger which may result from the use of particular classes of machine and the practicability of certain kinds of safeguard against it. A general requirement of the kind contemplated in the new Clause, a requirement that every machine should be so guarded as to prevent the ejection of any article from the machine so as to cause danger, might make it impossible, in a considerable number of cases where there is a possible danger of something accidentally flying out, either to use the machine or, if the machine were used, to enforce the regulation. The Minister will certainly consider the practicability of making regulations to cover this kind of accident, so far as regulations can deal 785 with the matter at all. I hope that in those circumstances the hon. Gentleman will not press the Motion. The new Clause would be quite impracticable to operate. I hope he will accept that the matter can be dealt with—as far as it can be dealt with—by regulation.
§ Mr. SolleyCan, my right hon. ant learned Friend give any indication when such a regulation will be made, or is it the case that it might be many years before we ultimately get a regulation?
§ The Attorney-GeneralWe will look at the matter at once. I cannot indicate that it will be at all easy to deal with this subject. It gives rise to a great many complications in regard to the nature of the dangers, the extent of them and the method of guarding against them. They must vary almost infinitely with the different types of machine in use and the different kinds of processes being worked. How ever, we will look at the matter at once and, if we can deal with it, we will deal with it as quickly as may be.
§ Mr. SolleyIn view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.