HC Deb 12 December 1952 vol 509 cc904-24

Order for Second Reading read.

2.53 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Before dealing with the Bill, I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who were interested in the first Bill today for so generously curtailing the debate in order that we might have time to discuss this second Measure. I am all the more grateful since I know how many workers all over the country are interested in the previous Bill.

I have heard that some people have expressed surprise that a woman had chosen the subject matter of health and safety conditions for foundry workers for her Private Member's Bill; but those who know me would have been very surprised indeed if, having been lucky in the Ballot, I had not chosen a Measure that would go some way to help the conditions of a body of workers. I had thought in the first instance of bringing forward a Bill to deal with people who had been partially disabled by pneumoconiosis, but for certain reasons I decided not to do that but to select the subject that is now before the House.

Living in an industrial area, as I do, I am continually meeting those people who have suffered greatly either from industrial accident or through an industrial disease. In my own area, the incidence of both industrial accidents and industrial disease is very high indeed, and because of that I was particularly interested when the Garrett Report was submitted in 1947. In 1945, the then Chief Inspector of Factories set up a Committee to go into the question of safety and health conditions in foundries. That Committee worked very well indeed and very quickly, and in 1947 they published their report.

What has worried many people since 1947 is that the findings and recommendations of that report have not been implemented to anything like the extent that even the most reasonable people have had the right to expect. I hasten to add that it would be completely wrong to say that nothing has been done as a result of the report. Indeed, I should be doing less than justice to many good employers if I were to give that impression.

It is true that since 1947 many employers have improved their factories out of all knowledge, and I should like to pay great tribute to those good employers. In fact, I should like today to ask for their assistance in helping to bring about support for the Bill amongst the other employers in the country. There is today far too great a difference between what might be termed the best and the worst in foundries. That difference accounts for much human suffering, which could be quite avoidable if the worst would make some attempt to come near to the conditions of the best.

There are in this country, I understand, some 2,000 foundries—big, middle-sized and small—and in 1951 these foundries employed more than 145,000 workers. I am glad to be able to say that until 1950 the accident rate was going down gradually, but in 1951 the accident rate among foundry workers slightly increased. In 1951 there were 11,055 accidents and 22 fatal accidents. The accident rate for industry as a whole in 1950 was 25 per 1,000, but among foundry workers it was 75 per 1,000 and in 1951 the accident rate among foundry workers was 76 per 1,000.

Surely these figures show how very hazardous is the nature of this industry. If we take the accident rate among foundry workers we see that on the average it is three times greater than that for all workers of this country. These figures cry out for everything humanly possible to be done to lower the accident rate and to make the job of the foundry workers less hazardous.

Perhaps there are still some who are surprised that I chose this subject. I want to speak of my experience. My father and brother, at different times, were brought home from the pit having suffered accidents. If I needed anything to make me realise it, those experiences made me realise what suffering is endured, not only by the injured workman, but by the mother, the wife or daughters of those injured. This Bill is designed to cut down the number of accidents and to reduce the suffering endured by the injured and the families of the injured.

The "British Journal of Industrial Safety," published in the summer of 1951, describing the reconstruction of a foundry on the lines of the recommendation of the Garrett Report, stated: Before this reconstruction the frequency rate"— that is, the frequency rate of accidents— was more or less static at 4.5 per cent. In 1948 the floor moulders moved into a new building and the frequency rate dropped to 3.2 per cent. By the end of 1949, it was down to 2.4 per cent. It has continued to decline and at the end of 1950 reached its lowest level of 1.8 per cent. Severity rates show a similar downward trend and there has not been a single serious burning accident from molten metal since the moulders moved into their new shop in 1948. Previously it was considered a good year if only one or two of these cases were recorded. These statistics may be of themselves dull and uninteresting, but what a wonderful picture these figures give of a decrease in human suffering when reasonable con- ditions are provided for the workers in this dangerous industry.

Most of the Clauses in this Bill speak for themselves. We have attempted to make it simple. There is little or no legal jargon in the Clauses. There is little for the lawyers to argue about later on.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

More is the pity.

Miss Herbison

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) says, "More is the pity," but I think that my hon. Friends will agree that it is a good thing if Bills are more simple. Since each Clause speaks for itself. I wish to deal with only two of them.

Clause 3 deals with dust and fumes. As a result of the dust in foundries many foundry workers suffer from that industrial disease pneumoconiosis. I have greater experience of miners suffering from pneumoconiosis but I also have experience in my constituency of old foundry workers suffering from that dreaded disease. From all the information I can get, by research which I have done on my own, I have found that today there is no known cure for pneumoconiosis. A great deal of research is being done in different parts of the country, but I would suggest that there is still too little research.

In Scotland we have one pneumoconiosis unit in Bangour Hospital. There we have a doctor who is giving devoted service to miners and foundry workers and industrial workers of all kinds suffering from this disease. While he is giving that service he is also carrying out research work. I have had experience of workers visiting me at my home and later going to this unit at Bangour. When they visited me first they were depressed. Life held very little for them, because that is one of the results of this disease. There seems to be no hope for the future.

But after treatment at this unit they have come back to see me and they have been different men altogether. That wonderful doctor and the nurses at that unit have given new hope to those men. They have helped to ease the result of this disease. But in spite of that work there is still no known cure. Since that is the case, and since the results of this disease play havoc with the men who suffer from it, I suggest that every possible precaution should be taken to prevent workers in foundries or elsewhere from contracting it.

I will not say any more about diseases that come from fumes. Other of my hon. Friends with greater experience may be able to develop that subject adequately. I wish to deal with Clause 5 of the Bill, which asks for proper bathing facilities. Again I can speak from my own experience in a miner's home at a time when there were no such thing as pithead baths, and when the miners brought home not only the dirt on their bodies, but the dirt on their very dirty clothes. For thousands of miners in this country, and for their wives and families, pithead baths have been a great boon. It is true that in the better foundries they have these facilities but we want to see in every foundry proper bathing facilities for the men.

The Minister may say that all that is contained in this Bill can be brought about by regulations under the existing Factories Act. I do not doubt that. We are not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister, any more than we blame Ministers of the Labour Government, but our complaint is that so little has been done since this report was published in 1947. I find that only two Statutory Instruments have been published since 1947, Statutory Instrument No. 707 of 1948, dealing with canteen facilities, and Statutory Instrument No. 1674 of 1948, dealing with washing, painting and whitewashing factories.

There may be very good reasons why regulations have not been made. But I would quote Sir George Barnett, Chief Inspector of Factories. He spoke in June, 1952, at a conference of the Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers, and he had this to say about making regulations: It is no good bringing in regulations at too early a stage. Once you have them they are not so easy to alter, and very often it is better to wait a little time to get a much higher legal standard. The other point is that regulations under the Factories Act are really modifications made by the Minister of the general provisions rather than the particular, because with some of our regulations already you are up against difficulty, particularly in view of a certain judgment given in 1944. which said that once a Minister had made any regulations in respect of a particular aspect of health, safety or welfare, there was no collateral responsibility on the occupier to comply with the general provisions of the Act so modified. If that is indeed the case, the last wish of myself or any of the sponsors of this Bill would be to do anything to militate against safety and health conditions in factories. It is true that much research is taking place, especially into the suppression of dust, to try to deal properly with fumes and many of the matters dealt with in the Bill.

The ultimate standards which the Ministry would wish to set may be—and I hope will be—very much higher than the standards for which we ask in this Bill. One of the criticisms of this Measure is that we have far too often the words: so far as practicable. We accept that criticism, but the promoters of the Bill on both sides of the House are reasonable people. We have tried to draft a Measure which can, if it becomes an Act, have its provisions put into operation. In doing that we are avoiding the difficulty which Sir George Barnett suggested would come about if the Ministry made regulations.

I think that I have said sufficient to show why this Bill should be given a Second Reading and allowed to go to a Standing Committee. The fact that it is possible to make regulations under existing legislation should not militate against this Bill. If it was accepted it would do much to improve working conditions. It would leave the door wide open for any regulations which the Minister cared to make when the results of the present fine research are known. It would also help to solve some of the difficulties of our economic situation. We need to attract far more trainees to this industry. Present conditions militate against young men being willing to work as foundry workers.

The Bill is by no means perfect. The sponsors realise that only too well. All we ask today is that it should have a Second Reading. When it goes to a Standing Committee these defects can be eliminated so that, when it becomes an Act, it will be a great improvement on the Bill which is before the House now.

I want to quote four lines from a book sent to me by a foundry worker. The book is called, "Foundry Rhymes" by Alec Russell the moulders' poet. He writes: He does not live for much, This common stuff eternal to his task, He does not ask for much, Merely enough—is that too much to ask? Is what we are asking in this Bill too much to ask for these thousands of men, who are doing a good job and taking risks which no man ought to be asked to take when so many of them are avoidable?

3.15 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Bennett (Glasgow, Woodside)

I beg to second the Motion.

I am delighted to be able to do so, for two reasons: first, because of the non-controversial nature of this Bill, and, secondly, because of the charm of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). Many of the recommendations are of such a character that they can be carried out at practically no cost and very little inconvenience to many of the foundries concerned. Indeed, many of the foundries have already carried out what is proposed in this Bill, and I feel quite certain that the others, with a little jogging, would have very little difficulty in bringing themselves up to standard.

Hon. Members might ask what I know about foundries. I have two friends who are owners of foundries, and I have also visited a number of others. What has struck me, as a matter of fact, in the two foundries belonging to my friends which I have visited is that one is the perfect pattern for a foundry, or even a factory—tidy, orderly, neat, compact and presenting no difficulty whatever to the workers in moving around. In the other one, it is almost impossible to move from one part of the floor to the other. There is also another large foundry of which I am thinking, which ought to be perfect, but in which it is very difficult to see, even on a good day, while at night-time, with the bad light, open tires, smoke and fumes, it is as near Dante's "Inferno" as any ordinary citizen would want to see.

Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)

Like a London fog?

Mr. Bennett

Not quite as bad as that.

When the Garrett Committee was set up, the terms of reference were quite simple. The first referred to the provision of better amenities and more com- fortable and healthy conditions; the second to the improvement of the appearance of foundries, better lighting and cleanliness; and the third to the improvement of atmospheric conditions, dust prevention, and so on. These are fairly simple matters, and they can be carried out quite easily. With a little encouragement and good will, I do not think that there would be much difficulty.

The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North said that the accident rate in foundries was three times what it is in general engineering, and I agree with the sponsors of the Bill in saying that it is far greater than it ought to be. In going around the foundries which I have visited, I have come to the conclusion that what has really been a temporary expedient at the beginning has become, when days have passed into weeks and weeks have passed into months, the ordinary pattern of the foundry floor.

I should like to remind the House that, in 1947, New South Wales brought in a Measure similar to this Bill, except that its terms were much more drastic. The Government there had no difficulty in carrying it out, and the sponsors of this Bill do not believe that there will be any difficulty in this country. It is well-known to all hon. Members that some of our modern foundries can, by comparison, compete with anything else in the world. In the case of others, however, it will be very difficult for them to come up to that standard, but there is a certain discretion being left to Her Majesty's Inspector which will allow him, within a reasonable time, to say what is necessary and to give a clearance certificate to those foundries which might find it difficult to come up to the high standard demanded.

I am sure that the foundry owners will be glad to show that they are willing to do what they can, if they can be assured that it would not put them out of business. There is definitely no question whatever that it would mean the closing of many foundries which are at present carrying on very successfully, and which are, indeed, very necessary for the national well-being. That would not be so.

In regard to the first of the Committee's terms of reference, I wish to say a word on adequate washing facilities. Surely, even in the smallest establishment. the provision of such facilities ought not to be difficult. But just because they are not there they are not expected and, because they are not expected, they are not asked for, and because they are not asked for nothing is done about them, and the same conditions are maintained year after year. The same thing applies to stacking, but not to the same extent.

Hon. Members will remember the story of General Booth when, before he really got under way, he was walking down the East End. A shop-keeper was standing at his door complaining about everything under the sun and saying that he did not know what things were coming to in the world. The General said to him, "I suggest that, for a start, you should get your windows cleaned, and then you might see to one or two other things that want doing." That advice applies not only to shopkeepers, but to factories and foundries, and some people require to be pushed to get things done.

I expected to say very much more, but I am advised that there is so much good will towards this Bill that I will sit down and allow some other hon. Members who are better qualified to speak on this subject than I am to suggest what ought to be done, and done straight away.

3.21 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I wish to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett), on the admirable way in which they have presented this Bill to the House. I have seen a few Private Members' Bills become Acts of Parliament, and I recall the occasion when Ellen Wilkinson introduced her Bill on hire purchase, and the enormous good will that that Measure created throughout the country when it became an Act.

I remember Guy Rowson with his holidays with pay, and Alan Parkinson and Joe Batey with their nationalisation of the mines. I hope that the sponsors of this Bill will, when this Bill becomes an Act, have the same satisfaction as the people I have mentioned. If it does become an Act it will give great satisfaction to thousands of men who work so hard in difficult conditions in foundries throughout the country. Whether it be the managements or the millions of people engaged in the engineering industry, the moulders and all those con- netted with foundries, they will receive the good will of all those who see them at work.

The Bill will also give satisfaction to the whole of the trade union movement, to the officials of the trade union concerned, and, in particular, to their general secretary, who, as will be admitted by all who know him, has devoted his whole life to dealing with this problem. I cannot speak today without mentioning those who are no longer with us, but who devoted their lives to similar work. I refer, first of all, to the much respected Arthur Henderson, who sat in this House for so long. He was the National General President of the Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers right up to the day he died. What Arthur Henderson said in this House one could depend that he would say behind closed doors. And what Arthur Henderson said behind closed doors, he would also say at Geneva and elsewhere. We all need to learn the lessons of such behaviour.

It would be wrong if I failed to mention also Tom Chadwick and others who have filled the official offices of the moulders union of this country and who have pioneered this kind of work. We now have the satisfaction of seeing it dealt with on the Floor of the House of Commons owing to the fact that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North chose to bring forward this Bill when she was successful in the Ballot.

Because I want to follow the fine example set by the hon. Member for Woodside I shall be as brief as possible. Today we are legislating to save unnecessary suffering, to save life, and, above all, to prolong life. In my young days foundry conditions were terrible. I always wanted to learn everything I could, but in spite of that I would, whenever possible, avoid walking through the large foundry in which I was employed; I used to walk all the way round it rather than walk through it, because the conditions were terrible, with the dust and the heat; it would be hot one minute and cold and draughty the next. I shall never forget the way the machine moulders, in particular, used to work in those days, and I am sorry I have not the time to describe it.

This year it was my privilege to address the Annual Conference of the Foundry Trade Workers held at Blackpool. Before I forget, let me pay a tribute to the Chief Inspector of Factories, who also addressed that conference. He gave an informative address, which was an example that should be followed by other civil servants. If only they would keep in closer touch with the people there would be greater confidence and goodwill. It was a real treat to see the way the delegates listened with respect to the Chief Inspector addressing that conference.

During their discussion on these problems my emotions were roused. Delegate after delegate came to the microphone to relate his experiences; men nearly worn out, men who could scarcely breathe. I shall never forget one man, who had to hesitate in order to draw his breath; he won the sympathy of the whole conference and, taking a deeper breath, he said with difficulty, "Ellis, you're lucky. You're better, but look at me." He paused for seconds, but it seemed like minutes; he could scarcely speak because of his condition, brought about by silicosis, which had affected his lungs. I hope that man reads this debate today, and what has been said by my hon. Friends in moving and seconding the Motion.

I have just been reading the Report on Steel Founding published by the Anglo-American Productivity Council. I have not the time to read the extracts from it which I should like to read, and I content myself with asking those who may disagree with us today to read pages 1, 12 and 13. Every one of those pages contains evidence of the need for this Bill. It is no use Productivity Council delegations going to America unless we implement their reports on their return. The whole trade union movement is cooperating in the implementation of those reports, and if they are accepted there should be some co-operation in passing this Bill.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North so rightly said, this is not only a question of dealing with the needless suffering of the men and improving their conditions. It is also a good business proposition, which can give increased production. Those who have been engaged in establishments employing 20,000 and 30,000, giving a big output, have long since learned that good condi- tions are the best way to win the good will of those in the industry.

When we have good will we get the best results from the men's labour. What we are trying to do is, by putting this Measure on the Statute Book, implementing what has been recommended in the Anglo-American Productivity Council's report, what the medical profession in this country have long agreed needs to be done and what management throughout this country also believes should be done.

3.31 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

I intend to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I happen to be chairman of an engineering company which has a foundry attached to it, and as soon as this Bill came out I sent a copy off to one of my co-directors, the works manager, to find out his reaction. I got a very detailed report from him, paragraph by paragraph, expressing agreement and with certain comments in one or two cases.

Unfortunately, I have not got the document with me because I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) was one of the backers of this Bill so I gave it to him. Unfortunately, he is not here so I cannot quote that useful document. Generally speaking, as far as I can make out, my colleague thought that this was a good Bill.

We all know that foundries are dirty places. I have visited a good many over the years in which I have been associated with the engineering, industry, and I do not think that any human being has ever turned a foundry into anything like the House of Commons. the Ritz or anything like that.

If we are to deal with the problem we must have a good Bill, and in certain respects, this is not a very good Bill, although I agree it can be put right in Committee. For example, there is no reference to adequate lighting. I know that in the foundry with which I am concerned one of the improvements that we have brought about lately has been to instal tubular lighting which has made quite a big difference. I think adequate lighting is very important. Of course, it may be a good idea to clean the windows, but it has to be a frequent operation.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

Is the hon. Member by any chance referring to a foundry which is situated in a division not far from my own and of my hon. Friends, where cleaning the windows would not necessarily provide sufficient light?

Sir H. Williams

The curious thing is that the company in question have a subsidiary in Stoke-on-Trent, but I regret to say there is no foundry there. Otherwise, I should have sought the advice of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). Adequate lighting, irrespective of whether there are clean windows or not, is very important and is an important factor in avoiding accidents.

If this Bill became law tomorrow it would be of no use to anybody, because there are no penalties for disobeying it. I do not know if the promoters realise it, but it says, "You shall do this, that and the other, and if you do not do it nothing happens."

Miss Herbison

The hon. Gentleman will find, on page 5 of the Bill, the words: This Act may be cited as the Factory (Foundry Workers) (Health and Safety) Act, 1952 … and states that the penalty Sections of the original Factories Acts shall be applied to this Measure.

Sir H. Williams

I hope that is true. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady has had the best advice, but I am a bit dubious. When new offences are introduced one must prescribe the penalties in relation to those new offences. Therefore, I am a little dubious.

Let me refer to Clause 1, which states: For the purposes of promoting cleanliness, tidiness and safety in connection with work in iron foundries the following requirements shall be observed— (a) moulding boxes, loam plates, ladles and other heavy articles kept inside a foundry shall, if not in constant use, be stacked in a safe and orderly manner in a space separate from the working area. There is a lot to be said for that. But would the hon. Lady tell me what penalty would be prescribed under this Measure if I failed to stack the moulding boxes, loam plates and so on in a safe and orderly manner? I think the hon. Lady will find that there is no penalty. It is no good saying that the general penalties of the Factories Acts will apply. Surely when prescribing a new offence we must simultaneously prescribe the appropriate penalty.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

Might I suggest to the hon. Member that we could discuss these questions much better in Committee, as they are rather detailed? I understand that a number of other hon. Members wish to give their blessing to the Bill, and I am sure he would not wish to prevent them from doing so.

Sir H. Williams

If the right hon. Gentleman had not interrupted me I should probably have finished by this time. We are on Second Reading and, having made a declaration that I support the Bill, I have drawn attention to the fact that the Bill is badly drafted. Surely I am helping in pointing out how the Measure should be drafted. There is no more violent opponent of the abuse of delegated legislation than I, but delegated legislation has its proper function in prescribing technical details. The Bill is bad because it goes into a lot of technical details which we may want to alter from time to time.

It says in Clause 2 (1): … gangways, if used for carrying molten metal, shall be … where the truck ladles are used exclusively, at least two feet wider than the overall width of the ladle … Whether those are the right technical details or not I do not know. Experience may show that they are wrong. It would be stupid if we had to bring in another Act of Parliament to alter a technical detail. I believe that three quarters of the Bill is appropriate for delegated legislation, for Regulations against which we can pray if we think they are wrong. It is fundamentally wrong to tie ourselves up so rigidly about technical details in an Act of Parliament.

If the Bill gets to the Committee stage, as I hope it will, I hope the hon. Lady will see if she can redraft it to provide wider powers, so that we are not tied up in knots before we start.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)

I have been closely associated with foundries all my working life. I have not worked in them, but I have spent hundreds of hours of my spare time in them as a branch secretary responsible for many labourers working in a factory attached to my firm.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). She said that many people would wonder why a woman should promote the Bill. I would remind her that everybody in a foundry is a mother's son and that it is very necessary from the point of view of mothers, sweethearts and daughters that care should be taken of their welfare.

The Bill may be rather badly drafted technically, but I can assure the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) that the technical details are the result of many years—almost a century—of practical knowledge on the part of those best able to know, the foundry workers and their representatives.

The Bill should commend itself to the decent foundry owner. There are many. I know many modern foundries, and I always like to pay tribute to employers who have seen the light and are doing a good job. These employers are faced with grossly unfair competition from the little diehard type of fellow who persistently refuses to introduce ordinary, decent improvements into his foundry. The Bill will commend itself to the big firms who, annually, spend thousands of pounds on welfare and improvements.

When I had the honour to be a junior Minister in the Ministry of Supply in the last Government I visited many foundries, and I had the privilege of opening a new foundry apprentices school in the Midlands, in connection with which I went into a lot of detail. Even taking into account the mining industry, with its deplorable past, the number of new entrants into the foundry industry was less per 1,000 of the number employed than in any other industry in the country. That speaks for itself. Parents do not keep their boys from becoming apprentice to an industry because it is a good industry. I stand to be corrected, but the total figure was, I think, 39 apprentices throughout the length and breadth of this country. I do not want to go further into this subject now except to say that had it not been for parents and those engaged in the industry these figures would have been very much better.

I conclude by wishing this Bill well. I know it has its defects, but it was not drafted by an expert Parliamentary draftsman. It was drafted by a humanitarian. I think that Friday should become known as the day of Christians. It seems to be the only day on which I can find any real humanitarian motives in the work of this House, and if more time were given to subjects of this sort and less to subjects of the other kind it would be for the general benefit of Parliament because less political venom would be created.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell us that this Bill could have its purpose served by existing regulations. If the existing regulations had served their purpose then the Bill would not be necessary. They have failed, and, therefore, I hope this Bill will be given a Second Reading so that when we go upstairs to Committee we can hammer out the things which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. East.

The hon. Member referred to the absence on this occasion of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), who is a respected Member of the House and who has a full knowledge of the steel and iron foundry industries. I suggest that he may be travelling the country today seeking information which will put into his mind the idea of getting the Steel Bill withdrawn.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

In the one or two moments that are available to me I should like to join previous hon. Members in supporting the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in this Bill. I was considerably in sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) when he said that there is a great deal of detail in this Bill that perhaps might be dealt with by Orders or by other similar methods and that made the subject of special legislation of this kind.

All I am concerned to do is to find the legislative means, or whatever is the most convenient means, of giving effect to the principles and desires expressed in this short Measure, for I am convinced by long experience of the engineering and allied industries that this is a very desirable Bill. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have already mentioned the dirty, unpleasant and hazardous nature of iron foundries generally. Their accident rate. at three times higher than the average industrial accident rate in this country, is evidence of that factor. I believe that probably the accident rate even today, in spite of the many improvements carried out in the foundries, is almost as high as that in the pits.

There are one or two special aspects of the principles attached to this Measure which ought to be mentioned. First, if, by creating order where there is at present disorder in a particular foundry, and if, by providing for orderly conduct of production. we can improve the facilities available in the foundry, then we should automatically create a higher rate of output. The biggest single deterrent to high production in any of the engineering or allied industries is a slovenly or disorderly workshop. When disorder exists it is, unfortunately, often impossible to raise the rate of output.

The other point I wish to comment on is that we are falling into arrears with our legislative provisions dealing with industrial matters. I instance at random the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which is urgently in need of a full revision. I also instance the 1922 Wood Working Machinery Regulations, which are a quarter of a century out of date. All these things require urgent attention. The iron foundry problem should be made the subject of legislation in particular. leaving the Minister to deal with special and individual cases, within the general Measure, by way of Statutory Instrument.

3.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

I must apologise in advance to the House if I talk quickly, but I want to leave as much time as possible. This is Private Members' Day, but Her Majesty's Government must say what they think about the Bills which are debated.

I listened with very great pleasure to the hon. Members for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett). The hon. Lady need not have any qualms about an hon. Lady moving the Second Reading of the Bill. She did as well as any hon. Gentleman in this House might have done. I am certain that Members on all sides of the House wholeheartedly support the object of the Bill. That is clear. I hope everybody in the House also wants to see the objects of the Bill achieved as quickly as possible, and that is where I see the difficulty about the Bill.

I am not going to waste time, even to justify the remarks made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), in arguing the point as to whether or not we have power to do everything that the Bill asks. Of course, we have. I think the hon. Lady agreed that that was so. I must make it plain that there is not a reasonably practical suggestion in the Bill that cannot be covered by regulations under the existing Factories Acts. That is quite incontrovertible.

The main purpose of the Bill, I take it, is to emphasise that this House or the Government have been too slow in enacting the provisions of the Garrett Report. That seems to be the real justification for the Bill. It is a criticism of the House of Commons and of the Government of the day, whichever it was, in not being quick enough in enacting those provisions. As I see it, the object of the debate is to try to take another step forward and to do something more quickly about getting that report implemented.

Let us look at that aspect for a moment. We know that after the report there was set up a Joint Standing Committee and that various problems have been remitted to that Committee from time to time. The Committee have done a lot of useful work. There is no time to go in great detail into all the measures that have been remitted to the Committee or the amount of work that the Committee have done. I asked my Ministry to go over this matter for me, and as a result, here are six or seven pages of closely typed typescript giving the various measures that have been remitted to the Joint Standing Committee or to the various foundry committees. All these matters come back in due course to the Minister, who is fully empowered under existing legislation to make regulations that would give them the force of law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has put to us some of the difficulties that would inevitably flow from trying to make the Bill, not a workable Measure but one which would get the Garrett recommendations enacted quickly. I would remind the House of something that a past and very great Minister of Labour said in reference to this sort of job in industry. Mr. Ernest Bevin said what he thought was the right way to get this sort of very difficult thing done. He said: We should approach this matter with the idea that it is persuasion, with sanctions in the background. That is something with which we all agree, and which rests upon the very able and efficient Chief Inspector of Factories. Probably we have sufficient sanctions in the background, but the Government are certainly open to great criticism for not having done enough persuasion and for not having acted quickly enough. That I accept entirely. Therefore, my argument is directed to the way in which we can best deal with this matter to get the quickest results.

It has been pleasant to listen to this debate because everyone who has spoken has done so with practical experience of industry, and we do not hear enough of that in this House. As a junior Minister of the Government I, too, speak from a large number of years experience of industry and, having looked at Clause 3 carefully, particularly provisions (e) and (f) which deal with knock-out occupations and dressing and fettling operations, I see the difficulties in some of the smaller foundries in building separate sections for dressing and fettling. The hon. Member for Rotherham knows the difficulties as do all of us who have had practical experience.

If this Bill were enacted as it stands, the appointed day on that Clause would be a good while hence. The difficulty is that in the interim period it might be that the persuasive efforts of the factory department would be brushed on one side because of the eventual legal sanction of the appointed day. That might be a deterrent rather than a help in what we want to do.

This is a matter for the House to decide since it is a Private Members' Day, but I want to speak with all the force I can command. The right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) met a delegation from the Trades Union Congress in September, 1950, which followed a succession of meetings to try to get more rapid implementation of the Garrett Report. At that time he gave an undertaking that he would look carefully into this matter. Events moved and it is understandable why he was not able to do it but, at the same time, no further demand came from the trade unions that this matter should be pushed on.

I think, as my right hon. and learned Friend thinks, that we could probably as quickly get action in the following way—incidentally, I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend can be blamed for not doing very much in 12 months when, as I have said, we have had no great pressure up to now from the trade unions or the industry. My right hon. and learned Friend empowers me to say that he would be pleased to have a further demand from the trade unions for more consultations on how we can implement as quickly as possible the recommendations of the Garrett Report. I am prepared to play my full part in carrying that out.

At the same time, this Bill might possibly be withdrawn and held in suspense as a useful weapon over the head of the Government if we do not get on with the job. My right hon. and learned Friend will undertake to remit all points in this connection to the Joint Standing Committee, whether we have further representations from the industry or not. Further, we will undertake that if the Joint Standing Committee says it is desirable that these things should be carried out quickly, we will make the necessary regulations and take the necessary steps to see that they are enacted as quickly as may be.

That, I believe, is probably a quicker way of getting what we all want than by committing this Bill to a Committee stage where it would have to undergo fairly large alterations to make it workable.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

But the hon. Gentleman will agree that even if the Bill were passed his only difficulty would be the delay of the appointed day, and it would still be possible for the Minister to go on with the steps outlined in this Bill.

Mr. Watkinson

That is so to a degree, but there is an additional difficulty that once the Bill is in its Committee stage and once arguments are going on about when the appointed day should be, the efforts of our factory department to get these things done by persuasion are weakened.

Let me refer, for example, to Clause 3. The appointed day for certain classes of foundries must, in any case, be a good time hence, otherwise it imposes an impossible burden. As soon as a legislative period is set, the efforts of our factory department to get these things done by persuasion are weakened, because under the Bill the whole group of factories must be included. Under the present Regulations, we can work on one class of foundry at a time. We all know that action might be possible in one group of foundries but not in others.

Therefore, I suggest that the more flexible method is that of persuasion, with sanctions in the background, coupled with the very definite assurance which I have given on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend that we will put this matter at once to our Standing Joint Committee and that we will not hesitate in any way to carry out with the full force of the law their recommendations by making regulations, orders, or whatever is necessary. I commend that to the House as being, possibly, a more rapid and efficient way of achieving what, I know, the hon. Lady wants to achieve.

3.56 p.m.

Miss Herbison

I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour for all the help they have given me in discussions on this matter.

I am most grateful for what the Parliamentary Secretary has today said, but I and the sponsors of the Bill could not possibly say that we could allow it to drop at this stage in order that the matter might go to the Standing Joint Committee. After all, what we have in the Bill are almost all recommendations of the Garrett Committee, on which there were representatives of the employers, of the workers and of the Inspector. I am quite certain that the Parliamentary Secretary does not wish to delay this—

Mr. Watkinson

No, I do not.

Miss Herbison

I am certain of that. It is just that we on this side and some of my Friends on the other side feel that perhaps we will get more quickly what we want if the Bill goes to Committee. For that reason, I hope that it will get its Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.