HC Deb 04 February 1952 vol 495 cc764-74

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Vosper.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I am very pleased indeed that an opportunity has arisen to draw the attention of the House to the extremely serious position which prevails in respect of industrial injuries and diseases. We have dealt at times with the appalling situation relating to accidents on the road and we have, from time to time, referred to the question of accidents in the home. Unfortunately this by no means completes the picture of the very grave loss of life and health in our country, a loss of life and health which is avoidable and which should be avoided.

We are all too accustomed to use the term "Accidents will happen." It is very glibly used. It must be eliminated not only from our everyday language but also from the notions which are taken for granted. It should be replaced by the truth and determination that accidents can and must be avoided. I want to refer to the report issued by the Ministry of National Insurance for November, 1951. In that report it was stated that the number of awards of industrial death benefit was about 3,000 in 1949 and approximately the same in 1950.

Bearing in mind that the number of employed people in the country was just over 23 million in 1950, this fact is an ominous one. If one compares it with the rate of fatalities on the roads, the number of fatalities in 1949 was 4,773. Any one of the total population of 50½ million might have been involved in these road accidents.

There is, rightly, much public concern about road accidents, and I have raised the question in the House from time to time. However, it begins to look as though a blind eye is being turned to a wastage of human life which is perhaps even more serious—the wastage amongst men and women who are engaged in vital productive effort. The same report refers to claims for injury benefits which have been made fairly steadily at the rate of 15,000 to 16,000 a week. Thus 800,000 industrial injuries a year are taking men and women away from their jobs.

The report also states that the average period of incapacity for which injury benefit is paid is over four weeks. This means that no fewer than 3,200,000 man-weeks per year are lost. It is the equivalent of between 60,000 and 70,000 men and women being away from work for a whole year. What this represents in terms of human misery and privation cannot even be guessed at. On these grounds alone it should give rise to the most unpleasant uneasiness and the desire for a more vigorous national onslaught of the problem.

At a safety conference held in Scarborough on 13th May, 1949, organised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Sir Charles Bartlett, the managing director of Vauxhall Motors, Ltd., explained that the saving of 42,000 hours—that is, less than 1,000 man-weeks, which was the result of increased accident prevention activity—was the equivalent of a production of 500 motor trucks, valued at approximately £250,000 at that time.

In 1945, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, as Minister of Labour, announced in a speech that absence from work as a result of industrial injuries was costing the country the equivalent of £70 million or more a year. In his view, this figure was an understatement. He placed the visible cost of Workmen's Compensation alone at £17½ million per annum, and stated that the estimate, made independently both as regards this country and America, indicated that the visible costs of accidents, as shown in compensation payments, was roughly only one-fifth of the total cost to the country. He referred to the hidden cost of lost production, of loss of time of other employees when an accident disturbs the smooth working of the shop, the damage to machinery and plant, and the loss of material and the like; and he pointed out that that estimate rose to the total of £70 million and more, to which I have referred.

I should like to deal in more detail with industrial death benefits. In 1949, from the figures I have been able to obtain, the industries mainly concerned with these were: mining and quarrying, 565 cases; transport and communications, 389; building and contracting, 212; engineer- ing and shipbuilding, 175, and agriculture and fishing, 124. I have mentioned these industries in particular because developments in each of them today suggests that unless something more is done to prevent this vital wastage, the position may deteriorate rather than improve.

Increased mechanisation is taking place the whole time in the mining and quarrying industries. This may result in fewer accidents in number, but there is the possibility of increasingly grave accidents occurring, as machinery is accountable for the most severe accidents in industry. Thus, what will be saved in reducing the number of accidents may be lost by injured men being away from work for longer periods unless something more is done about this problem in future. Mechanisation also means the greater use of skilled and trained men, whose services the country cannot afford to lose from this or any other cause.

In the field of transport and communications, there are 389 deaths from industrial injuries nearly every year. Grave and prompt concern is rightly felt at the loss of life following a major derailment on the railways, but does the country realise that there is a loss of approximately 389 men in every 12 months through accidents in that industry? That fact seems to go entirely unnoticed either in the Press or in the matter of public concern.

If I had time this evening, I could more specifically deal with other industries to which I have referred, and many more besides, but I should like to say just a word or two about engineering and shipbuilding, trades which have a reputation as being hazardous. A considerable amount of effort, including the passing of legislation, has been put into making, or attempting to make, these operations safe. Nevertheless, 175 workers in this industry still lose their lives in one year. New techniques, increased mechanisation, the use of radio-activated testing equipment and similar developments are likely to result in new accident hazards unless the position is watched most closely.

I have made these references to fatal accidents to illustrate that the facts disclose a national problem—a serious national problem. Their cumulative effect on the nation's finances, however, cannot be completely measured. In addition to the 800,000 men who are away for an average of four weeks each year, there is an enormous drain on the health services, both public and industrial; there is the dislocation of production in the factories. Pensions, compensation and legal factors have to be considered.

Above everything else, there is the human and moral aspect of the problem. The effect on the home of a sudden and needless death or serious injury cannot be fully realised. If only on this ground, added to the ground of the enormous wastage of productive effort at a time when the country's whole future is in the balance it becomes of paramount national importance to deal vigorously with the matter.

As the problem involves every industry in the land, it is one with which the Government are very closely concerned. To some greater or smaller degree the Ministry of Labour—the Factory Department in particular—the Ministry of Fuel and Power—the Mines Department in particular—the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of National Insurance, the Ministry of Pensions, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Housing, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport are concerned.

I believe there is something that every one of the Departments can do to augment the efforts already made by or due from the voluntary and semi-official organisations involved. I ask the Minister to see that there is close co-operation and constant consultation between these Departments so that each may deal with its specific problems, not in isolation, but in proper co-operation and with a common understanding of the other Departments.

It has been estimated that the wastage could be reduced by 50 per cent. by the national adoption of methods already tried with some success by a minority of industrial undertakings. Steps already proved effective include enlightened management, probably the greatest factor; but I would point out that the Ministry of Education, through universities and technical schools, can do invaluable work to ensure that the matter receives due regard when managers and men are being prepared to take their place in industry.

With regard to the training of industrial safety officers, the prevention of industrial accidents has become a highly skilled job and men specially trained for this work should be appointed to advise managements with reference to a democratic joint effort by all ranks. The problem concerns every grade of man and woman in industry. Existing joint safety committees in progressive industries have made a magnificent contribution to the reduction of accidents.

I recommend further intensive internal inquiries at the place of work, not to blame but to cure, and the proper use of statistics. Legislation, although partly effective, is not by any means the sole answer. Much more intensive inquiry should be made into the possibility of preventing accidents by the Ministries concerned and by other bodies. Small concerns averaging up to 250 workers should be encouraged to take greater interest in safety, as vast numbers of men in total are engaged by firms of this size.

The present inspecting bodies, particularly the factory inspectorate, should be strengthened with the main object of providing guidance. Above all, the time has come for a Government-sponsored committee to investigate and report on the whole situation. Similar committees have been set up on the question of road and home safety. I think the time is long overdue for a committee of that sort to be set up on the question of industrial accidents.

There is no question that the accidents can be avoided, and I will give some examples. For instance, a large chemical manufacturing company which employs about 75,000 workers has reduced its accident rate by 80 per cent. in about 20 years. A large cement manufacturing concern has made an improvement of 68 per cent. in its accident rate in a similar period. A motor car manufacturing company has reduced its accident rate 70 per cent. in five years. As some of my hon. Friends know, a concerted effort in one mine resulted in a 91 per cent. improvement in five years. There are many examples of heavy industrial companies working a million man-hours without accident.

Many more examples could be quoted to illustrate that, whatever the industry, the wastage of life and limb can be prevented. I ask the Government to show clearly that they are prepared to give every support to the start that has been made, and every encouragement where it is needed will go most of the way to having the desired effect.

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who is to reply to the debate, has had considerable experience in the industrial sphere. In his own city there is a safety committee which has done very considerable work in reducing accidents. There is a similar committee which includes my own constituency. Industries which are not yet within the ambit of those committees should be encouraged to come in. Much can be done if the Departments concerned will take the matter seriously. I earnestly trust that, though it is a late hour now this speech will be merely the beginning of an urge to the Government and all concerned to meet this very grave situation adequately.

10.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Sir Peter Bennett)

The subject raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) is one well worth our attention. I am only sorry there were not more hon. Members here to discuss it. In these days when we devote so much of our time to other matters it is gratifying to have brought forward a subject of such importance and one which has no political controversy whatsoever attached to it.

The hon. Member is quite right when he says I have had some experience in this matter. In fact, some years ago I could almost have made the speech he made, because when I was actively engaged in controlling industrial organisations I made it one of my special jobs to analyse personally the accident returns of all the factories in the group with which I was connected. I had the subject constantly under review and watched progress.

The prevention of industrial accidents is really primarily a matter for the employers and the employed. I admit that Governments and other bodies can help, but the observance of statutory safety Regulations, even accompanied by an increase in the number of factory inspectors, will not solve the problem. I agree that we want as many factory inspectors as can be obtained within the limits of our power. I believe they should be the best we can obtain, but when they have done their work the avoidance of accidents, in the end, depends not upon statutory rules and methods but upon educating employers, employed and safety men to be always on the alert.

A great many of the accidents which occur are due not to the familiarity that breeds contempt but to familiarity that breeds carelessness. I obtained figures bearing upon the fact that some factories have better records than others. We found that in every case it was due to the personal zeal of the safety officer. People get used to being near moving machinery. They do not consider the danger which exists with such machinery and say to themselves "Now here is a possibility of an accident." Matters go on reasonably satisfactorily for a long period, and then something happens because everybody has not been on the alert. Take a homely example of a railway which is known to be dangerous and is fenced off. If people want to cross the line, they look both ways and then run across. The same people, however, would step off the pavement with the traffic passing by without looking one way or the other.

It is a problem always to keep those responsible for these things on their toes and expecting something to go wrong if they are not careful. The factory inspectors can do a great deal to help industry in this matter. They visit factories and they do valuable work by publishing literature, by attending the technical colleges, and by addressing meetings of workers. Indeed, on Friday last Mr. Barnett, whose name was in the latest Honours list, was addressing a joint meeting of the Industrial Accident Prevention Groups in Leicester. Factory inspectors advise that special safety officers and joint special safety committees should be appointed wherever it is suitable.

We feel, however, that it is no use making the appointment of such committees a statutory matter, because we shall not get good results by forcing people; they must be encouraged to act voluntarily. We have got to persuade people—

Mr. Janner

I appreciate that, or I should not have raised this matter on the Adjournment. This does not involve some question of fresh legislation. What I am anxious about is that the Government should keep stirring people's knowledge of this problem in the way that I have suggested.

Sir P. Bennett

The hon. Gentleman does not imagine that because we do not write papers and publish documents, we are doing nothing about this. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the loss of life and loss of working hours and the suffering is always in our minds. There is a Report coming out in which will be seen something of the work that has been done and which will convey the anxiety which has been felt about this problem.

It has been suggested that we might have more regular visits to the factories, but we feel that the factory inspector should not have planned visits but that he should go where he thinks he can do his best work. As for special safety officers, we are always urging upon management that there should be in the factories men who should be specially devoted to safety work. As the hon. Gentleman himself said, some of the organisations which have done this have reduced their accident rate enormously. Pressure has been put upon all the appropriate organisations to do this. Where this is not possible the people responsible for running the factories should do it.

In some of the smaller factories people are careless. However, it is in some of the smaller factories that we find that personal touch where the owner-proprietor, knowing the work people, regards their safety as just as important as the safety of his own family and takes an accident in his factory just as seriously as if it had happened to a member of his family. As for the universities and technical schools, we are arranging for special lectures to be given by the factory inspectors. They try to teach people that every man is his brother's keeper, that where there is danger it has got to be guarded against and that preventive thought and action have to be taken. People must always be kept at it. The important thing is that employers should have their attention constantly called to the fact that this is their personal responsibility.

The suggestion to set up a Government-sponsored special committee has again been made. This suggestion was made in, I think, 1949 by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and was rejected then after consultation with the National Joint Advisory Council. They held that road safety is both a different and a less complex problem. The field of industrial safety is so wide, as regards the variety of precautions involved and the methods of promoting them, that the conclusion which the National Joint Advisory Council came to when the problem was put before them was that there was already adequate machinery, that the setting up of an additional committee would not be a good move, and that it would be a waste of time and energy.

I would not grudge any expenditure of time if it would help, but the National Joint Advisory Council maintained that what is really needed is an intensification of existing efforts, making everybody who has to do with the running of industry feel that the safety of their workers is a personal matter; not a matter to be treated just as ordinary day to day work, but a duty, ensuring that their safety measures are kept up to date, that the factory committees are kept informed on these matters, and that people are always made aware of the fact that accidents will happen unless steps are taken to prevent them and unless they are always on the qui vive.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his remarks will be very carefully studied, and we shall consider what, if anything, can be done. I agree that the waste is enormous, that it can be reduced, and that it is the duty of the Government to do all they can; but, above all, their work will be successful only if individuals in factories can be made to understand that it is their personal responsibility.

Mr. Janner

While I appreciate the good intentions expressed by the hon. Gentleman, I would ask him again, in view of the very grave position—and it is a very serious position—to consider setting up this committee which has been recommended by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. After all, they have had a very long experience of dealing with these matters, and if lives can be saved—as obviously they must be saved— surely it is a useful thing to have the advice of even a further body set up for that purpose. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will think about it again, and perhaps at some later stage give us the assurance that such a committee may be set up.

Sir P. Bennett

I shall be very pleased indeed to put the matter to my right hon. Friend, who will no doubt consider submitting it again to the National Joint Advisory Council in order to obtain their views. But their views were that what we need now is to make the existing schemes work and not to superimpose another authority on them. I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the atten- tion of my right hon. Friend, who will read the speech of the hon. Gentleman and will, I am sure, give it the care and attention which we all agree it deserves.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity of having this little debate on what is a most serious matter of the utmost national importance in its effect on production, but, above all, because of the misery and suffering caused by carelessness and by failure to take necessary precautions in factories, quarries and mines.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned acordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.