HC Deb 30 January 1953 vol 510 cc1435-46

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir H. Butcher.]

4.20 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)

In raising this matter of Parvin v. The Morton Machine Company, I want first to assure the House that it can in no way be regarded as sub judice, because a decision has already been given in the House of Lords. The decision of the House of Lords raises very serious implications for all workers engaged in the repair, maintenance and manufacture of machines, and consequently we are very concerned to hear what the Ministry of Labour's views are regarding the decision.

Parvin was a member of the Wishaw branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and was an apprentice. He was ordered by a fitter to clean the grease off a machine which had been under construction. He did so, and whilst the machine was being cleaned the fitter started it. As a result Parvin met with a very serious accident. The Amalgamated Engineering Union claimed compensation for Parvin through the Scottish Courts. It went through all the primary legal procedure and finally reached the House of Lords. The case of the Union was that there had been a breach of the Factories Act, 1937, particularly as it concerns Section 14 (1) which says: Every dangerous part of any machinery, other than prime movers and transmission machinery, shall be securely fenced subject to certain qualifications. Section 16 requires: All fencing or other safeguards … shall be of substantial construction, and constantly maintained and kept in position subject again to certain safeguards. Section 20 provides, inter alia, that no young person under 18 shall be engaged on this work if there is a risk of injury to him from any moving part of the machine.

The company's contention was that the words "machinery" and "machine," as used in these Sections of the Act, were limited in their application to the actual plant which was concerned in the manufacture of the machines. In other words, had the accident occurred when the operator was at the lathe he was entitled to compensation, but if the accident occurred to a man engaged in the manufacture or repair of the machines he would not have a right to compensation under the Factories Act. As I said a few minutes ago, this went right through to the House of Lords, and their Lordships delivered their opinion on 6th March, 1952, when they upheld the company's contention in the matter.

The opinion stated that the Section of the Act did not apply to machines within the factory which were products of the manufacturing processes carried on in that factory, and that consequently the Sections were not applicable in the circumstances of Parvin's accident. In reaching their decision their Lordships went on to say that they were influenced by the view that so long as a machine was in the course of construction or had not been finally adjusted or tested, there might have to be work done upon it whilst in motion, which could not be done with a fence or guard in position. The position also applies from time to time in the case of machinery which is used in a productive process when the same requires attention.

The position hitherto has been that there have been no prosecutions for breach of the Factories Act when the Ministry of Labour's inspectors visited factories engaged on the manufacture of machinery, ordinary factories or power stations where the plant is under repair and where the covers are removed. I say that that is quite sensible, because I cannot possibly conceive, as one who has served a lifetime in the industry, how anyone can effect adjustments to machinery while the covers are in position.

This is very serious to the members of the organisation of which I have the honour to be a member. It has the effect that the company are immune from any form of prosecution so long as the factory inspectors take that view in regard to the 1937 Factories Act. The company, should they so desire, are in the position to win both ways, because their machinery is unguarded and because there can be no prosecution under the Factories Act. All who are engaged in engineering know full well that covers have to be removed.

I come to the application of the Act to maintenance. Suppose a fitter wants to know whether bearings are running hot. Quite often he just puts his hand over what may be a guard or a belt. There is a certain measure of risk, but it just has to be done. Suppose he wants to see about the correct alignment of couplings. I have done it myself many times. The cover is removed, and he will check them visually. If his sleeve should get into the machinery, there is no redress under the Factories Act, but the work has to be done.

Let me take the case of coal elevators in power stations. Suppose new buckets and new links have been put in and there has to be an adjustment of the tension; it can only be done whilst the machinery is in motion. Risk is absolutely unavoidable. From my own practical experience, I say that nobody can adjust the tension of a coal conveyor without its being in motion, and if an accident occurs there can be no compensation whatever. Take the case of the clearance of a steam bearing. It is common practice to do the work of adjusting it whilst the pressure is actually on, but again there can be no redress in case of accident.

When we come to the actual manufacturing and building of machinery, an even more serious situation arises. Obviously, the covers have to be off in order to see that shafts are running true or that gears are properly in gear and are running smoothly, to trace a squeak or faulty lubrication; yet under the Factories Act there is no redress at all in case or accident to members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union or of any other trade union.

I might say here that not only is the Amalgamated Engineering Union concerned as such, but also the Trades Union Congress. We have always held the view that there ought to be a complete review of the Factories Act—but I should be out of order if I developed that point. The actual position is that if a worker meets with an accident under those conditions, the only compensation he can get is under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, and we say that that is not good enough.

What can be done? I am not asking for legislation but for the introduction of regulations. We believe that regulations can be introduced under Section 60 of the Factories Act to cover this situation. I should be very pleased to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say, and whether his Department have considered the making of regulations to do away not only with an anomalous position but—and I do not think I am using language which is too strong—with the grossly unfair situation which has arisen. It is due to an oversight. I am not casting blame on anyone and all I am asking is that regulations shall be introduced under Section 60 of the Factories Act.

This question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) who has taken a keen interest in this case, and we recognise his help. In reply, the Minister of Labour said it was impracticable to make such regulations. We do not hold that view. We say that if there is a determination to alter this unfair position, regulations can be made without any legislation.

If regulations are not made, and if the position is not made clear to the thousands of members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and other unions who are engaged in the building of machinery and also in plant maintenance, it will slow up the whole of the manufacturing process. Indeed, it will be practically impossible to maintain machinery unless something is done. As soon as this case is known, as it is bound to become known by virtue of it being raised on the Floor of the House of Commons and also because 10 or 15 other cases dealing with the same principle are now outstanding, the men will say that they are not prepared to take any risks because their only redress is under common law. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that under Common Law, if it cannot be proved that there has been a breach of the Factories Act, considerably less compensation is awarded.

I hope I have stated the case sufficiently clearly to point out the unfair and anomalous position. That is our case. That is the case of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. It is the case of members of other unions. I hope sincerely that, having pointed out the unfairness and its possible repercussions on industry and plant maintenance, there will be some statement forthcoming which will help to put right this gross injustice.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

I think that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has been carried away by the undoubted hardship of this case, but we cannot make hard cases into bad law. Section 14 of the Factory Act makes it clear that all the dangerous parts of machinery must be securely fenced. That means all the dangerous parts of the machinery being used—

Mr. Hobson

How can a dangerous part of the machinery be fenced when it is in the process of being constructed or tested? It is utterly impracticable.

Mr. Doughty

Regulations made to meet that case would probably be ultra vires as being against Section 14. The proper procedure in all these cases is to take an action at common law. The Amalgamated Engineering Union have done it. If that fails, it fails. If it succeeds, the amount of compensation awarded is exactly the same as where a breach of statutory duty can be proved.

Mr. Hobson

indicated dissent.

Mr. Doughty

It is no use shaking your head—

Mr. Speaker

I was not shaking my head

Mr. Doughty

I am sorry, Sir; I meant the hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Hobson

It is not true.

Mr. Doughty

It may be a little harder to prove in the courts, but if the case has been established the same damages to a penny are awarded as when a breach of statutory duty is proved. In this case the man failed to prove breach of statutory duty. There are no grounds for altering the law to meet this undoubtedly hard case which the Factories Act was never intended to cover.

4.35 p.m.

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

I must apologise for intervening now to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), who, I know, has taken a considerable interest in this matter, but as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) said, it is a very important matter and I think it is due to me, as making the Ministerial statement, to leave myself sufficient time to ensure that I make myself quite plain.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Keighley that this matter raises very wide and difficult problems, and the House will be grateful to him for raising it on the Adjournment. Both I and the Minister and my Department approach it not only with an open mind, but with great sympathy, because, as the hon. Member for Keighley will, I think, agree, the approach of the Ministry of Labour to these things is always to see whether we can get a solution which is fair and which meets the general needs and feelings of the people concerned.

I shall not delay by going over the facts of the Parvin v. Morton case, because they were quite fairly stated by the hon. Member. His statement of what happened on appeal was also fair, except that I should say that the case has now had very detailed consideration by the legal experts and that we cannot get away from the fact—I have all the judgments in front of me—that they have come clearly down on a decision that the Factories Acts do not apply to a machine that is in course of manufacture: and while, astonishingly, it might seem, but, I think, rightly, a machine—a lathe, for example—that is being used to make a lathe would be subject to the requirements of the Factories Act, the lathe which is being made is not so subject. That, of course, opens very wide considerations, and I agree with the hon. Member that there are those in the engineering industry who may feel that some sort of protection has been taken away from them.

That is the first point: that there has been no change, and it always has been the view of the Department that Section 60 of the Factories Act could not be applied in its normal fashion to machinery that was either partially under construction or in course of test as a final process in manufacture.

As all the Members who are interested in this case would, I think, agree, our inspectors, in the course of their normal work, have always tried to meet a problem of this kind on a local basis. If they have been going round a factory and have found what they considered to be a dangerous practice taking place, they have issued the necessary warnings at the time to the factory management, and those warnings have not been disregarded. That is how we have proceeded to date. I agree, however, that it is now time, in view of this judgment and the publicity that it has had, that the matter was looked at again.

There is just one other point. I do not think that the hon. Member for Keighley was quite correct in saying that the Minister refused to consider any question of regulations. When he was pressed, first, by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, in a Question, and later by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), who put a supplementary, my right hon. and learned Friend said: If they will bring any matter to my attention about which they consider I ought to make a regulation, I will bear it in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th December. 1952; Vol.509. c. 1612.]

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

They have done so.

Mr. Watkinson

Following that, we received a deputation at the Ministry, when the whole matter was gone through again. As I have said, we have an open mind on this matter, and if we can meet it in a sensible way which we feel is fair to all the parties concerned, we are perfectly willing to do so.

I do not think that I should comment further on the case of Parvin v. Morton, because I believe it is still subject to an action at common law.

Mr. Hobson

No; it was over on 20th January.

Mr. Watkinson

I thought there might be some element of the matter which was sub judice. What I am more concerned with is the general principle of the matter and its broad application.

Under Regulation 60 it has always been our view that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to apply this to machinery in course of construction. We are reinforced now by a very considerable weight of legal opinion. What I want to make quite plain—I think this is the first answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Keighley—is that the Department are not opposed in any way to the making of regulations. But they have to be sensible regulations; they have to be regulations that our Factories Department can administer fairly and they have to be regulations which will do what we are trying to do. It would be possible to make regulations which would not carry us very much further forward than the powers we now enjoy under Regulation 60, although it would be right to say that we have discharged our obligations. Although the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) said that we had had representations, I should say that we have not had very detailed representations yet.

Mr. Pannell

I do not think the hon. Gentleman means to be unfair, but it was generally agreed—I was a party to the negotiations—that they should be left very tentative and that the initiative should come from the hon. Gentleman's Department.

Mr. Watkinson

I accept that and I am not suggesting that the hon. Member, or his union—perhaps the most important craft union—is in any way remiss or lax in what they have done, but we feel that we must look at this matter ourselves.

The next point in reply to the hon. Member for Keighley is that our Chief Inspector of Factories has now started to collect all the information he can find as to how and where accidents occur arising out of machinery in the course of construction. It is our belief that there are not very many.

Mr. Hobson

What about the main decision on maintenance, which is very important?

Mr. Watkinson

I will come to that. We not only have a survey of accidents with machinery in course of construction, but we hope that that will be buttressed by further information which the trade unions can supply and which we shall be glad to consider. When we have the information we shall collate and analyse it and would like to have further talks with both sides with a view to making regulations to meet the case. We will have further talks, as we always do, before making regulations and hope then to table regulations which may meet that particular case.

I have a few minutes in which to deal with the rather wider issue, which does not arise out of this case at all, the question of accidents arising out of machinery under normal care and maintenance and for which purpose either guards or other devices have been provided. I could have dodged that altogether by saying that it does not arise out of this case, but I accept the view that it is a very important matter and there are certain requirements in the Factories Acts, such as having a special maintenance man available who is required to wear clothing not likely to catch in the machinery and who often has with him a fitter who can switch off machinery in the case of an accident.

There are certain powers there and I do not know that we can get very much further in that very wide and difficult field by making any sort of detailed regulation. If the unions concerned like to put forward any views to us we shall always be pleased to consider them. But, as we see it, in the general maintenance field we feel that we have adequate powers for our inspectors, and managements are very willing to fall in with any suggestions we make. Although we have not a closed mind on the matter, we cannot see that we can get further by making any other regulations, but if the trade unions concerned, or the hon. Member, feel that they have a solution of this difficult problem—

Mr. Hobson

That would involve legislation and I cannot raise it now.

Mr. Watkinson

Although that cannot be raised now, there is the normal channel for putting these matters forward to the Ministry and that is open to the hon. Member.

On the narrow issue of machinery under construction, what we have promised to do, and are doing, is to collect all the information we can as to the number of accidents and causes. As soon as it is collated and analysed in our factories department we shall have further talks with both sides of the industry and move forward to make regulations, if it is found that by making regulations we can meet this rather difficult problem. There may be a few moments left for the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West if he wishes to speak.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester. North-West)

There is considerable and grave anxiety in my constituency about this matter. There are cases pending, and cases in which compensation has been refused on the grounds that the cases do not have protection, consequent upon the decision in this case. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. I think he sidestepped the whole matter. The Minister stated categorically, when I questioned him in the House, that he was in a position to make regulations, and I do not think it can be denied. The position which has been created as a result of the decision in this case has made it essential to deal with cases of this nature.

Mr. Watkinson

The Minister, in his reply to this question—

Mr. Janner

I have it here.

Mr. Watkinson

—said that there was no question that we were in a position now to make regulations.

Mr. Janner

I am sorry, but it was to the contrary. I have the answer here: The difficulties, which the hon. Gentleman will remember were pointed out by Lord Jameson in the Court of Session, are there, but Section 60 of the Factories Act, 1937, enables special regulations to be made, and that would not be prevented by anything that has been said in Parvin's case. The point is whether it is appropriate to make such regulations … I call upon the Minister to make those regulations, because so far as possible we want to prevent accidents occurring in these factories even in respect of maintenance or of the making of these machines. It is essential that should be done and the Minister admitted he is in a position to do so. Why does he not do it quickly?

Mr. Watkinson

Perhaps I may answer that. The Minister went on to say: … and in the light of the report I have had from my Chief Inspector of Factories I doubt whether it is possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 1611.]

Mr. Janner

I disagree with that.

Mr. Watkinson

Perhaps I may be allowed to go on. Having had further representations made, we are prepared to look into it again. As I have already said, we are prepared to go ahead and to look at the whole matter to find out the causes of these things.

If the hon. Gentleman is pressing me to make a set of regulations on what is a technical matter without having properly looked at it and without knowing the causes of these accidents: if he is asking that I make regulations as a sort of quick way of getting out of the difficulty, I must say that is entirely against the normal practice of the Ministry. I have no intention whatever of departing from our normal principle in these things, which is to examine the whole field, to try to find out what are the technical problems and the causes. In any case, we have never yet made regulations—and I am not going to change the principle—which are not fully discussed with both sides of industry—

Mr. Janner

This is a very long intervention by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Watkinson

I will finish by saying that I have answered the hon. Gentle- man's point by saying that neither the Minister nor I are prepared to make regulations until we have had the opportunity of studying the whole case as I have promised to do. We will do that as quickly as we can and lay the regulations as quickly as we can; but not until we are satisfied that they are regulations which will be effective and not regulations made merely for the sake of making them. They will have to provide a contribution to the solution and that cannot be done unless the matter is properly considered. That will take some time, but we will do it as quickly as we can. I have given the hon. Gentleman his answer, that we are not prepared to make them until we have carried out the proper investigations.

Mr. Janner

That should have been done a long time ago. The hon. Member has admitted that regulations should be made, and I hope that they will be made without more ado.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Five o'Clock.