FACTORY INSPECTORATE (BUILDING TRADE) (Hansard, 23 February 1956)

§ Mr. A. S. Moody (Gateshead, East)

I desire to draw the attention of the House to what we in the building industry regard as a totally inadequate provision of Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate in the building and civil engineering industries. At the outset, I am glad to say that the Executive Council of my union, the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, which has given a great deal of time and thought to the problem of accident prevention, wishes to place on record its gratitude to Mr. H. Eccles, the Senior Inspector, for the ready response which he has made to the Council's representations and the assistance which he has given by delivering lectures on accident prevention in the building industry at our various weekend schools.

The officers of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives have been greatly concerned about the accident rates in the industry. Through their journal and their weekend schools they have done a great deal to educate the workers of the industry as to the need to make the best use of existing regulations and to see that they are applied. Therefore, having put our own house in order, we now ask the Government to do a little more for us.

One of the issues which seems to us of particular importance concerns the fact that the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948, provide that employers engaging over sixty operatives must notify in writing to the local factory inspector the appointment of a safety officer. We are concerned at the fact that there are over 50,000 firms each employing fewer than sixty operatives, and to all intents and purposes these firms are not subject to some of the provisions, or even to the guidance of Her Majesty's inspectors, which apply in the case of firms employing over sixty men.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to look at the question whether building safety 693 regulations should not require the compulsory appointment of a safety officer in these cases. Many employers in the contracting firms are as anxious as are we in the union to deal with this accident problem. Many of them go a long way in helping to keep the accident rate down, but all builders are not in that category.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that during the war and when war damage repairs were at their height, many people ventured into the building industry with the thought of quick profits and easy money. The result is that there are today in the industry people who are not of the same calibre as the recognised good firms of building contractors. Though they call themselves master builders, many of the operatives feel that a better name for them would be master burglars.

In many cases these people are not too good in assisting us to observe the regulations. In fact 106 firms were proceeded against in 1954, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to note that the workers in the building industry have a strong feeling that where a prosecution takes place and the employers are found guilty, the fines for these offences are not large enough. Moreover, we think that in the case of repeated convictions for offences the only real deterrent would be a period of imprisonment, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to look into that aspect of the case.

Having given the point of view of the working man in the building industry, let us take a broader view. It will be remembered that during the last five years hon. Members of this House have shown their concern at the continued deterioration in the Factory Inspectorate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) the present Postmaster-General showed his interest in this matter as long ago as 17th July, 1951, when he said: In view of the fact which emerges from that answer that there are now fewer factory inspectors engaged on this work than there were in 1948, is there not an urgent case for reconsidering the terms and conditions of service offered to this important body of men and women? My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service, replied: 694 I do not know whether the hon. Member is suggesting that we should reduce the standard, because that is the obvious inference of his question. The fact is that at the present time a campaign for the recruitment of inspectors is in progress. The right hon. Member for Luton then asked: Can the Minister explain how one reduces the standard by improving the terms of service so as to attract more candidates?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 1029.] On 12th November, 1954, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) raised, on the Motion for the Adjournment, the general issue of the deterioration of the Factory Inspectorate. Therefore, it is specially significant that this issue is again being raised tonight, because of the failure of the Government to take any effective steps to remedy the position.

My action in raising this subject tonight arises from the Question which I put to the Minister on 13th December last. The then Parliamentary Secretary said that he thought the present arrangements for the enforcement of the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations were satisfactory. That is not the view of the members affiliated to the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, who view with concern the continued growth in the number of accidents and deplore the failure of the Minister to increase the strength of the Factory Inspectorate.

The regulations came into force on 1st October, 1948, and in that year there were 9,649 accidents notified to the inspectors. In 1954 the number was 13,903, an increase of 44 per cent., although the total labour force employed had not increased in the same proportion. In his Report for 1954, in page 78, the Chief Inspector stated, on the subject of notification of accidents: There is reason to believe that in many cases this is not done, especially when injury is such that the man concerned may be back at work within a week or so. The true total of accidents is, therefore, greater than that shown. The legal requirement to notify to the district inspector every accident which disables a person for more than three days has existed since 1938. It is surely high time that the Minister took steps to see that it is enforced. It may be presumed that all accidents come to the notice of the Ministry of Pensions and 695 National Insurance, and there would not seem to be any great difficulty in arranging for co-ordination between the two Ministries, so as to ascertain the correct number of accidents that occur.

On 13th December, 1955, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that the increase in accidents might be due to greater mechanisation. The published figures do not bear that out. Between 1948 and 1954, the number of accidents caused by machinery rose from 541 to 751. Those resulting from falls rose from 2,738 to 4,390. The Chief Inspector rightly states, in page 80 of his Report: It is clear that if this class of accident can be prevented, the accident problem in the building trade will be largely solved. It is well known that the major part of the regulations is directed to this very problem—the regulations are there. The presumption is that the standard of enforcement is far too low. In 1954 there were 29,330 registered building sites. Of these, 16,700, which is only 57 per cent., were visited by Her Majesty's inspectors. There are indications that many sites are not registered, which makes the position worse.

The Annual Report for 1954 states that there were 1,804 sites in the whole of Scotland. We regard that as a surprisingly low figure in comparison with 1,342 in the Woolwich district alone. We feel that in Scotland many of these jobs are not being registered at all. Therefore, is the Minister satisfied that the contractors are carrying out their statutory duty to notify building sites to the inspectors? If, as the Report says, we cannot be satisfied, then we wonder what steps are being taken to enforce these requirements.

Not only is the fact that only 57 per cent. of the sites were visited disquieting, but there is a widespread impression that because of the shortage of inspectors irregularities which an inspector discovers on his visit cannot be followed up and, although the inspector makes recommendations, gives a warning and gives advice, the contractor knows very well that the chance of him coming again before the job is finished is very remote. Consequently, the good work of the inspector is being lost because we have not sufficient inspectors to follow the matter up.

696 There are no figures available of the number of prosecutions brought for breaches of regulations. The main cause of accidents is falling from a height. The Chief Inspector states that in 1954 proceedings were taken against 106 firms in respect of lack of precautions against such falls. The figure may include breaches in factories and other premises under the Acts in addition to those on building sites. Thus, the total on building sites must be less. Of the 106 cases, 34 involved serious injury. This suggests that the inspectors are not in a position to take sufficiently vigorous action. In 1954 there were 827 falls from working places on sloping roofs, against which precautions are supposed to be taken. It is astonishing that legal proceedings could be taken in only 3 per cent. of those cases.

The regulations are enforced by the Inspectorate as part of its normal duties. In 1954 the inspectors were able to achieve only 57 per cent. of the programme of visits to factories. It is obvious that in these circumstances there are insufficient inspectors to raise the level of inspection of building sites. In the opinion of all in the building industry, the Ministry has been unjustifiably complacent about the matter. For instance, in the Adjournment debate on 12th November, 1954, the Parliamentary Secretary said: At present there are only 13 vacancies…On grounds of figures alone, there is no great difficulty in keeping the cadre up to its full strength now. Since then, there have been strenuous efforts to recruit, but there are still twelve vacancies. Not only has the Minister failed to bring the Inspectorate up to its authorised strength but he has announced no plans for increasing the numbers so that the duties may be adequately discharged.

It is a matter not only of numbers but of the qualifications of the inspectors. In the debate on 12th November, 1954, the Parliamentary Secretary said: …we must try to recruit somehow more technically-trained people for the Inspectorate. Before the war 70 per cent. of the recruits to the Inspectorate had a university degree or its equivalent in engineering or science. This has to be contrasted with the present situation in which, of the 79 inspectors established in the basic grade, only nine 697 have such qualifications and not one has a qualification in civil engineering.

The seriousness of the situation cannot be overstressed. Such recruitment as the Minister has secured in the Factory Inspectorate in late years has been of persons without technical qualifications. Informed opinion, which the Department is believed to share, is that there should be not less than 50 per cent. of technically-qualified persons, and many people would demand an even greater proportion.

Even of the inspectors that the Minister is able to recruit, the Inspectorate is unable to keep the technically-qualified officers. During the last six months of 1955, there were eleven resignations, of which eight were of qualified officers. So far as building sites are concerned, a most regrettable fact is that there is only one qualified civil engineer in the Inspectorate available to give expert evidence in legal cases and advice to the rest of the Inspectorate. Many of the regulations are technical in character and legal proceedings are likely to be unsuccessful, unless a properly qualified person with experience in industry is available to give evidence. It is manifestly impossible for one person to give adequate service over the whole country.

The explanation for this failure is quite simple. It is that the rate of pay offered is not only well below the open market rate, but also substantially below the rate offered elsewhere in the Civil Service for qualified engineers and scientists. On 6th July, 1954, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants submitted a pay claim for the basic grade. In the Adjournment debate on 12th November, 1954, the Parliamentary Secretary took refuge in saying: …I should be transgressing the general rule of my Department if I took sides in any kind of pay claim. There is obviously a case, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right in pointing out the very wide gap that now exists, for example, between a chief inspector and his colleagues in other parts of the Government service. That is an acknowledged fact, and I do not deny it. The hon. Member was also right to point out in the entry grades the position vis-à-vis starting rates in industry is very unfavourable by comparison "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 1639–42.] The Parliamentary Secretary could well have added that in the entry grades the position is not only unfavourable as com- 698 pared with industry, but it is unfavourable as compared with technically-qualified persons within the Civil Service.

At the age of 26, the highest age-point at which the Department seeks to recruit factory inspectors, the basic salary is £565, which compares with £675 basic salary for professionally qualified officers in the Works Group of the Civil Service. That is to say, there is a differentiation against the Factory Inspectorate of no less than £110 a year. On 29th September, 1955, the Ministry replied to the pay claim after a delay of fifteen months, which is not a very inspiring example for other employers. The offer provided for an increase of £5 a year at the age of 26, rising to £15 a year at higher age points.

I am not surprised to learn that the Institution rejected this contemptible proposal, which could obviously have no influence whatever on the recruitment problem. If the Minister is to take serious note of the points made to him in the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, and if he is to deal seriously with the particular difficulties on building sites, to which his attention is now being directed, it is vital for him to put himself in an effective position to compete, not only with industry, but with the rest of the Civil Service, in securing the entry of officers technically qualified to undertake the important duties of the inspectorate.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Moody) has raised this matter tonight, because I know that there has been recent concern about accidents in the building industry. My only regret—and I do not make this complaint in any spirit of ill will against the hon. Member—is that he has raised a great many issues and left me only a bare six minutes in which to reply to them, which is clearly an impossible task.

First, however, I should like to say to the hon. Member how much I appreciate his union's resolution of gratefulness of our Senior Inspector, to whom I will certainly pass on that message. I know that it will be much appreciated. While speaking about the Inspectorate, I must defend it and the work it does. It is, 699 of course, difficult for us to get enough highly qualified technical people for the Factory Inspectorate—just as it is difficult for any industry in any field of work to get all the highly qualified technicians it wants. I am satisfied from what I have been able to see since I came to the Ministry that our Factory Inspectorate is first-class in quality and in the assiduousness with which it tackles its problems. Moreover, our current staffing position is, in my opinion, not unsatisfactory.

When the building Regulations were introduced in 1948 the authorised strength of the Inspectorate was increased by twelve, and that strength at the moment is 309. There are 298 inspectors in post, and nine applicants have recently been selected for appointment. That means that potentially we have 307, which is only two short of establishment. That is a more satisfactory position than previously. Moreover, I would inform the hon. Gentleman that the organisation and staffing of the Inspectorate is at present under review in my Department and that the work relating to building and civil engineering is being given particular attention. That, I think, is the main thing which I can tell the hon. Gentleman.

I would assure the hon. Member that we are not complacent about this situation. There is no doubt that the number of accidents in the building industry is a serious matter. The number would appear to have increased in the last seven years from about 9,600 a year to almost 14,000. That increase may be a little more apparent than real, because of the point which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, namely, the reporting of accidents in the building industry may not have been as thorough as it might, especially in the earlier years when regulation was a new thing for the industry. On the contrary, we believe the position is steadily improving.

The increase in the figures may be due more to the fact that the majority of accidents are now being reported than to an increase in accidents. Nevertheless the figures are serious, and, in particular, the figures for fatal accidents in the building industry are certainly serious. I am glad to say that the number of fatal accidents has remained stationary; in 700 fact the number has tended to fall in the last few years. But last year 177 fatal accidents occurred in the industry, and that is very bad compared with industry generally. In proportion to the total number of accidents in the industry, it is almost six times as great as the same proportion in ordinary manufacturing industry, and that is not something about which we should be complacent.

As the hon. Member said, the main causes of these accidents are falls; 43 per cent. of all the accidents and 70 per cent. of the fatalities were due to falls. The Chief Inspector is at the moment carrying out a special analysis of this type of accident. He is taking those which occurred in the last half of 1954 to try to find some way in which we can guard against them in the future. and so the hon. Member will appreciate that we are not being complacent in this matter.

These building regulations on which we depend are, we must remember, only seven years old. Seven years is a long time I admit, but this is an industry which, until 1948, unlike manufacturing industry, had not been only partly subject to Factories Acts legislation. It is possible that there may be ways in which the regulations could and should be amended. The hon. Member himself mentioned the possibility of lowering the qualifying limit for certain of their applications. These are points which we shall consider, but we believe that for a few years the main task before us is to get the regulations which we have properly and universally understood and applied. That is a task which we are trying to do at the moment.

I wish to give a few figures about the extent to which our inspectors are covering the building industry. In 1954 the number of sites notified were, in round figures, 29,500, and during that year our inspectors made 27,408 visits. That is roughly the same proportion of visits as our inspectors made to manufacturing industries, so that building sites are getting equal attention from our inspectors. All substantial operations in progress were visited, and most of the smaller works received adequate cover. As a general rule, all visits are surprise visits and a site is liable to be visited at any time.

701 Finally, I would assure the hon. Gentleman that while I am sorry that I cannot go into more detail—and I should like an opportunity to do so on some future occasion—we shall keep this matter under review. We are not complacent about it. Our Inspectorate is trying hard to deal with technical difficulties, with people spread over a large number of sites and changing from day to day. We depend on increasing education and understanding both among employers and workers, because this is as 702 much a matter for education as it is for legal regulation.