Clause 4. —(DANGEROUS FUMES AND LACK OF OXYGEN.) (Hansard, 14 April 1959)

§ Mr Wood
I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, at the beginning to insert: Subject to subsection (4) of this section". I think that it would be convenient if we could take the next two Amendments together with this one, in page 3, line 21, to leave out "either", and, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from "rope " to the end of line 32 and to insert: (4) Where the confined space has been certified by a responsible person as being, for a specified period, safe for entry without breathing apparatus and the period so specified has not expired, subsection (3) of this section shall not apply, but no person shall enter or remain in the space unless he has been warned when that period will expire. The first two Amendments pave the way for the third, which is the significant one, and about which I should like to say a word. The third Amendment is to meet a point, and to honour an undertaking, which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee when he said: There is an obvious danger, in that he has not been told when the time will expire… If I have not succeeded in meeting it, I will redraft to meet it on Report." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing C'ommittee B,27th January, 1959; c. 173.] This is an attempt to meet the point, and I hope that it will satisfy the House that it ensures that the worker in these confined spaces will have been clearly 870 warned when the safe period will come to an end, and when, therefore, he will have to leave the container if he is not to be in danger of the consequences.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I think that it was I who raised this point in Committee. I would advise the House that it has been quite fully met in the Amendment and that we are satisfied with it.

§ Mr. Wood
I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, after" of", to insert " dangerous ".
I think that the next similar Amendment, in line 38, could also be considered now.
The only purpose of the two Amendments is to ensure that the fumes about which we speak in the Bill are the dangerous fumes, and, therefore, the word " dangerous " is added in each case to make that clear.

§ Mr. MacDermot
The Amendments are logical and not objectionable. This is something of an innovation in that the Amendments are making good an omission in the original Act. The particular phrases with which we are concerned here are borrowed from the original Section 27 of the 1937 Act. No doubt by an omission then the qualifying word "dangerous " was left out. The Government have done well to insert the word here.

§ Mr. Wood
I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after " removed ", to insert: and the space contains no other material liable to give off dangerous fumes". This Amendment deals with a slightly different point. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved an Amendment to ensure that any sludge or 871 other deposit that might give off fumes should be removed. We did not accept the wording of that Amendment because it was considered that it would be quite impossible in some cases actually to remove other materials which might give off fumes, because there might be such things as the rubber linings of fuel tanks which could not be easily removed. The Amendment is designed to meet exactly that point. I hope that it meets it in a way that is satisfactory to the House.