§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]
§ 10.9 p.m.
§ Mr. Bert Hazell (Norfolk, North)It is with pleasure that I take this opportunity to bring before the House a matter with which I have been vitally concerned for the whole of my life, namely, that of accidents which occur on farms throughout England and Wales.
Apart from the fact that in the early days, after leaving school, I spent my time on the farms of Norfolk, for practically the whole of the last 30 years I have been a full-time officer of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and in the course of my day-to-day work I have been intimately brought in contact with very serious and less serious accident cases which have occurred to men and women employed in the agricultural and horticultural industries.
During the past 30 years radical changes have taken place in the methods of production on the farms of this country. Intense mechanisation has replaced the slower and more traditional methods of using horses and horse-drawn implements, and those who moved from operating the slower-moving farm implements to operating mechanised implements had to acquire their experience by trial and error. None of them was given any practical training in the handling of modern equipment, and it was therefore not surprising that, particularly during the transitional period, there was a high accident rate amongst those employed in agriculture.
Even today very little practical training is given to men employed within the industry. It is true that by means of day-release courses a number of the younger personnel on the farms get some limited training, but by and large the vast majority of those employed in the industry have acquired by experience their knowledge of the use of tractors and all the implements that go with modern agriculture.
The record of accidents within the industry is at an appallingly high level. More than 20 years ago I gave evidence before a Departmental Committee and 175 said that some form of Factories Acts legislation should be introduced for the benefit of agriculture. At that time it was argued that it was impossible to provide such legislation because of the complexity of the agricultural industry, but in 1956 there was placed on the Statute Book the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, and those in the industry heartily welcomed this legislalation. During the 10 years since the passing of that Act, Regulations have been made for the guarding of old and new machinery. In fact, some Regulations became operative from 1st January of this year, and workers in the industry have appreciated this development.
Under the Act, safety officers were appointed and attached to the county agricultural executive committees. In the early stages, the number of safety officers was extremely limited, but since then the Ministry has provided a measure of training for other officers employed by the country agricultural executive commines, with the result that today about 390 officers have some knowledge of what to look for when they visit farms to ascertain whether any part of the Regulations has been violated.
Unfortunately, most of these enforcement officers have other duties to perform. They attend to drainage schemes which farmers submit to the county executive. They deal with ploughing grants. They deal with a multiplicity of applications which farmers have to make to the county agricultural authorities, with the result that only a limited amount of their time can be spent on ensuring that the Regulations under the 1956 Act are carried out.
Whenever there is a meeting of organised farm workers in any county in England and Wales, the points is inevitably raised about the insufficiency of farm safety officers. I have heard the view expressed time and again that only a very small minority of the farms in this country have been visited by such officers. When a serious accident occurs it is the job of one of these officers to examine the equipment involved, but farmworkers and their trade union want regular visits by safety inspectors or enforcement officers, to ensure that there is no violation of the Regulations.
176 I know that the report of the Ministry showed that for the year ended September, 1964, about 20,800 visits were paid to farms, but this represents only a small proportion of the total number. I have no doubt that many of those visits occurred in connection with farms which had been visited in previous years. The allegations by the farm workers that very few farms have been visited are so strong that there must be something in them. In addition to the appointment of extra safety officers whose full-time responsibility it would be to visit farms, I would like to see more work undertaken of an educational character. There is no point in investigating the cause of an accident after it has happened, because the injured man derives no benefit from such an inquiry, nor does his widow if he is killed. Much greater emphasis should be placed on preventive work.
Safety inspectors appointed by the Ministry hold village meetings from time to time to explain the import of the various Regulations, and they put on a good performance, for those sufficiently interested, by means of films and slides. But this touches only the fringe of the problem. In some counties voluntary committees have been established to promote educational work and to draw to the notice of those concerned the means of preventing accidents, but these committees are hampered by lack of finance.
It is an amazing thing that such committees rely upon the organisation of raffles and competitions to provide the moneys to enable them to function. A few function extremely well and some of them function very spasmodically, but in some counties no such voluntary committees operate. I understand that the Ministry pays a grant of £1,000 a year to ROSPA to enable it to play its part in providing a caravan to attend local shows and give some assistance to these voluntary committees, but because I am concerned about the need to prevent accidents I would like to see the Ministry setting up committees.
The voluntary committees have done the initial spadework, and something more positive is now required. If such committees were set up by the Ministry they would give a sense of purpose and much more authority to the voluntary committees. I was talking to a member of one of these only last weekend. I 177 asked him how his committee functioned, and he told me that it had held a meeting this month—a week or so ago—and that the previous meeting had been held in February of last year. There had been a lapse of 11 months. When I asked why, he replied, "When I approached the chairman of the committee he informed me that there was nothing to talk about." That is a very poor approach to the fundamental problem of getting across to employer and employee the need to take the utmost care in the handling of mechanised equipment on our farms. I should very much like to see the Ministry laying greater emphasis on prevention of accidents. This could be done if they would take the initiative in forming safety committees throughout the country.
In the Ministry's Report for the period ending September, 1964, I note that 99 fatal accidents occurred on farms, of which 41 were caused by tractors. A large percentage of these fatal accidents were the result of tractors overturning. The use of wheeled tractors on hillsides or on silage clamps creates a great risk. I should like to see Regulations introduced as early as possible for the provision of safety cabs or safety frames on tractors.
I know that the Minister has introduced draft proposals in this respect, but I am not at all happy with them, because I see that it is suggested that, when the proposals ultimately become Regulations, safety cabs or frames will have to be fitted within two years. That seems reasonable enough, but for existing tractors the proposals suggest that safety cabs be fitted within 10 years. This is a long time and I hope that, when Regulations are made, that length of time will be considerably shortened.
I have had a word with the National Union of Agricultural Workers about these draft proposals and I understand that they are looking forward to the opportunity of discussing them with the Ministry at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that the union would place the utmost insistence on this point.
I hope that when these proposals are considered afresh, the time factor is considerably reduced. Not all fatal accidents occur as a result of overturning tractors. I read in the train yesterday in a northern newspaper of a young 178 married man with two children who fell into a grain silo. Before he could be rescued, and in spite of frantic efforts to release the grain, he unfortunately suffocated. We use very complex and complicated equipment on farms today. This is why I stress so urgently the need for further education and for further preventive measures.
Another aspect which concerns me is the law about the age at which children can drive tractors. A boy may at present drive a tractor on a farm at the age of 13. I should like to see this Regulatioa reconsidered, because, with the high speed of modern tractors, I am convinced that a boy, naturally anxious at times to see how fast the tractor can go, runs a grave risk of causing danger not only to himself but to others who might be in the path of the tractor. I know that boys are allowed to handle machines and that they like to get on tractors at every opportunity, but I still maintain that, at 13, a lad has not the physical ability to handle the modern high-powered tractors which are used on many farms today.
The Report also said that 11,866 nonfatal accidents occurred. The Minister may say that this is 900 better than the record high figure of the year before, but I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that this figure represents 1,000 more accidents than occurred in 1961. The record in this matter is, therefore, not good and when one realises that fewer workers are now employed in the industry one realises that the ratio of accidents is higher today than in the past.
I appreciate that not all accidents are entirely due to faulty equipment. Some are due to negligence on the part of workers. For this reason a greater sense of urgency must be shown by those employed in the industry to take advantage of safety techniques. I understand that the Ministry of Labour will soon introduce an industrial training scheme for the agricultural industry. Part of it will, I hope, contain instruction about the handling of equipment, particularly tractors.
Since my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) is anxious to take part in this short debate, I will conclude my remarks by briefly summing up. First, more safety officers should 179 be employed by the Ministry to make routine checks to ensure that farm equipment is properly protected. Secondly, the Ministry should take up the matter of organising committees, thereby giving a greater sense of urgency and responsibility to this matter than is possible under the present voluntary system. Thirdly, I would like to see heavier penalties imposed on those who infringe the law, for at present the penalties are extremely nominal.
Fourthly, we must appreciate the importance of safety frames and cabs on tractors, with the Regulations being brought in at an earlier date than that suggested in the draft proposals. Fifthly, more training should be given to operatives and training should be incorporated in the industrial training regulations which, I understand, will be issued when the Council is ultimately established.
§ 10.28 p.m.
§ Mr. Derek Page (King's Lynn)I wish to begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) for initiating this important debate, particularly since the National Union of Agricultural Workers has for many years been drawing attention to the problems we are discussing. At the same time, however, I must regret the total absence of interest in this subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Not one of them is present. On most subjects we find a multiplicity of views being expressed on the benches opposite, but on this one there appear to be none.
This subject is of tremendous importance, particularly the facets of it affecting industrial safety in agriculture, partly because men work under such isolated conditions that on many occasions they are far from help if accidents occur and partly because the responsibility for accidents is so much more difficult to attribute in agriculture compared with many factories because of these isolated conditions.
I appeal to the Minister to keep an eye, as I am sure he does, on new techniques in agriculture, because new machinery and chemicals are being introduced all the time. The accident figures, particularly those involving chemicals, show no distinct fall in the number of 180 farm accidents. I add my voice to the plea of my hon. Friend for the strengthening of the county safety committees. More official backing for these committees is thoroughly justified. Since the prevention of accidents must depend largely on the knowledge of farm workers and on the safety precautions which are taken to prevent accidents with machinery, I urge that the safety training of farm workers should receive the very highest priority.
Since we are pressed for time I will make only one suggestion; that the Minister should consider giving Government subsidies for the safety training of all farmworkers.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)This has been a very useful and informative debate, and I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on raising these matters; also my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page), who has given me a few minutes in which to reply. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North cares greatly about this subject, on which he is extremely well informed. This debate also gives me an opportunity to tell the House—at least, those hon. Members sitting on this side—something of what we have been trying to do about safety.
Regulations have already been made to cover the guarding of practically all machines used on farms. The Field Machinery Regulations are not yet fully in force. They already apply to all new machines and three of the five groups of machines in use, including tractors, combines and certain other widely-used harvesting machines. Most of the rest will be covered next January—and all by January, 1968.
Everyone has done his best to ensure compliance with these Regulations—manufacturers, dealers, engineers and, of course, farmers. This has needed a lot of planning and foresight by manufacturers, and a lot of care and trouble by farmers. In spite of many difficulties, compliance with the Regulations has, on the whole, been very satisfactory and encouraging. All concerned deserve to be congratulated.
181 In spite of the general observance of the Regulations, there are still far too many accidents. Things do, however, seem to he improving to some extent, and I am very pleased to say that the accident rate in England and Wales during the 12 months which ended on 30th September last showed a substantial reduction compared with previous years. There were 87 fatal accidents and 10,408 nonfatal accidents; these are the lowest figures for any year since the passing of the 1956 Act.
As to tractor safety cabs, the Annual Report, which my right hon. Friend will present to Parliament shortly, will give full details of the situation up to the end of September, 1965, but perhaps I might mention one point now: 32 of the 87 fatal accidents were due to tractors overturning. To prevent these deaths would be an immense service to the farming community; in fact, nearly all of them could have been prevented by the fitting of suitable safety frames or cabs to the tractors.
This is not just a matter for the Government; it is the responsibility of all those who have anything to do with agriculture to join in preventing these needless deaths. I was glad to see, incidentally, that the question was referred to in a recent edition of "Panorama" on television.
The position of the Government is quite clear. We have recently issued proposals for regulations which would require the fitting of approved safety frames and safety cabs, first, to new tractors and ultimately to all tractors. We now await the comments of interested organisations, but we intend to press on with this matter as fast as we can.
One of the other main classes of fatal accidents is accidents to children. Once again, 16 children under the age of 15 were killed. Eleven of these were toddlers, knocked down by tractors or other machines, killed in falls or drowned in shallow water. There is only one way to stop these tragic deaths, and that is by every adult taking much more care to see that children do not get into dangerous places, and to warn them what the dangers are. Two other children were killed riding on tractors; Regulations already prohibit this.
182 These are deaths that could easily be prevented. To let children subject themselves to this danger is a criminal act in every sense of the word, and it has been necessary to prosecute 42 people for breaches of these particular Regulations in the last year. It is the clear duty of everyone connected with agriculture to do all he can to ensure that these Regulations are complied with.
I know that there has been a suggestion that the county farm safety committees should be fully controlled by the Department, since this would be a way of making them more active and efficient. So far, we have not agreed with this argument and, frankly, I am not even now convinced by it. Our safety officers already do a great deal to advise and assist the committees, but I think we should be careful to do nothing to discourage voluntary work in this field.
The Department can do its part by Regulations and by official advice and encouragement, but there are some things it cannot do. A large part of farm safety can never be imposed; it is a matter of common sense and vigilance. Advice on these matters, and indeed explanation of the need for, and value of, Regulations, comes much better and more effectively from one farmer to another and from one farmworker to another. If some of these committees are not meeting and are not doing the job they were set up to do, it is for the agricultural community as a united body to put new life into them. We will certainly give our support to such efforts.
This brings me to the question of the organisation of safety work within the Department, which is important. We employ 42 full-time safety specialists—the Chief Safety Inspector, his deputies, a regional inspector in Wales and each of the seven English regions, and a field officer (Grade I)—a not unimportant appointment—in each of the 31 divisions.
There are also 421 field officers now qualified in three skills which include safety. These officers spend about one-quarter of their time on farm safety work. These multi-purpose officers are all trained people and have immediate access to a specialist if they need help or guidance. Above all, they are able to concentrate their attention on relatively small districts, which minimises wasteful travelling time and give them a real chance to 183 get to know the farms, farming conditions, problems and local practices of their districts.
Although, as I have said, formal safety visits occupy only about a quarter of the time of these officers, they can and do keep their eyes open for safety problems during their constant visits to farms for other reasons. The number of safety visits in the past year rose to 29,500, an increase of more than 40 per cent. over the previous year. We think that, given the limitations on finance and manpower, we can achieve a better coverage with the present system than could be gained by employing a necessarily much smaller force of full-time specialists.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise again that Regulations and inspections, necessary as they are, can only form the groundwork. No system will ever be foolproof if we can find someone who is too careless to pay attention to what is laid down. Above everything else, what we need is common sense and 184 such constant care that it becomes second nature. In many ways, farms are more dangerous places than factories, and need more alertness and more care. There is often a wide variety of processes, each lasting for a short time but all performed by one individual. Most of the processes are carried out under the exclusive control of the farmer or farm worker himself. They do not, therefore, produce the range of unexpected and diverse hazards which make road accidents such an intractable problem.
Farm accidents can be reduced. They must be reduced. The task needs the unstinting co-operation of all, both in this House and throughout the countryside.
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.