INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS (Hansard, 24 April 1967)

§ Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)
When hon. Members have the opportunity which I have today, the proceedings are frequently watched by numerous people who know that their lives will be immediately affected by the result. If any benefit emerges from today's debate, however, the chief beneficiaries will never know, because it will be reflected in accidents which do not happen, in limbs which are not amputated and in families which are not orphaned.
One of the difficulties in discussing this problem is that we are always talking about the misfortunes of someone else, and never ourselves, until it has already happened to us and it is too late. But in the coldest economic terms, it has been estimated that the cost of the loss of working time through industrial accidents, the cost of medical attention, the damage to machinery and the general disruption is about £300 million a year. Of 1114 course, the cost in human suffering is infinitely greater. In 1962, 190,000 people were injured in British factories; in 1963, 204,000; in 1964, 269,000; in 1965, 293,000.
This is an increasing problem, but we still do not know its extent, because these figures represent only reported accidents. They do not account for those which did not have to be reported because they resulted in absences, if at all, of fewer than three days, or those which, at the time, appeared to be of no consequence but gave rise to grave consequences only later, or of course, those which, although they should have been reported, were not.
All we know of those is that, in 1962, the Factory Inspectorate was enterprising enough to compare the accidents reported with claims for industrial injury benefit. It was discovered that only 60 per cent. of the accidents in factories which should have been reported were reported. In 1964, after an intensive campaign on the subject, the percentage admittedly rose to 70 per cent. and there is some reason to think that it may since have increased further, but even now there must be many reportable accidents of which we do not know.
These figures, of course, deal only with accidents in factories and say nothing of injuries in mines and quarries, in transport, on farms and building sites. Every year, about 890,000 people are injured in Britain's industry, about three times the number of road casualties, and of these industrial accidents about 2,000 are fatal.
Statistics usually tell a fairly cold and objective story, but perhaps I might be permitted to quote one more comparison. During the last war, the monthly average of casualties on the battlefields was 10,700. The monthly average of casualties in Britain's factories during the same period was 22,000. This is the extent of the problem.
I accept that the increase, year by year, could be attributable to a number of factors, perhaps to the fact that we are dealing with faster and more complicated processes, bigger and more difficult machines, and more and more mechanical, repetitive, hypnotic jobs. It may be thought that this only serves to emphasise that, with all these factors, the need to take the problem seriously is increasing.
1115 May I turn to the existing provisions to draw people's attention to the need to reduce these accidents? The first is that the employer who fails to take reasonable care for the safety of his employee is liable to a civil action for damages at common law. But that is a risk against which he can insure. If the rules of order permitted, on some other occasion the House might care to consider whether this could be made a compulsory provision. Within the rules of order, I can only wish. The sanctions under this head, however, never can be more than an increased insurance premium. It may be worth the risk to an employer to push production along a little faster than is safe.
Secondly, numerous provisions are imposed by Statute, and this is one of my complaints. Perhaps they are too numerous. At present, safety legislation is a hotch-potch of miscellaneous powers which have grown up industry by industry and process by process, as there has been a campaign in one industry or a particular great disaster has stirred the public conscience in another, or the relations between management and employees have varied from time to time elsewhere, or an industry's profits have increased or decreased, or as a particular individual like Samuel Plimsoll has arisen to take up a particular campaign.
The result is that a woman working a bacon-slicing machine in a factory canteen is protected by provisions which are denied to the same woman working the same machine in a shop or hospital kitchen. A man on a ladder repainting a ceiling is denied the protection of provisions which would protect the same man on the same ladder if he were painting the ceiling for the first time while the house was being built. Also, an employer has a very different and very much decreased duty of care for the safety of a labour-only sub-contractor, although he is doing the same job in the same way and receiving the same money, than if the employer were stamping his National Insurance Card and paying his Selective Employment Tax.
The House may think that what matters when a man or woman is exposed to danger is not where it takes place or the purpose of the operation or the terms of remuneration, but the nature and extent of the danger.
1116 It would be surprising if, with such a miscellany of provisions, there were any unified policy for enforcing them. The responsibility for enforcement is divided among at least five Departments. In factories, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, in mines and quarries of the Minister of Power, on farms of the Minister of Agriculture, on ships, railways, in the air and on the roads, of the Minister of Transport, and risks relating to explosives and fires are the responsibility of the Home Secretary.
I fully accept that the various inspectors may require different qualifications, but one would have thought that the problems had sufficient in common to justify at least a common policy. My hon. Friend may be able to tell us what is done to bring together the policies of enforcement. Certainly, one wonders what is being done to produce a common approach to the problem of when to prosecute. The Royal Commission on Safety in Mines in 1938 said that there were fewer prosecutions in coal mines than in factories. If that is still true, it may be because it is only for infringement in mines that a prosecution might result in imprisonment. Anywhere else, the maximum sanction is a fine. Perhaps that is another matter to which my hon. Friend could refer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on 10th April drew attention to the fact that one who caused death by dangerous driving might be sentenced to a maximum of five years' imprisonment, although anyone who causes death by flagrant disregard of the Factories Acts may be subjected, at most, to a fine of £300.
None of this is intended to imply any criticism of the inspectorates. As a body, they are doing as much as any undermanned service could do faced with such enormous problems, and most of them are dedicated to their work. To suggest one method of improving the way in which they operate—although this may depend on implementing their resources—I believe that something could be done to make the inspectors more approachable in the eyes of employees. I have no doubt that if an employee approached an inspector, his complaints or suggestions would be listened to with interest. However, employees are not encouraged to think of inspectors as people with whom 1117 they can discuss these matters. Perhaps, when an inspector considers it necessary be accompanied on inspections by a representative of the management, he should invite representatives of the employees to go round as well. Certainly a copy of the inspector's report should be either presented or made available to representatives of the employees.
The third set of provisions which exist today are those relating to safety officers. However, there is no greater consistency here. Under the Factories Act there is no obligation to appoint a safety officer. Under some of the regulations made under that Act there is such an obligation, but the appointment rests with the management. There is nothing to specify the officer's competence, age, training, physical capacity or tenure of office. He may be an energetic, capable and dedicated man, as many of these officers are, or he may be given the job because it has transpired that he is not capable of doing the work of a night watchman. He can be dismissed at the pleasure of the management. He may be dismissed because he does not do his job properly or because he does it too enthusiastically.
In the mines, the right of appointment of a safety officer rests with the employees. On the railways there is no obligation for anyone to appoint a safety officer, End it appears that in the docks there is an obligation on employees to appoint one, but subject to the veto of the chief inspector.
The fourth set of provisions which exist today are those relating to workplace safety committees. Although I use the phrase "which exist today", those which do exist are purely voluntary because there is no statutory obligation on anyone to appoint such a committee. In many workplaces there are such committees, but their success cannot easily be estimated because, as I was informed by my hon. Friend on 10th April, no statistics exist to compare their achievements with those of workplaces where they do not exist. In many places there is good will and genuine concern, and in many instances the number of accidents appears to have been reduced. In some cases the committees have been working in happy harmony with the inspectorate. However, nobody is under an obligation to listen to a word of what these committees say, and while in the best work- 1118 shops nothing may turn on this, in many others it is absolutely fatal.
I believe that industrial accidents occur not because people are prepared, in cold blood, to see themselves or their fellow men going through life with one arm, one eye or in constant pain—or because industrial widows and orphans are matters of indifference—but because there is a repetitive process to be performed or work must be turned out in a hurry, and there is not time, or somebody is too tired, to take the obvious precautions. There is no coldblooded weighing of the saving involved as against the cost of spending 40 years in a wheelchair. In too many cases one tends to take the view, "We will do it this once. It cannot possibly happen here".
The time available to me in this short debate does not allow me to give many examples. I will merely mention the case of a maintenance engineer who was repairing a machine driven by two electric motors. Each motor was fitted with a device which ensured that when anything was caught in the drum, the machine automatically stopped, because its power supply was disconnected. Unfortunately, the safety device on one of the motors had not been connected—somebody had not got round to connecting it—but because the device was fitted, the engineer did not take the trouble to ensure that the drum was not still revolving. He placed his arm inside, the safety device did not operate, and his arm was torn off.
I am, of course, relating a gloomy story. However, it is not a matter of unrelieved gloom. The Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1965 presented one or two happier sides to the picture. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has established seven regional industrial safety officers and the Government have provided half of the approved expenditure. To encourage the safety element in industrial design, the Royal Society of Arts has undertaken a number of projects to which the Government have contributed £2,000. The National Institute of Industrial Psychology is at present engaged in a number of studies into the fundamental causes of accidents. One of the happiest examples came from a London factory in which, in 1965, there was an intensive campaign into industrial safety which 1119 included a competition for spotting the causes of accidents and suggesting remedies. The winners received a prize of a week-end for two in Paris.
The fact remains that 890,000 people in this country who do not yet know what will happen to them are likely to be injured in their employment before they are a year older. I say at once that my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have given a great deal of thought and care to this problem and that, in these remarks, I am not implying any criticism of them. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me what so far has been the result of their deliberations.
In this connection, I draw attention to two resolutions which have resulted from a great deal of discussion on the part of the Trades Union Congress in the last few years. In 1964 the T.U.C. passed a resolution calling for the compulsory election of safety delegates, with powers of inspection, and the compulsory setting up of safety committees in factories.
I understand that my right hon. Friend is prepared to give what is usually known as the voluntary system one further chance. Perhaps I may be forgiven for having some reservations about the wisdom of doing this. A similar scheme was proposed in 1927 and the voluntary system was then given one more chance. Never in industrial history has so extensive a chance been so completely frittered away with such tragic results. In 1965 the T.U.C. passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a centralised authority, including workers and employees' representatives, with power to direct and co-ordinate accident prevention and health protection in all spheres of employment to … provide for workplace safety organisation with workers' participation; (c) organise, co-ordinate and extend research into problems of industrial accident prevention and ill-health; (d) organise, co-ordinate and extend education and propaganda for industrial safety and health, particularly amongst young people. I understand that that has been considered sympathetically by my right hon. Friend, but I understand that there are differences between us about its possible composition. But some body, in whatever way it is composed, could under- 1120 take the task of surveying this enormous problem—and the plethora of unrelated and sometimes frankly contradictory provisions which exist—with the aim of reducing accidents. If a central uthority were to view this whole matter it could not, at the worst, increase the problem. It could conceivably do a lot to improve it.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough)
Since coming to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) has demonstrated his deep, intense and abiding interest in accident prevention. I was speaking to him in the Chamber a few moments ago when I learned for the first time that he had mining experience. I, too, have had a little and his experience and mine have made it a subject with which we are both deeply and intensely concerned.
I do not have time to detail it, but if anybody has a family interest in this subject which is greater than mine, his family has had more than its share of the maimed and the crippled. There is no quarrel between my hon. Friend and me about the enormity of the problem. There is no quarrel between us about the need to do something effectively to reduce the tremendous and increasing accident rate and the number of fatalities.
It is remarkable that, although for several of the post-war years the figures tended to go down, from 1948 we have had this tragic increase. I readily agree with my hon. Friend that when the reports are published they are merely statistics and that he and I know what they mean in human suffering and human sorrow to those whose families are affected. The cost has been estimated at £300 million a year and we know, if we could reduce and even eliminate this number of accidents, what the country could do with that £300 million which would then become available.
The unifying machinery which my hon. Friend wants to be brought into being would be difficult to operate. There is a distinct difference between the kinds of accidents which occur in the mines, in factories and on farms. If we had a central body such as that which my hon. Friend suggests, we would still have to 1121 have different kinds of personnel, because it would be impossible to recruit the necessary manpower with all the ramifications of all the industries which my hon Friend has mentioned.
The Factory Inspectorate is already under strength. This is not because the Government are not anxious to bring it up to strength. It is because as yet the necessary numbers with the necessary qualifications are not coming forward to bring it up to strength. There is no lack on the Ministry's part to provide the necessary funds for that increase in what I would term the Civil Service if the right people became available.
I know that my hon. Frend's view about penalties is shared by many who feel that, if the penalties were increased, employers and their insurance companies would be a little more enthusiastic and would take greater pains to prevent accidents. However, as my hon. Friend knows it the last Factories Act we trebled the penalties. It is strange that although the penalties have been trebled, the accident rate has gone up. Increased penalties did not prove to be the deterrent which we hoped they would be. Personally, I do not believe that that is the right way to go about it.

§ Mr. Archer
The amounts of the fines were increased. The suggestion is that disregarding some of the provisions of the Factories Acts, as is the case with disregarding some of the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, might be a matter for imprisonment.

§ Mr. Fernyhough
In a discussion of this kind, I am not in a position this morning to say what provisions may be contained in any new legislation, whenever it may be introduced, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that what he and many others have had to say will be borne in mind when any changes in the present Acts and their accompanying regulations are introduced.
I readily acknowledge that the quality of safety officers varies. Some are dedicated and some have been trained, while in other cases the management is indifferent and does not take too much trouble about qualifications, provided 1122 that someone has the appropriate designation. The Ministry, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and, of course, the organisations which my hon. Friend mentioned all want competent people to do the job. There is a difference of opinion about safety committees. I readily acknowledge that since 1964 the Trades Union Congress has felt that such committees should he compulsory. However, so far my right hon. Friend has taken the side of the C.B.I., in the sense that he feels that it might be better to start on a voluntary basis before considering compulsion.
I give my hon. Friend the assurance that my right hon. Friend's patience is not unlimited. If, as a consequence of the survey now being undertaken, and of the further steps being taken, it is found that the voluntary system is not achieving the results which all concerned with the problem are anxious to bring about, then the Minister will not hesitate, when the next Factories Bill is introduced to take the measures which my hon. Friend would have us take.
There was only one comment in my hon. Friend's speech with which I disagree. Perhaps, on reflection, he will accept that the analogy was not quite fair. He said that in the last war daily casualties numbered 10,000, while in industry there were 22,000 every day. There have always been many more people engaged in industry than there were in the Armed Forces, even at the peak of the war. While I would not wish to minimise the problem or in any way detract from its importance, I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that that was not the kind of fair comment which he usually makes.
We in the Ministry are as concerned as he is about this problem. Most people are. Anything which the Ministry can do to improve the figures and reduce the accident rate and the suffering and to make available to the people the wealth which would be created as a consequence, we shall certainly do.