EXTENSION OF EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT (Hansard, 3 July 1969)

§ Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I thank Lord Morris for his work on this Bill in another place. It was extremely helpful. The absence of many hon. Members from this debate is not remarkable for I should have been surprised if more had been present at this time on a Thursday night? This applies to supporters and kindly critics of the Bill alike. I make special reference to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who I should perhaps not say is leading for the Opposition on a Private Member's Bill—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will the hon. Member please come to the Amendment.

§ Mr. Brown
This Amendment was not specifically discussed in Committee, but the general question about equipment was, and on Report an Amendment in almost similar terms was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). It was opposed by me as sponsor and by the Solicitor-General, but it was agreed that this is a difficult matter. It was a question of fine balance whether the Bill should be left as it was or that the Amendment should be accepted. I made clear that we were prepared to look at the matter again to see if we could find a suitable compromise.
That assurance was repeated in another place on Second Reading and, as a result of consultations, the Amendment we are discussing was moved and accepted in another place. I was in the hands of the Philistines, or rather the learned fraternity in this House and outside. I do not think this is a major matter of principle, but I was guided on whether the word "equipment" should be defined to include the words in the Amendment, and on balance I think it wise to accept the Amendment. It adds to the definition and does not affect the principle.
Although the Bill has had a stormy passage that has not been because of the issues in the Bill itself but because of those concerning other Bills before the House. Now we have reached agreement on the definition of equipment, and on an alteration along the lines suggested, we should proceed to accept the Amendment and give this useful Bill a place on the Statute Book.

§ Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)
I am glad that the sponsors have seen fit to accept this Amendment. In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), I moved an Amendment on similar lines on Report. I argued the case then at some length and I do not intend to do so tonight.
The objection was that if the Amendment were made it would be restrictive. I did not accept that. I am glad to note that the promise that it might be considered was carried out. If the word 810 "equipment" was not defined difficulties might arise, and, as I said on Report, there might be ingenuous arguments by lawyers which might cause some difficulties. In these circumstances, I am glad that the Amendment has been accepted and I think it will help to make the Bill effective.

§ Mr. Niall MacDermot (Derby, North)
I seek to discharge a multiple debt of gratitude as the person who was the instigator of this Amendment. I should like to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) who moved the Amendment on Report as I could not be here. He moved it in such cogent and persuasive terms that we now see the Amendment, in a revised form being accepted.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), whose Bill this is, for having paid such careful attention to the arguments and eventually supporting them. I congratulate him on having brought this Bill to a successful conclusion. I also thank my noble Friends in another place who pressed the matter. Last but not least, I express my thanks to the Solicitor-General and the Government for having carried out their pledge to look into the matter carefully and finally adopting the proposal, with the assistance of those over-worked and over-abused gentlemen, the Parliamentary draftsmen, who reproduced this Amendment in a very much better form than it was originally.
As to the substance of the Amendment this is a remarkable Bill in that it places an absolute liability upon the employer who is deemed to be negligent in circumstances where in fact he may not be negligent at all. And that being the character of the Bill, it struck me that the courts, when interpreting it, might be likely to place a restrictive interpretation upon it. It was for that reason it seemed to me we should make our intention perfectly plain and ensure a definition of the word "equipment" which would extend to matters which I think we should all like to see it extended to but which, without the definition, might be excluded by judicial decision.
This Bill may establish a useful precedent. I know that the Department is 811 considering a general review of the Factories Acts and it seems that the precedent we are establishing in this Bill, and which we are reinforcing by this Amendment, is one that could usefully be borne in mind when we consider the wider legislation.
I do not believe we are ever going to see satisfactorily designed safe machinery unless statutory duties are placed upon the manufacturer as well as upon employers and occupiers of factories.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine)
I think it right that I should say a word, since, as has been said, at an earlier stage of our consideration of the point my inclination was to advise against acceptance of the proposal incorporated in the Amendment now before us. The Government are satisfied now that the better course is to accent the Amendment in these terms.
It has been realised that if the word "equipment" were left undefined, the precise relationship between this Bill and the Occupier's Liability Act, 1957, would not be made fully clear. It is essential for the Bill to cover vehicles. These now form such a significant proportion of the equipment which is issued to industrial workers that it would be wrong for them not to be covered. If equipment is not expressly defined as including vehicles, it would be possible, perhaps, to argue that, as vehicles are expressly covered by the 1957 Act, they are not intended to be covered by the Bill. The right course, therefore, I am satisfied, is to define equipment as including vehicles.
If those arguments are accepted. it becomes necessary, I readily acknowledge, to consider the question of vessels and aircraft. If they were not defined as being included in equipment, they would probably be held to be excluded from the Bill.
The other main reason why it has been decided that "equipment" should be defined is that the sponsors and the Government alike have been impressed by the weight of opinion that a definition is necessary and by the representations made in this connection by my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot).
812 Perhaps, in a sentence, I may be permitted to stretch the bounds of order by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) upon what is shortly to become the successful fruition of a valuable legislative enterprise on his part.