HC Deb 22 February 1972 vol 831 cc1119-37

4.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 3, at end insert: 'but no particulars or information about any person which may be furnished to an adviser in pursuance of this subsection shall (without the consent of that person) be disclosed by the adviser otherwise than for the efficient performance of his functions'. The effect of this Amendment is to limit disclosure by the employment medical adviser of information about young persons obtained from the school health service. It arises directly from the discussion we had in Standing Committee when, as those who were members of that Committee will remember, two Amendments were put forward from the Opposition Benches to Clause 1(6), which is concerned with the duty of the local education authority to give employment medical advisers particulars of their young persons' school record for which the employment medical adviser asks. One of these Amendments from the other side proposed that the word "reasonably" should be inserted in subsection (6) to make clear that information for which the medical adviser could ask was to be limited to that which he might reasonably require for the efficient performance of his functions. I was very happy to be able to accept that Amendment, and it is now incorporated in the Bill.

The other Amendment which was proposed from the Opposition Benches was more difficult. This was the proposition which came from the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), whom I am very pleased to see in his place, that this information should be given in con fidence to the employment medical adviser. Perhaps I might quote what the hon. Gentleman said in his very reasonable speech on that occasion: I think that a lair amount of information about a person's medical state should be made available to responsible people but what worries me is that it seems to be an open-ended commitment, that no limitation is being imposed upon how far down the line the information about a person's medical history shall be given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th January, 1972 c 177] I explained on that occasion that, while I appreciated the reasoning behind the Amendment, I had real difficulty in accepting it as it stood because the use of the phrase "in confidence" might well mean that employment medical advisers were debarred in certain circumstances from consulting even their own medical colleagues when they wished to do so; and I am sure that it is not the wish of any hon. Member on either side that that should be so. But I promised the hon. Member that I would look at it with my experts to see whether some suitable form of words could be achieved to suggest the spirit of what the hon. Member intended.

We have now come forward with this Amendment. Its effect is that the medical adviser may disclose information obtained from the school health service only for the purpose of enabling him to perform his functions efficiently. In the unlikely event—and I stress the word "unlikely"—of his requiring to disclose it for any other purpose he must obtain the consent of the person concerned. I hope the House will feel I have been able to meet the feeling which was expressed in the Committee at the time of the previous discussion. Although I was advised that the previous drafting of the Bill was quite sufficient we wished to make it absolutely clear and to go along with the hon. Member and his hon. Friends in stressing that point; and I feel perhaps we have now done this in this Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

I really welcome this. We put down what was really a probing Amendment, and we are most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for improving it in such a way that it is, I believe, acceptable to all of us. On physical health, people do not mind admitting that they have certain limitations, but if there are emotional strains or psychological or mental factors in their make-up they are all very concerned and do not want people to know since that might jeopardise future employment prospects. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has found a formula which covers this, and I congratulate him on the wording of his new Amendment and thank him for it.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor)

I would like briefly to congratulate my hon. Friend on dealing with what might have seemed in Committee a rather unimportant point. I can assure him that it is important that as far as is humanly possible the confidence between a medical man and his patient is maintained, except in so far as is necessary under this Bill. I very much welcome the change of wording to which my hon. Friend has kindly agreed.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

I am happy to add my own expression of grateful appreciation for the extent to which the hon. Gentleman has met what was obviously the very persuasive argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). The form of words that is now proposed to be put in the Bill is a very reasonable compromise, and we are grateful.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dudley Smith

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 26, at end add: 'and the reference to those (other than the Secretary of State) concerned with the health of employed persons and of persons training for employment shall be taken to include oganisations of employers or employed persons and associations of such organisations'. Throughout the Committee stages we endeavoured to be as conciliatory and helpful as possible, and I believe there was general agreement on both sides that this is a worthwhile and necessary Bill; therefore, it had general support.

I was asked to look particularly at the matter which is now dealt with by this Amendment, which makes clear that the bodies to be informed and advised by the employment medical advisory service on the health of employed persons include organisations with employees or employed persons and associations of such organisations. When we discussed this in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) moved an Amendment to specify that trade unions and other organisations of workers should be bodies which would definitely be advised by the medical advisory service.

I wish to make absolutely clear today that it is certainly our intention that organisations of employees, whether registered trade unions or not, and likewise organisations of employers should be able to obtain advice and information from the service. They are in this particular context, and there is no discrimination at all where these unions and organisations are concerned. This will be spelled out very clearly in the leaflets and booklets which we are to produce to give publicity to the new service when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

I do not think the Amendment proposed in Committee was necessary because organisations of employees are quite clearly among the others concerned with health of employed persons referred to in Clause 1(1). But hon. Members opposite pressed the point very strongly, as they were entitled to do, and stressed the rôle of the trade unions in this matter, and it was a point appreciated by both sides of the Committee during the debate.

The result is this Amendment, which I commend to the House. Its effect is similar to that of the Amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Consett, with the addition of the reference to organisations of employers and associations of employers' organisations. It makes no distinction between registered trade unions and other organisations of employees, just as the service itself makes no distinction.

I do not think there is any strict legal necessity for the Amendment, but it is right for me to acknowledge the efforts made by trade unions and employers' organisations over the years to promote better working conditions and safeguard the health of their members. A great deal of the work which goes on is unsung, but anyone who has been involved in either or both sides of industry will know of it. We regard this as one of the most important aspects of the legislation, and I hope, bearing in mind the comments which have been made, that the House will incorporate the Amendment so that there is no dubiety that trade unions and organisations of workers are included.

Mr. Harold Walker

As the Under-Secretary has said, a similar Amendment was moved in Committee by my hon Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), who is elsewhere in the House today and cannot be with us. He has asked me to express on his behalf how much he appreciates the Under-Secretary of State's ready response to the persuasive argument deployed by him in Committee.

The Amendment was pressed upon the Under-Secretary by almost all hon. Members on the Opposition side of the Committee. I should like to comment on the circumstances which made it necessary for us to press for this Amendment with so much vigour. One of the consequences of the Industrial Relations Act, which I am sure will be referred to again and again in the weeks, months and years to come, is the twilight world that unregistered trade unions will find themselves in in terms of their rights under the law. It was necessary for us to ask not only that it should be placed beyond doubt that trade unions had a right to the information that the employment medical advisory service might make available, but also that this information should be equally available to organisations of workers who apparently will have a very doubtful legal status in the future.

I regret that the Under-Secretary of State did not choose the simpler form of words we put to him. He will recall that one of our arguments was that the Bill was unnecessarily abstruse and confusing in some aspects, and we all agree on the need for simplicity in legislation. What we asked him to do was merely to insert—

Mr. Dudley Smith

The hon. Gentleman, having been in office, will know the complications which Ministers always face. Although I was attracted by the hon. Gentleman's original Amendment, I have been advised that the Amendment now before the House is more comprehensive, and this is what we are trying to achieve in the interests of all work-people.

Mr. Walker

I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it, but I sometimes wonder whether we tend to treat parlia mentary draftsmen as witch doctors who apply some particular magic that we should not question. The form of words which we proposed achieved the same objective more simply.

I am glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance on the form of words now put forward, and equally glad to accept his assurance that the informative booklet which the Department intends to publish when the Bill is enacted will repeat the assurances he has given today and put beyond any doubt that organisations of workers which are unregistered trade unions will have an equal right to the information that is available through the employment medical advisory service

I appreciate the tribute paid by the Under-Secretary of State to the rôle played by the trade unions in promoting the health and safety of workers in industry and services generally. We pointed this out in Committee, and I am glad to hear the Under-Secretary of State echoing our words this afternoon.

Having expressed my caveat about the form of words, may I, speaking not only for my hon. Friend the Member for Consett but for this side of the House, express our appreciation of the way in which the Under-Secretary of State has once again responded constructively and helpfully to the arguments which we put in Committee?

Mr. Carter-Jones

I welcome the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State about the work done by the trade unions. My union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, has done a tremendous amount of work on the safety of employees. We pride ourselves on the amount of work we do to recover money for people who have been injured. This is known as blood money, but we are not so concerned about collecting blood money as we are about ensuring the safety of our workers.

It sometimes happens that a rare case, especially where there is disablement, can be identified. I realise that the hon. Gentleman cannot legislate against this, but I should like it to appear on the official record that where information is passed through which enables anyone to be identified that information will be used with very great care.

Mr. Dudley Smith

I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and see that it is looked at very closely.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 26, at end add—

(10) Where an employment medical adviser is obstructed in the execution of his powers or his duties the person obstructing him shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £500, and where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence.

Mr. Speaker

It will be for the convenience of the House to take also Amendment No. 4, in Schedule 1, page 8, line 32, leave out paragraph 4.

Mr. Walker

It is right that we should take the two Amendments together, because Amendment No. 4 is consequential upon Amendment No. 3. I should not like it to be assumed that because these two Amendments are the only ones we have tabled we are otherwise entirely satisfied with the Bill. There are a number of minor points on which we have reservations. We expressed these reservations fairly fully in Committee and have no wish to delay the progress of this modest but useful Bill.

The issue involved in this Amendment is a matter of substance and importance. It echoes not only our debate in Committee but a point to which I have made repeated references in the House during the last 12 months. Not only is the maximum penalty provided in the Bill for obstruction of the employment medical adviser too low, but the general level of penalties in the broad area of industrial health and safety matters is far too low.

The penalty provided in the Bill is derived directly from the Factories Act penalty for obstruction of the work of the factory inspector. The employment medical adviser will in future be the person who is at present called the medical factory inspector. It is impossible to avoid reference to the Factories Act because the penalty is in Schedule 1 of the Bill which itself is largely a reproduction of Sections 146 and 147 of the Factories Act. The Schedule defines the powers of the employment medical adviser and the penalty for obstruction.

In Committee we argued that the maximum penalty should be not £20 but £50. That figure was chosen primarily to take into account the inflation which has taken place since the penalty was originally determined in the 1961 Consolidation Act. So far as I can check back, it was £5 in 1937, and my assessment of inflation since then is a very moderate one, particularly in view of the roaring inflation during the past 18 months.

In Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that I was being far too moderate and went on to present powerfully convincing arguments for the ceiling being £500. That is what we are talking about here, not the level of penalty that ought to be opposed in specific and particular cases, but the ceiling. As regards specific cases, quite clearly that is for the discretion of the courts, but the present ceiling of £20 is a derisory, even a contemptible, figure, like the other penalties in the Factories Act.

4.30 p.m.

The maximum penalty of £300 provided for in the Factories Act leads to a tendency, as I said in Standing Committee, for the prosecution not of major employers, for whom not only £20 or £50 but £300 and even £500 is a derisory figure and, therefore, of little significance. Therefore the Factories Act has a built-in tendency to encourage instead the prosecution of small employers. The factory inspector or, as it will be in the future in this particular area of industrial health and welfare, the employment medical adviser, may find himself compelled to reason, as I have heard argued in the past when it seemed there was scope for a prosecution, what is the point of prosecuting, what is the point of spending time on a lengthy period of preparation and a lengthy period in court, what is the point of taking up the time of the court, when the maximum penalty that can be imposed is one of little consequence to the employer or the occupier of the premises? That argument tends to lose its validity the lower down the scale we go. The smaller the employer, the smaller the turnover and the capital, the more impact the penalty will have, and the adviser may find himself compelled to say "In this particular case it will be useful. Therefore, I will have recourse to the court". Leaving the penalty as it is, therefore, merely encourages prosecutions against the small employer, for whom the sum involved may have significance, rather than against the larger occupiers or employers.

I am not necessarily arguing that prosecution ought to be the automatic recourse for the adviser or inspector. It has been a long-established practice that factory inspectors and the Factory Inspectorate seek to persuade people to do good rather than punish them for doing bad. By and large, that has been a good rule, but undoubtedly there have been cases where prosecutions ought to have been instituted but have not, merely because the penalty was so derisory and insignificant that the factory inspector saw little point in pursuing that course.

Dr. Glyn

I understand the hon. Member's argument, in which he is really pointing out that it is only the small companies that are going to be penalised, but would he not agree that even if the penalty were made £1,000 it still would not catch the extremely big companies? It is terribly difficult to decide at exactly what point this particular penalty should be set.

Mr. Walker

If we accept that argument we have to accept the invalidity of including in any Statute provision for a fine of any magnitude for either deterrent or punitive purposes. One cannot help comparing this with the level of fines provided for in the recent Industrial Relations Act, in which the maximum fine was graduated according to the assumed resources of the offending party. That, it seems to me, is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's intervention although it was not exactly what he was suggesting—that there should be a scale of fines appropriate to the resources of the miscreant. The Industrial Relations Act provides for the imposition of a fine as large as £100,000 for an offence committed by a massive trade union.

Mr. Dudley Smith

In wholly different circumstances.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman says "In wholly different circumstances"; but we are talking about the principle involved, and the principle is no different at all. Indeed, under the Industrial Relations Act for those bodies which are not registered trade unions or even for individuals the penalty can be open-ended and may well run into sums considerably in excess of the £100,000 to which I referred.

Mr. Dudley Smith

We spent many hours debating this point in this Chamber—that as far as the Industrial Relations Act is concerned they are not fines but civil damages, whereas this is a question of prosecution for criminal offences in which, quite legitimately, there are fines imposed by a judicial court.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman's euphemisms do not pacify any trade union leader in this country. Whether the hon. Gentleman calls them damages or not, the fact is that they are awards of compensation that will be made by a judicial body, the National Industrial Relations Court, and quite obviously they are intended to have a deterrent or a punitive effect. That is the purpose of a fine; so they will have precisely the same effect and purpose as a fine, and the use of different words does not blur the reality at all. Some of us are getting sick and tired of the Government's attempts to mask the reality of what they impose on the trade union movement by the use of euphemisms: unfair trade practices for what are clearly breaches of the law; awards of compensation for what are quite clearly fines; orders for what are quite clearly diktats. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench so that he can listen to what I am saying. I thought he would have heard enough of the truth from this side of the House on this issue, but if he wants more we can give him it.

I have contrasted the pitiful, derisory, contemptible, insignificant level of the maximum fines provided for in this Bill with what the right hon. Gentleman is providing for in his Industrial Relations Act. But, turning from that, compare it, for example, with another area—-the criminal law. For shooting a single pheasant in Norfolk a magistrate imposed a fine of £75. I should like the hon. Gentleman to mull that over and contrast it with what he is providing here. The employment medical advisory service will be dealing with situations such as that at Avonmouth, and there are other similar situations in industry in which the employment medical advisory service will have a rôle to play in the future, when it may be of crucial importance to the lives of people engaged in industry that the service is not obstructed in any way in the performance of its duties and where an employer will not be deterred by a fine of £20. I ask the hon. Gentleman to mull that over in his mind.

In our view too low a penalty would detract also from the prestige and authority which we believe the Act and the new service should have and which ought indeed to be attached to the Factories Act and the factory inspectorate.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

Having listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) for the last 10 minutes, I feel that he was making a valiant effort on a case which he really did not take terribly seriously himself. It was probably just bubble and squcak. There is something to be said for a review of the fines that are imposed through the Factories Act. If this Bill is to be kept in line with the provisions of the Factories Act, then this legislation should contain the same penalties as those in that Act. If we are to review the fines, then they should be reviewed in both pieces of legislation. It is another matter as to whether this will be done in due course by the Government, and the situation needs to be examined.

I do not see how medical officers will be restrained in carrying out their jobs, as seems to be assumed in the Amendment. I served for some time on the management committee of a hospital board, I was chairman of the establishment committee, and therefore had a good deal of contact with the medical staff in the hospital. I can assure the hon. Member for Doncaster that there is a no more independent body of men than medical officers, whether they be in hospitals, private practice or factories. I cannot imagine medical officers who work in industry to be any less independent than they are outside. If there is one occasion when laymen find it difficult to argue it is when they are opposed by a group of medical officers. One cannot argue too strongly when faced by those who are so expert in their own subject. Therefore, if a medical officer felt particularly strongly about something which was happening in the works, it would be unlikely that even the managing director would be able to exert his will against the medical officer's own view.

Mr. Carter-Jones

We are talking not about medical officers of health, but about the employment medical advisory service trying to obtain access to private property. It must be remembered that that service will not have the same rights as local medical officers of health.

Mr. Lewis

I accept that, but the Amendment is being argued on the ground that it strengthens the powers of medical staff engaged in the industrial service. The point is that the fine procedure is a long-stop and will be unlikely to be required in any event. I am saying that the influence of the medical personnel will be greater than the influence of those who may in some way seek to restrain them.

Any responsible company will accept that there is a certain odium attached to a fine. The last thing a firm would wish to do is to find itself in court charged with interfering with medical advice. Furthermore, any such firm may well find itself having to pay the costs in any proceedings. It is making heavy weather of the matter to suggest that the smallness of the fine would not be a sufficient form of restraint.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Carter-Jones

I agree in part with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). However, he knows full well that there are many gentlemen in the City who day after day park their cars and daily pay £1 or £2 in fines for the privilege of doing so, and think that it is cheap at the price. There is no publicity and their offence is never made public. Personally, I should have liked to see another nought added to the fine in the Amendment so as to make it £5,000. However, I think the figure of £500 is not unreasonable, and it is not a small amount. If a factory owner or managing director attempts to keep out an employment medical adviser, then the fact that he has to pay a fine of £500 is likely to attract attention. It will not break him, but he will be conscious of the need to keep his good name.

I hope that the Minister will have a death-bed repentance on this Amendment. I trust he recognises that this is a fair Amendment and will advise the Committee to accept it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reasonable.

Mr. Dudley Smith

I always endeavour to be reasonable, as the House will know. Up until this moment of time our proceedings have been all sweetness and light, but I am afraid that we must part company over this Amendment, for reasons which I shall endeavour to advance in detail. I say at the outset that I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

There are three main reasons why the Amendment must be turned down. One is a legal reason; the other two are practical reasons. I appreciate what hon. Members opposite are trying to get at. I said in Committee that I had a certain amount of sympathy with them on this point, but there are particular reasons why this provision cannot be amended. This does not mean that the figure of £20 must prevail for all time and that there cannot be a revision at some future time.

I wish to deal in some detail with the drafting point made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). I in no way wish to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but would only point out that his argument shows the deep waters into which one can plunge when dealing with drafting matters. There is an inability on the part of those who are not skilled Parliamentary draftsmen fully to follow through the consequences.

In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 in the Bill as drafted the penalty for obstructing a medical adviser is £20. That is the same penalty as that which currently obtains for obstructing a factory inspector; indeed, Schedule 1 reproduces part of Section 146 of the Factories Act. I explained in Committee that it was not possible then to accept any Amendment to increase the penalty because Schedule 1 is an extract from the Factories Act and the quoted text cannot be altered without making a nonsense of the rest of the text in the Factories Act. However, the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete paragraph (4) from the Schedule and to insert it as an entirely new subsection in Clause 1. At the same time he wishes to increase the penalty for obstruction from £20 to £500.

My first ground for not accepting the Amendment is that it is legally defective. The first part of the Amendment says that Where an employment medical adviser is obstructed in the execution of his powers or his duties the person obstructing him shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to a fine not exceeding £500 … I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman says that that is the ceiling. Nevertheless, it is the stated total of £500, and the person referred to in that phrase could be either a worker or a factory occupier.

The Amendment goes on: and where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence". The Amendment does not lay down any penalty for the occupier of a factory in such circumstances. Therefore, the occupier of a factory would not be penalised for any obstruction in his factory unless he committed the offence.

The Amendment, as drafted, would weaken the Bill. The reference to obstructing an employment medical adviser is contained in Section 146(4) of the Factories Act, 1961, as set out in Schedule 1. Clause 1(5) provides that the provisions of Schedule 1 are to have effect as if an employment medical adviser were a factory inspector, and the relevant provisions of Section 146 of the Factories Act will apply to him. That means that under Section 156 of the Factories Act an occupier of a factory would be liable to a fine of £60 for obstruction of an employment medical adviser. Indeed, it will be seen that it is fully quoted in Section 156.

By removing that paragraph from the Schedule, so divorcing it from the other provisions of the Factories Act, the Opposition will relieve the occupier of any penalty for obstruction which is carried out in his factory. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that that is most undesirable, and a matter which they do not wish to achieve. I certainly support them in that view.

There is a further difficulty. Schedule 1 also includes a quotation from Section 147 of the Factories Act which refers back to Section 146(4). If we delete Section 146(4) from Schedule 1, this reference will no longer have any relevance. Therefore, the Amendment is defective in its drafting and on that ground alone could not be accepted, even if I were predisposed to accept it as moved.

I know what the Opposition are seeking to achieve. I do not wish to make a debating point out of it, because the waters of legal drafting are dark. However, I note the objective which is advanced by the Opposition.

I oppose the Amendment on two other grounds. The related point is important because it approximates to the powers granted at present to factory inspectors. The duties of the factory inspector, related to those of the employment medical adviser, are reproduced in Schedule 1. The penalty for obstructing a factory inspector is £20. Hon. Members on Second Reading, in Committee and here today have many times said that the factory inspectors and the employment medical advisers will work closely together. Surely it would be anomalous and would create difficulties if they were obstructed in a factory and the penalty for obstructing the inspector was a mere £20 whereas the penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser was £500. There would be enormous inequality leading to a great deal of difficulty.

I remind the Opposition—again, I do not wish to make a debating point, but it is relevant—that in their similar Bill, when they were in Government, the provision in this respect was £20, not £500. Inflation has not escalated that much since right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were sitting on this side of the House.

Mr. Harold Walker

Whenever I have referred to the inadequate level of penalties required by the Factories Act, I have never stopped reproaching myself for not pressing more vigorously that they should be raised. I concede that the hon. Gentleman has levelled a legitimate rebuke at me, but it cannot exceed the reproach which I feel on that score. If he believes that the one major obstacle to acceptance of the Amendment as it stands, or the principle which it embodies, is the difference between the maxima which would be obtainable for obstruction of an em ployment medical adviser and obstruction of a factory inspector under the Factories Act, I point out that there are powers within the Bill to amend the Factories Act. Indeed, the Bill amends the Factories Act. If, in another place, the hon. Gentleman wanted to bring the two into line, I can assure him that we would be more than happy to respond.

Mr. Dudley Smith

I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to amend the Factories Act. He brings me to my third point. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Robens Committee of Inquiry into Safety and Health at Work is reaching the fruition of its endeavours. Indeed, I expect that it will be considering the whole question of penalties in this sphere. The Committee may come forward with important recommendations covering the whole sphere of penalties in factories and over the whole range of health and safety at work. Surely it would be wrong to legislate piecemeal on this matter in advance of that Committee's report. Therefore, it is right that at this stage the penalties should be in line with those in the Factories Act. It may be that in due course the Factories Act will be amended and therefore this Bill will also be amended.

The third objection to the Amendment is that the figure of £500, even though it is a maximum, is completely out of scale with some of the penalties being imposed for obstruction under Acts and Bills which have been and are before the House. In the Fire Precautions Act, 1971, the fine for obstructing an inspector is £50. In the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, which is currently before before the House, the fine for obstructing a water bailiff is £100. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now before the House, the fine for obstructing an inspector under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956, will be £100.

I agree that these figures are in excess of £20, but, for the reasons which I have stated, it would be extremely difficult to make employment medical advisers out of line and out of step with factory inspectors. The fact that the whole of this sphere is being reviewed by the Robens Committee means that it would not be a helpful step for the House to accept the Amendment. Indeed, while agreeing that there may be a case in due course for increasing the penalty of £20, it is sensible to reproduce this part of the Factories Act as it is at this time. In those circumstances, again bearing in mind the defective drafting of the Amendment, we should not be wise to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Carter-Jones

It may be that fisheries and such things are important. However, we are talking about environments in which people's health can be ruined. This is of far greater importance than any other example which the hon. Gentleman quoted. Will he please take this into account?

Mr. Dudley Smith

I appreciate that point. I know full well the hon. Gentleman's sincere feelings on that point. He has spoken on it many times in the House. I generally agree with most of the points he makes. However, while it is true that we cannot equate the Bill with some of those Acts and Bills, there is a logical case for trying to keep in step penalties for the same type of offence across the board and not having one which shows a great disparity compared with the others. I would agree if this were the last word on the subject, but, as I have tried to explain, the Robens Report is imminent. Some important matters of substance may emerge from Robens, not only in this context, but in many others which we have discussed, and in consequence we shall have to take them into account.

It would be wrong now to fix an arbitrary penalty outside the provisions of the Factories Act only to find in due course that we have to revise it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said in his helpful intervention, it is not only a question always of a penalty; it is very important sometimes to take account of the publicity which results from events of this sort. The damage this can do to such undertakings is very relevant.

I realise that hon. Members opposite are not satisfied on this point, and they may wish to return to it on a future occasion. We will look with the utmost seriousness at the recommendation which will come to us from the Robens Committee in connection with the Factories Act and allied Acts, if the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. In these circum stances, I must advise my hon. Friends to reject this Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker

With the leave of the House, may I say that I do not think I have ever heard such an unconvincing case nor seen a Minister shoot himself down so effectively as the Under-Secretary when, in quoting the analagous examples from recent Statutes, he gave four examples, one of which concerned the obstruction of a water bailiff in the execution of his duties for which a fine of £100 could be imposed. What an extraordinary contrast between, for example, the obstruction of someone who may have a statutory obligation to investigate a situation such as that at Avonmouth and the water bailiff seeking to perserve the trout of a well-heeled landlord or someone like that.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the drafting of the Amendment. It is a long-standing convention of the House that while Ministers may well have to express criticism of the principle and the detailed form of drafting of an Amendment, they deal with its spirit.

If the arguments that have been advanced in support of it are sufficiently cogent to commend themselves to the House, the Minister expresses his willingness to reconsider it and in subsequent stages to see whether he can accommodate the argument. The Under-Secretary has not shown any indication of willingness to do this. I do not want to delay the proceedings, and I shall not therefore ask my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby to support my Amendment.

Once again, however, we have impressed upon the Under-Secretary—and I am glad his right hon. Friend was here to listen to my argument again—that we are very dissatisfied with the general level of penalties provided for offences concerning industrial health and safety. We hope that in making their recommendations Lord Robens and his Committee will take account of the observations which frequently and increasingly are being made in the House. I cannot withdraw my Amendment because it is a matter of principle.

This might well be the last occasion on which we express a few words about this modest but very useful Measure. I hope the Bill will speedily reach the Statute Book. I offer my very bust wishes to the service and those who participate in what I am sure will be its very useful work in industrial health and welfare.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time [Queens Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  1. WAYS AND MEANS
Back to