New Clause A (Hansard, 8 May 1972)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)
It might be for the convenience of the House to take with it the following Lords Amendments:
No. 2, in Schedule 1, page 8, line 34, leave out and liable to a fine not exceeding £20". No. 3, in Schedule 3, page 11, line 7, at end insert and (except for offences committed before the coming into force of this Act) the words ' and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds' in subsection (4). No. 4, the Title, line 4, after "matters ", insert and in relation to the obstruction of inspectors ".

§ Mr. Smith
Lords Amendment No. 1 inserts a new Clause after Clause 6 which fixes the penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser, and also that for obstructing a factory inspector, at £100. This penalty applies both to the person doing the obstruction and to the occupier of the factory in which the obstruction takes place.
The penalty in the Factories Act, 1961 for obstructing a factory inspector is only £20, and the Bill at first proposed the same penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser. During the discussion in Committee and on Report we were pressed by the Opposition to increase the penalty in the Bill, but I resisted that on the grounds that it would be anomalous to provide a higher penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser than for obstructing a factory inspector, that an increase would in any case have little practical effect, and that it would be better to await the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Robens before doing anything to change the penalties in safety, health and welfare. But when the Bill was before another place an Amendment was carried to increase the penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser to £100, and another was tabled to make a similar increase in the penalty for obstructing a factory inspector.
The Government thought it right, in view of the importance which both 1088 Houses clearly attached to this matter, to accept both proposals, and therefore tabled Government Amendments to that effect. These were accepted in another place on Report, and they are before this House for the agreement of hon. Members.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential on Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 4 changes the Long Title of the Bill, since the previous Long Title referred only to the Amendment of the Factories Act so far as medical arrangements and related matters were concerned, and did not cover any amendment of the Act in relation to the obstruction of inspectors.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) will no doubt see the Government in this matter as sinners coming to repentance. I am sure that he will welcome this repentance, and I hope that the House will agree with the adoption of these Amendments. I saw a good deal of validity in the case put forward before but, as I tried to explain, I felt that there was this anomaly concerning the Factory Inspectorate. Happily, this can now be cleared up.
I should like to acknowledge the help and interest which we have received from the hon. Member for Doncaster and his colleagues, and indeed from hon. Members on both sides of the House, in our discussions on this Measure. I am sure the hon. Member will join me in wishing every success to this new service once it becomes established when the Bill becomes law.

§ Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)
I should like to express the support of this side of the House for the Lords Amendments and I hope to do so with the commendable brevity shown by the Under-Secretary of State. I must say right away how grateful I am for his generous remarks about myself and my hon. Friends.
In expressing our support, I hope that it is in order for me to congratulate the noble Lords in another place for what I think is the triumph for common sense which they have shown. At the same time, however, my praise is tinged with a a little humility because, as the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, we on 1089 this side twice tried and twice failed to persuade him to accept what he has now put to the House. I can only assume that it was because their Lordships in the other place were either more eloquent, more logical or more persuasive, or perhaps it was a combination of all three, that eventually, as the hon. Gentleman put it, the Government have been brought to repentance. I can only console myself with the thought and knowledge that their Lordships had very careful regard to our debates in this House, and I hope that they took their cue from our debates.
If I might make one rather critical comment about the Amendments, I think they are a rather clumsy way of achieving their objective. I know we are repeatedly reminded that parliamentary draftsmanship is a highly-skilled art and that we should not question the great expertise which is shown by parliamentary draftsmen in the drafting of Bills and the rephrasing of our Amendments. If I might say so with great respect to them, I am sometimes convinced that we laymen can perhaps do at least as well. I am sure that when their Lordships in the other place framed their Amendments, they did so with tremendous parliamentary experience. It seemed to me that their objective would have been achieved much more simply by the Amendments they tabled.
The Amendments logically underscore the much broader point we made in our debates that the ceiling of penalties provided for in the factories legislation not only had been overtaken by the passage of time and the very severe inflation we have experienced in recent years but had also been shown to be irrelevant in the light of the successive decisions of the courts that were inhibited by the level of penalties. I can only hope that Lord Robens and his committee have, as I am sure they have, paid careful regard to our debates in both Houses and the remarks that have been made before eventually he puts forward his recommendations to the Secretary of State about the necessary reform of our factories legislation.
I echo the remarks of the Under-Secretary about the future of the service. Of course I wish it well and hope that it is speedily implemented and proves to be the effective instrument we all hope and believe it will be. My best wishes go to the service and those who will staff it, 1090 with the hope that it will go forward without any further hindrance or impediment from any source.
I am particularly pleased to be in on the closing of the curtain at least on this stage of events, because I recall that it was over two years ago that I almost had the first word in the House on the creation of this new and very important service. I am delighted now to have the opportunity to say what I think and hope will be the last word on the subject