§ Mr. LeeI beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 23, at end insert—
'(4A) In section 17 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (fencing of exposed parts of machinery)—shall cease to have effect.'
- (a) subsection (3),
- (b) in subsection (4), the words from ", except when any" onwards, and
- (c) subsection (5),
§ Mr. LeeThese amendments to schedules 3 and 7 and clause 7 deal with a matter that is virtually a technicality, but they have been tabled to ensure that safety standards remain at the present high level. If the amendments are not passed, there is a theoretical possibility that young people and adults may be at risk from dangerous moving parts of certain kinds of machinery.
At the moment dangerous machinery must be fenced and people may not clean or maintain it while it is moving, with one exception, that if examination, lubrication or adjustment are "immediately necessary" while the machinery is in motion, regulations can be made to allow this. If they are made, they must specify that only persons over 18 can carry out this work—section 17(5). But such regulations have never been made. So at present the law is that no one cleans or maintains dangerous machinery while it is moving.
Since the regulations envisaged in the original Act, if they had been made, would have had to specify that the maintenance could have been done only by persons over 18, the provision allowing them was caught by our general principle that unused legislation curbing the work 141 activities of under-18-year-olds should be repealed; and we have taken the advice of the Health and Safety Commission and repealed it.
But the result is that while regulations are no longer allowed to be made to specify that over-18-year-olds may carry out such work if it is immediately necessary, the work can, by virtue of section 17(3) and part of section 17(4), be done if, in the same way, it is immediately necessary, by anyone, without let or hindrance.
To ensure that our Bill maintains safety as well as removing this unused legislation, we also need to repeal the section of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 which allows examination, lubrication or adjustment to be carried out on moving machinery if it is immediately necessary. If we did not, employers could ask persons of any age to maintain dangerous machinery while it is moving, with no precautionary regulations needing to be prescribed first.
There has never been a call for such regulations to be introduced. In other words, the kind of machinery that we are talking about does not need to be in motion for those maintenance purposes.
The effect of our amendments is that the requirement to fence these machines safely will now be an absolute requirement, thus maintaining if not improving safety standards. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.
§ Mr. Harry BarnesThere has been an amazing transformation in the Government, for they are now concerned with safety. They can claim, for the first time, to be showing some compassion. So far we have had to deal with a host of matters concerning young people, women in the pits and other issues on which the Government have refused to make any concessions. That is why I am suspicious about this series of Government amendments.
Why are they amending clause 7 in this way? After all, clause 8 is concerned with young people, and one would have thought that that, rather than clause 7, should be amended. Or perhaps we need an entirely new clause to deal with the safety aspects to which the amendment refers. Clause 7 is entitled:
Repeal or modification of provisions requiring different treatment of different categories of employees.It would be more correct to call it the clause which forces women to work underground in coal mines. That being so, we must ask whether the amendment is appropriate to that clause, subsection (1) of which amends the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 to stop winding and rope haulage and conveyors from being restricted to male usage only. Subsection (2) of the clause amends the same Act to allow women and young persons to do heavy underground work. Subsection (3) provides for women working underground to work significant numbers of hours and to work whole shifts involving overtime. Subsection (4) amends the Factories Act 1961 to allow women and young persons to clean machinery, especially underground machinery, in pits. Subsection (5) allows much of the same underground nightmare for women to be enforced in the schedules to the Bill.Why are we now offered an amendment to such a clause by way of altering the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963? There are not many offices, shops or railway premises down the pits, although there are man-riders, which presumably in future will he called man and 142 woman-riders or perhaps person-riders. There are also coal trucks which are sent along rails to enable the onsetter to send coal up to the surface. But they have more similarity with railways than with railway premises, shops and offices.
Amendment No. 2 is modest, as the Minister said, in that it excludes two and a half sections of section 17 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, presumably on the ground that they cover superfluous areas in terms of protection that at present exist for those guarding machines. Section 17(1), which will remain, says:
Every dangerous part of any machinery used as, or forming, part of the equipment of premises to which this Act applies shall be securely fenced unless"—and then we have the get-out bit—it is in such a position or of such construction as to be as safe to every person working in the premises as it would be if securely fenced.I am sure that employers could drive a horse and cart through both provisions. Why is it necessary to remove the provisions in subsection (3), part of subsection (4) and subsection (5), because employers will be able to carry on doing what they have been doing with the legislation as it stands at the moment? The removal of those subsections makes little difference. On the surface it improves the former Act but there is really little advantage.Section 17(5) of the 1963 Act, which is to be removed, is a key element for the Government's purpose. It refers to
such persons who have attained the age of eighteen".There is no mention of underground coal mines, women in the pit or the primitive working conditions in a mine, including the absence of lavatory facilities, which we discussed at great length in Committee, and the other problems that exist in connection with women working in a pit, unless there is a vast improvement in conditions for everybody working in a pit.Government amendment No. 2 has more to do with clause 8 of the Bill because that is concerned with the removal of restrictions relating to the employment of young persons. Although young persons are normally in this legislation referred to as persons aged 16 to 18, at least those over 18 are a bit nearer to this clause than they are to the clause that deals with women in the pit. It would be more appropriate with regard to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, which covers wider areas than the pit, to include it in a clause such as that.
The paradox is that any future Government scheme to protect women by removing them from the primitive conditions in a pit would have to alter all the subsections of clause 7 except the provision that is in front of us at the moment. That indicates to me that this provision is irrelevant to the clause that we are discussing. Does it not show that the amendment is out of place here? Perhaps the Government should go back to the drawing board. They will find drawing boards in offices, shops and railway premises but not in pits—unless they are used as shovels in the pit as part of the toilet facilities.
§ Mr. LeeThe hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically churlish about an amendment that initially he supported in broad terms.
To answer his technical questions, the reason we are altering clause 7 and not clause 8 is that the amendment essentially concerns treating young people and adults the same rather than simply removing a restriction on young 143 people. The Government amendment makes doubly sure that young people will not be at risk from maintaining moving machinery.
We are supported in our approach by the Health and Safety Commission, which the Opposition in Committee continually quoted at us. The commission agrees that section 17(5) should be repealed. Its advice is that the provision is "obsolete" and that
if needed regulations can be made under the Health and Safety at Work Act.The amendments that we are now debating maintain a high safety standard.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 5.
144| Division No. 225] | [12.24 am |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Kennedy, Charles |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Alton, David | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Amos, Alan | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Arbuthnot, James | Knapman, Roger |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Ashby, David | Knowles, Michael |
| Baldry, Tony | Knox, David |
| Batiste, Spencer | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Lightbown, David |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Lilley, Peter |
| Boswell, Tim | Livsey, Richard |
| Bottomley, Peter | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Brazier, Julian | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Bright, Graham | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Malins, Humfrey |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Devlin, Tim | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Mills, Iain |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Durant, Tony | Mitchell, Sir David |
| Fallen, Michael | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Favell, Tony | Moss, Malcolm |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Neubert, Michael |
| Forth, Eric | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Freeman, Roger | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| French, Douglas | Norris, Steve |
| Gill, Christopher | Paice, James |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Patnick, Irvine |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Raffan, Keith |
| Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Redwood, John |
| Hague, William | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) | Ryder, Richard |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') | Sainsbury, Hon Tim |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Harris, David | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Hawkins, Christopher | Shersby, Michael |
| Heddle, John | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Hind, Kenneth | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Stevens, Lewis |
| Howells, Geraint | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Sumberg, David |
| Irvine, Michael | Summerson, Hugo |
| Jack, Michael | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Thorne, Neil | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Thurnham, Peter | Watts, John |
| Trippier, David | Wells, Bowen |
| Trotter, Neville | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Twinn, Dr Ian | Wood, Timothy |
| Waddington, Rt Hon David | |
| Wallace, James | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Waller, Gary | Mr. David Maclean and |
| Ward, John | Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory. |
| NOES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | |
| Cryer, Bob | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Lewis, Terry | Mr. Kevin Barron and |
| Skinner, Dennis | Mr. Allan Rogers. |
| Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.