HL Deb 28 June 1956 vol 198 cc127-34

3.9 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Regulations for securing safety and health of employees]:

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to the clause: (8) Section nine of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948 (which provides for increasing the rent of an agricultural holding upon which the landlord has executed improvements in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of that section) shall have effect as if in that subsection the reference to compliance with a direction given by the Minister shall include compliance with regulations made under this section.

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I move because the County Councils Association, as landlords of a number of smallholdings, are rather anxious about the provisions of Clause 1. Under subsection (2) the Minister can make regulations which apply to the employers and workers, and the last three words of that subsection are "and on others". It is thought that under Clause 1 (3) (f), which deals mainly with handrails, staircases and other general improvements to buildings, it may be that the regulations will be made putting certain obligations on the owners. At the moment, under Section 9 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, if there is agreement between the landlord and tenant, to make improvements, then there is provision for adjustment of the rent. If the Minister serves a direction on the owner, in that case, too, there is provision for the adjustment of the rent. But there is considerable doubt whether, if a regulation is made under this subsection and an owner carries out those improvements—that is, without the agreement of the tenant—there is any provision for adjustment of the rent. It seems to me that there might be a certain amount of hardship if an obligation was put on the owner to carry out an improvement without subsequent adjustment in the rent. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I feel that there is some misunderstanding as to the intention of this clause. It deals primarily with the relationships between employers and workers, and it affects the landlord and tenant relationship only in a secondary way. We contemplate that the regulations under this clause will, in general, place obligations on the employer. My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney asked about the position of the landlord if, at any future date, regulations should be made which compelled him to carry out certain works on the farm. As I see it, it would be impossible—or, if not impossible, certainly impracticable—to compel a landlord, by regulation, to carry out work on property which was in the occupation of somebody else, without requiring the tenant's consent to that work. The moment the tenant's consent is required, then the provisions to which the noble Lord has referred under the Agricultural Holdings Act would auto-matically apply, and any question of rent would go to arbitration. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord wil withdraw his Amendment.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

It view of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I wish to raise a general point on this clause for the sake of clarity, and to be quite certain where we stand. I know that it is the intention of the Government that forestry workers, as well as farmworkers, should be covered by the safety provision and other provisions of the Bill, but I am not by any means certain whether the wording of the clause, as it now stands, will in fact enable the Government to use their powers to benefit forestry workers as well as farmworkers. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 says: Provision may he made by regulation under this section for protecting workers employed in agriculture… Everything hinges on the definition of the word, "agriculture". If we turn to the definition of "agriculture" at the end of the Bill, we find that it includes woodlands, and it may be the case, of course, that, by including woodlands, this 13i11 is technically covering forestry workers as well as farm workers.

I should like to make one further comment. If that is the case, it is using the word "agriculture" in a completely different sense from the way in which it is ordinarily used. When we speak of forestry and the growing of trees we use the word "silviculture," rather than the word "agriculture." "Agriculture" is used to apply to animal husbandry and the growing of crops. If the Government are using "agriculture" in this technical sense to cover forestry, then let us know that that is the case; and let us be assured that, wherever possible, the word "agriculture" will not be used in this purely technical sense, because it is forcing language into quite a different meaning from that in which it is used in ordinary speech. And, of course, it is undesirable because it may create doubts and may result in court cases.

There is one other point that I should like to raise, on the assumption that the Government intend to cover forestry workers by including woodlands in the definition of "agriculture". The people of whom we are thinking as being engaged in forestry are not only the people who are felling trees in the woods and, therefore, are working in the wood;, woodlands or forests, or whatever you like to call the wooded areas of the country, but they are also people who are working in yards sawing up the tree trunks and preparing the timber for the markets. These sawmills may not be situated in a woodland or, indeed, close to a woodland. I should like to ask the Government whether, on this definition, workers in sawmills, who clearly need protection rust as much as people who are felling timber in woods, will have the same measure of protection. Of course, an alternative method of procedure under this Bill might be to apply Clause 18, which enables the Government to use their powers under the Act to benefit persons who are employed in conditions comparable to those who are employed in agriculture. It may be that the Government are contemplating proceeding under this clause, but I think it is most important from the point of view of being quite certain that forestry workers, as well as farm workers, are covered by the Bill and to avoid doubts which may afterwards give rise to litigation, to know exactly where, at any rate on the Government's interpretation of the BIN, we stand at the moment. Perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough to explain this matter.

3.21 p.m.

LORD WISE

Before the noble Earl replies to that particular point, may I raise another point which I believe can be raised only on the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? The noble Earl may remember that on the Second Reading I raised the question of the carrying of guns and firearms on tractors and other moving machinery. I am wondering whether Her Majesty's Government have considered that matter, and whether it can be covered by the Bill.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I can assure the noble Earl that this Bill does apply to forestry workers and that they are within the category of agricultural workers. As the noble Earl pointed out, under Clause 24 there is the wore. "woodland". That is based on the definition contained in the Agricultural Wages Act, 1948. This in itself was a consolidating Act in which the principal ingredient was the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924. The definition of "agriculture" in this Act includes the use of land for woodland and has always been regarded as covering the type of worker who is now generally described as a forestry worker.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

May I ask the noble Earl whether forestry workers include workers in sawmills which may be owned and managed by timber merchants, as well as workers employed by the Forestry Commission or by woodland owners?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

No. The worker in the sawmill would not be covered by that term but, as the noble Earl is aware, there is an additional category of worker which can be included and the sawmill worker could come under that.

THE EARL' OF LISTOWEL

Under Clause 18?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Yes. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, raised the question of the carrying of guns on tractors. I should point out that any general provision of the kind which he suggested on the Second Reading debate would be outside the scope of this Bill, because, apart from the clause dealing with the prevention of accidents to children, the aim of the Bill is to secure the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in agriculture. Therefore, provision can be made in regulations under Clause I only for the workers' safety. Whether we shall, in fact, make regulations must depend on the degree of risk that there is. There is a great deal of work which has to be done on the collection and analysis of accident statistics, but I can assure the noble Lord that this point will be borne very much in mind when we are studying safety problems.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Lilting excessive weights]:

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I should like to raise a point on Clause 2. The general desirability of the clause is undoubted—that is, that there should be protection, so far as possible, against lifting unduly heavy weights. I observe that the clause is to be made administratively for operation by regulation. I am not quite sure what type of regulation the Minister may have in mind. I should think that most farmers would be in favour of this provision. A good deal is done already by sack-hoists, special wheelbarrows with hoists on them, and that kind of thing, to obviate, in most general cases in the yard, the necessity of lifting heavy weights by hand but there are many young persons under the definition of, say, over school age and up to eighteen who now do a great deal of field work on their own. Sometimes they are in charge of machinery. Sometimes something goes wrong and a heavy piece of machinery has to be lifted. The difficulty about the matter is not that there is any wrong intent on the part of the farmer or farm manager, but that very often, the enthusiastic young person bends down to lift something which is quite heavy simply for the sake of getting on with the job. It is supervision that is the real difficulty. If we could have some sort of idea of the kind of regulation that will be made in that respect, it might be helpful.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I am afraid I cannot go into any detail at this stage, because a great deal of consultation has to take place with the workers' representatives and, of course, the farmers' representatives as well. To forecast at this stage the form that these regulations will take would, I am afraid, be quite out of order. But I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Viscount has said.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Inspections by sanitary authority]:

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to subsection (1): Provided also that entry shall not be made on land by virtue of this section, if the land is a place or area or a portion of an area declared to be infected by an order made under section ten of the Diseases of Animals Act. 1950.

The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively small point. Clause 11 gives power to sanitary inspectors or their deputies to come on to farms to see whether the sanitary conveniences et cetera are adequate. The Minister, under Section 11 of the Diseases of Animals Act, has power in certain circumstances —say, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease and that sort of thing—to make regulations preventing certain movements of animals and preventing people from coming on to farms. The point here, which is again one with which the County Councils' Association are slightly concerned, is that under this Bill the sanitary inspector would have a statutory right to come on to the farm, and the farmer, under Section 2, would be committing a crime if he prevented him from doing so, That means that the inspector is given a power over and above the powers contained in the Diseases of Animals Act. The Minister's inspectors who come on under Clause 10 would presumably be prevented by administrative action, but apparently the Minister has no power to prevent the sanitary inspector, or his deputy, if he is brave enough. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I feel that the noble Lord is assuming that in this country we have a type of sanitary inspector who is entirely devoid of any sense of public responsibility. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that any inspector of a local authority would deliberately go on to a farm which was suffering from an infection such as foot-and-mouth disease when it was not absolutely essential for him to go there. I cannot absolutely guarantee it, but I feel that it is a fair presumption that these inspectors would arrange their visits to coincide with periods when the farm was free and not suffering from any infection. I do not feel that there is any need for a special provision such as the noble Lord has suggested. After all, there are other rights of entry on to agricultural land to which the same considerations apply, and I think it would be extremely dangerous to single out this particular one. I would point out to the noble Lord that, even if the inspectors did insist on going on to the farm, they would still be governed by the regulations requiring them to disinfect their persons, their hoots and their hands before leaving the farm. Therefore, I feel that this Amendment is unnecessary, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

I quite see the basis upon which the noble Earl pursues his argument, but I can sec which the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had generally in mind—namely, the protection not merely of the farmer whose premises are under order under another Act, but the, prevention of the carriage of disease, through, the farms all round. I am quite sure that, as a general body, the sanitary inspectors are excellent in these matters; but there are areas in the country, some especially adjacent to industrial areas, in which the sanitary inspector's duties are, as a rule, not much concerned with farms. I should have thought it might be possible for the noble Earl and his Ministerial colleague, 'When they are making regulations, to see that in the regulations under this Act special provision is made in regard to the particular requirements concerned with notifiable diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, and that such orders, if in operation, should be drawn to the special attention of the sanitary inspectors in the district. If something of that sort is done, either by regulation or by specific Ministerial circular to the inspectors, it may meet the situation; otherwise, I should be most happy to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I should much prefer the suggestion of the noble Viscount that a directive of some sort should go out to sanitary inspectors covering the point that has been made, and I will certainly bring that to the attention of my right honourable friend.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

With the assurance that a directive will go out, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.