HL Deb 23 March 1972 vol 329 cc840-89

3.30 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Establishment, organisation and functions of employment medical advisory service]:

LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 18, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)".)

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name. I think and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will agree that it might be convenient if we were to consider also Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 6. If I have done my drafting correctly, the purpose in seeking to leave out the figure 4, which relates to the Schedule, is in fact to pave the way to bring in a new clause, Clause 6, relating to penalties. Since the Schedule is concerned only with reproducing certain provisions of the 1961 Factories Act it seemed to me to be essential to have this paving Amendment. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he is agreeable, because it might save the time of the Committee if I could argue in relation to penalty rather than the technical drafting.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am perfectly agreeable.

LORD SHACKLETON

It is necessary to explain to the Committee that the Government have inserted a Schedule to the Bill, Schedule 1, which reproduces certain provisions of the Factories Act in Sections 146 and 147. Among the ones they have inserted in subsection (4) of Section 146 of the 1961 Factories Act is one which lays down that the penalty for the obstruction of an inspector should be a fine not exceeding £20. I seek in Amendment No. 6 to raise that penalty to £100. If your Lordships therefore, while ostensibly debating Amendment No. 1, would appreciate that we are in fact debating No. 6, I think this will be to the convenience of the Committee.

The case for increasing the penalties is fairly obvious and I do not think the Government, although they may not wish to go into this matter too much, would necessarily wish to dispute as to whether £20 was the right amount. If £20 was right in 1961, clearly it is not right in 1972 anyway because inflation alone has rendered it out of date. But the argument that the Government, as I understand it, are likely to use in regard to this matter is that it is not logical to increase the penalty for obstructing a medical adviser to more than the penalty for the obstruction of a factory inspector. I fully grant that there is real logic in this, but I would submit that there are very powerful arguments for doing something in this Bill. First of all, we are already amending the 1961 Factories Act in certain respects by creating this new category of medical advisers. The figure of £20 is clearly a ridiculously low figure. It has been suggested, not without force, that it is so low that factory inspectors in the past have been reluctant to bring a prosecution because there really was no point if the penalty was so low, except in the case of a rather small firm. Therefore, whereas a small firm might be threatened with a penalty of this kind, it would be laughable to threaten a large firm.

I fully accept that any responsible employer would object strongly to being taken to court and convicted anyway, and that for him this is probably as powerful a sanction as there is. As somebody who has dealt with factory inspectors in industry I know that one has been able to scare line managers who have refused to take the necessary steps, because it is said, "To hell with the penalty! It is very bad for the reputation of the firm to be taken to court and to be found guilty." I fully acknowledge that this is a very important sanction. But the figure of £20 is a ridiculously low one, and since we are setting up this new service—and, as we indicated on Second Reading, we on this side of the Committee, although we have reservations in certain respects, certainly do not wish to delay the Bill—we think that logically it would be right to increase the penalty. A number of penalties have been discussed. On one occasion it was suggested there should be a penalty of £500. But the Under-Secretary, replying in another place, argued that this was excessive and he gave certain other figures. We have picked on a figure which seems to us to be analogous—the figure of £100, which is the penalty (and I think it is thanks to the Under-Secretary that our attention was drawn to this fact) for obstructing a water bailiff. If someone is trying to poach a salmon and a water bailiff comes along and is obstructed, the maximum penalty is £100. If there is any relationship at all or any meaning in fines, £20 is quite absurdly low.

I have a further purpose behind this Amendment; that is, to draw attention to the whole level of penalties in the enforcement of the Factories Acts. Let me say that I know very well that factory inspectors do not operate by means of taking people to court, and that most sensible employers have good relations with factory inspectors and, indeed, look to them for help and advice, and take that advice. But the law, of course, is designed to deal with the unsatisfactory minority, and there have been instances (indeed, I know of one) where in fact a factory inspector has said. "It is just not worth prosecuting". The maximum penalty anywhere under the Factories Acts (this does not bear on this particular point) is £300, which I believe has been enforced only once. The Robens Committee and I hope looking at this matter, and I hope very much that they will, as a result of that consideration, come up with a constructive set of proposals. I am bound to say that in our legislation introduced by the previous Government, which was very similar, we also provided no change; and I freely admit that we were wrong. In fact, the former Under-Secretary who dealt with it in another place said, "I was at fault in not putting this right." We are giving the Government an opportunity now to put this right, and I shall wait with great interest to hear what arguments the Government can deploy against what seems to me to be a very reasonable case. I beg to move.

3.40 p.m.

LORD JANNER

I should like to support the plea that has been made by my noble friend. Perhaps one of the important features of fixing a penalty which is not to exceed a certain amount is that the courts have discretion in deciding what the amount shall be. Those of us who appear in the courts—and there must be many noble Lords who are magistrates, or who appear in the courts in other capacities—are familiar with the right to be able to fix a penalty which is consistent with the circumstances of a particular case; and that is something of considerable importance. It may be, as my noble friend said, that the sum of £20 would be a ridiculous and derisory amount for a court to award against a person who has committed an offence. Certainly in the case of a large firm it would be one of a derisory nature, and it seems to me that at this stage we should consider whether we should not at least permit a penalty of a higher amount, so that if it happens to be a firm that is to blame and that firm is of some financial standing the amount should be more than it would be for a firm of a lower financial standing.

The question is, what in fact is the penalty? In the main, the vast majority of magistrates are reasonable and sensible people, and they take into consideration the means of the individual who is being charged with an offence and what effect the sum which is imposed as a penalty will have on him—or her, as the case may be. It differs considerably in cases where a person's livelihood is at stake. A small sum may mean a consideable amount to people who are not of a very great financial standing. In this particular instance I think we should leave the discretion with the court to decide upon a satisfactory penalty.

LORD REIGATE

I should like to support the Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will keep a fairly open mind about it. If it is true that the proposed fine is less than that for obstructing a water bailiff then of course it makes nonsense; it is equal nonsense if it becomes more than the fine for obstructing a factory inspector. But we cannot change all these things at once. What we have to do is to consider what is the right penalty for the offence that we are considering at the time. I must confess that if I had been drafting the Amendment I should have put the line far higher than £100f; I should have put it at £250 or even £300. So far as I can recall, the maximum fine for a highway obstruction is £50 and I cannot think that this offence is any less heinous, or indeed that it is only twice as heinous as highway obstruction. There is no real logic running through all these things. I hope my noble friend will give this point consideration, even at the risk of inconsistency. In fact we know that in practice probably on the first offence committed no fine would be imposed; there would be a conditional discharge, or something like that. In the case of a second offence I must say quite frankly that I do not think £100 is enough and possibly there ought to be an extra penalty to cover a persistent offender. All I want is that a voice from these Benches should express the hope that the Government will not say a flat "No" at this stage.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

The Minister must see that there is general agreement from both sides of the Committee; consequently I do not want to delay your Lordships too long, but I hope that cogently and succinctly I can make a brief point. I know how busy your Lordships are, but I am sure that you have read everything in the Bill. I took the trouble to read it through and saw what the powers of the inspector were and what frustrating the inspector would mean so far as the employment medical advisory service was concerned; and this fine of £20 seems derisory. Nevertheless, a first-class and constructive point has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate: that a certain amount should be fixed; but I am not too sure that I agree completely with my noble friend about leaving magistrates to wibble and wobble all over the place. I do not intend to get into a discussion with the noble Lord and I do not want to be interrupted, but I should not like to leave the penalty too open. I want a sum to be spiked down that is commensurate with the magnitude of the offence. If I speak any longer I shall bore the Committee, and I am sure we have convinced the Minister that it is worth while accepting the Amendment.

LORD SEGAL

I would ask the Minister to consider this Amendment favourably. I think it is true to say that there is not one of your Lordships who is not deeply concerned about the pollution of the environment. Here we have an Amendment that is concerned with the pollution of the human factors in the environment—not a temporary pollution which can be removed but one which can have a lasting, and perhaps even fatal, effect upon the individual; and in my view even a maximum fine of £100 is quite derisory.

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

I should like to make one of the briefest speeches on record, before the Minister replies. The trade union movement has always been concerned at the paucity of factory inspectors. There are not enough to carry out the duties which they are supposed to carry out, and if they are going to he offended by derisory fines of £20, at the end of the day even the small number of factory inspectors that we have will become even smaller. I am surprised that the penalty called for is only £100 in the light of the inflationary effect on the pound at the present time. Most employers join with us in maintaining safety standards so far as the work is concerned, but if a small number of employers are going to get off with derisory fines of £20 then the Act will be completely worthless.

3.48 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said that there was general agreement, but perhaps I may be allowed to have my say before it is decided whether or not there is general agreement. I certainly agree that everyone who has spoken has been in favour of the Amendment, and I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives behind the Amendment. But there are reasons, which I hope will commend themselves to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee, why I find it difficult to recommend that this Amendment should be accepted.

The first reason is a technical one and I hope the Committee will bear with me while I explain it. I suspect that the Amendment does not do exactly what those who moved it intended it to do. As it stands, the Amendment does not apply any penalty for obstruction to the occupier, unless he is the person doing the obstruction. The corresponding provision in the Factories Act, which is reproduced in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 and which the noble Lord wants to leave out, attracts a penalty on the occupier up to the general penal provision. If we were to pass this Amendment as it is drafted there would be no penalty at all on the occupier unless he was the person doing the obstruction. Of course the Factories Act imposes a much higher penalty on the occupier than on the person doing the obstruction. I quite agree that the penalties seem low 12 years after they were originally enacted, but the relativity was three times as much on the occupier as on the person actually doing the obstruction. So the effect of removing the paragraph from the Schedule and so divorcing it from the other provisions of the Factories Act is to relieve the occupier of any penalty for obstruction unless he is the person who obstructs the employment medical adviser. I do not suppose that is what the noble Lord wanted any more than it is what we should want.

The second reason is one which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has rather anticipated. It does arise from the fact that Schedule 1 is a quotation from the Factories Act, and it gives the employment medical advisers some of the powers of factory inspectors. The penalty for obstructing a factory inspector is £20. Employment medical advisers and factory inspectors will be working closely together, as I said on Second Reading, and it would be not only anomalous but I should have thought highly undesirable if the two of them were obstructed in the same factory and the penalty for obstructing the inspector was only £20 while the penalty for obstructing the employment medical adviser was £100.

The next reason is this. I have checked up to see how often the corresponding penalty in the Factories Act has been used. During the last five years there have been only three cases taken up for obstruction of a factory inspector, two in 1967 and one in 1971. I just do not know whethter the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is right in suggesting that one of the reasons may be that the penalty was low. I merely tell the Committee that fact; but I can also tell the Committee this fact, that none of those cases related to the obstruction of a medical inspector of factories. The medical inspectors of factories are going to be absorbed into the employment medical adviser service, so this is what we are really talking about. None of those cases related to obstruction of a medical inspector of factories. Raising the penalties would have little, if any, practical effect.

I think one must also recognise that the truth is that it is very unlikely that an employment medical adviser will be obstructed. He is, after all, an adviser; he is not an inspector. A factory inspector goes into the factory to enforce the law, and he can prosecute the occupier if he finds serious non-compliance. But the employment medical adviser will not have power to prosecute as he is working for an advisory service. Of course, I suppose someone might say that I am proving too much, and of course I must add that this does not mean that the law should provide no penalty at all for obstructing an employment medical adviser. But it certainly does mean that there is no justification for imposing a higher penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser than for obstructing a factory inspector.

I agree with noble Lords that the existing penalty of £20 may be out of date, but the time to alter this penalty—the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, really almost suggested this himself—will come when we legislate on the recommendations of the Robens Committee. It seems likely that the Committee will have considered the level of penalties over the whole field of safety, health and service, and even if they do not the time to legislate would be then and not now. It would, I suggest, be undesirable to make piecemeal changes in penalties in this field in advance of that Committee's Report, unless it could be shown that there was an urgent and pressing necessity to increase the deterrent effect of the penalty. But since there have been no prosecutions in recent years there is no such necessity in this case, and therefore I suggest to noble Lords that it is better not to tinker with this in a piecemeal way but to wait for the legislation and deal with it at the same time as the factory inspectors.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am really rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, used the argument that there have been no prosecutions brought for obstructing a medical inspector as an argument for not increasing the penalty. The weakness of this particular logic must be entirely apparent to the Committee. It is a logical argument for having no penalty at all—not in fact a convincing one because, as I said in my opening remarks it is the existence of the penalty on those who will not co-operate which makes it unnecessary to enforce it in a court of law. It may equally, as the noble Lord admitted, be interpreted that the penalties are so low as not to be worth bothering about. I think this is not a particularly valuable area in which to speculate.

First of all, under the technical part of his argument that this Amendment is defective, I am quite prepared to accept that he is right, though I should like to look more closely at what he has said. I assume that he has in mind Section 155 of the 1961 Act. He did not explain how it was that it did not apply to the occupier of the factory as opposed to the actual person obstructing, but he need not bother; I will accept his word for that. But it would be perfectly easy to put that matter right. We know perfectly well that it is possible to draft a proper Amendment. The Opposition move Amendments and they have not got the resources for drafting, but very often if the Government accept the principle they will come back and say they will do the necessary drafting. What is a particular handicap to us is the speed with which the Government are moving. They want to take the Report stage of this Bill on the next sitting day of the House; this gives us very little time, and after then it will be too late to proceed.

I should like the Minister to say that he will accept this Amendment in principle but would ask us not to press it while he makes a suitable drafting Amendment, if ours is inadequate. I really cannot accept the argument that the time to do this is when Robens reports. That would be an argument, which I am glad the Government did not employ, for not introducing this Bill at all at the moment. But they say Robens says that it is all right to do so, and they have seen fit to go ahead. This we welcome.

To argue that it is absurd to have a £20 penalty for obstructing a factory inspector and £100 for obstructing an employment medical adviser when both penalties are not necessarily satisfactory does not seem to be valid. Equality of unsatisfactoriness does not seem to be necessarily a principle that I would have thought commended itself to the present Government. I thought they believed in inequality of unsatisfactoriness. In this case, £100, which I would agree is inadequate, is nevertheless symbolic of a recognition of the importance that we attach to this matter. Furthermore, it will help to focus the attention of the Robens Committee on this matter. I ask the Government to say that they will accept this Amendment in principle. I feel strongly on a matter which is of real importance and on which there is real concern, and on which some of my trade union colleagues have spoken. I should like the Government to say that they are prepared to draft a suitable Amendment for the Report stage. I do not see how we can let this matter go on the sort of arguments the noble Lord has put forward, because I do not believe they convince any of your Lordships.

4.0 p.m.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

I am glad that my noble friend has pressed this point. This has been quite a constructive discussion. We have spoken about the Robens Committee. I remember the Dale Committee Report 21 years ago that was going to introduce an industrial health scheme throughout the factory system of Britain. This, one day and very soon, we need to see. We thought this might be a stepping stone. In his heart, the Minister has accepted our Amendment; and if he is going into the technicalities and the drafting of it, all the kindly Ministers can do is to say: "I can help these noble Lords opposite and on my side who do not understand the technicalities of drafting. Do they not see they have made mistakes?" But on the other hand, so has the Minister in quoting to us made a mistake.

I must read our Amendment to peg out the logic of what we are asking for. We are saying in this Amendment: Where an employment medical adviser is obstructed"— and we are giving him the same powers as the factory inspector— in the execution of his powers or his duties"— now watch this sentence— the person obstructing him shall be guilty of an offence"— and we shall put parenthesis there, then we shall say and liable to a fine not exceeding £100,"— I should like to have seen a figure of £500, but I will not argue that now— and where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory, the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence. In other words I would have had both of them up before the "beak". That is the absolute logic of that sentence. Therefore, we need a little help here.

Let us get on with this Bill. I want to catch a train but the Robens Report is having a traumatic effect upon me. I want to assure the Committee that there are certain things that stand out in a man's lifetime. For me, for instance, Torquay stands out. I was going there for my honeymoon when I could save up enough money to pay for it. My wife and I talked about it for three years before we went. I have been hearing about the Robens Report, and that when that comes miracles are going to happen. Let us help the miracle to happen by accepting this Amendment in principle. It is not quite right, but as we agree in principle I assure the Committee that we will bring forward on the Report stage an explanation that I hope the House will accept. I make this appeal to the Minister because we can go rollicking along with the Amendments if he says "Yes".

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

I have no train to catch, but I have been trying to catch up with this problem for forty years, so catching a train does not matter very much to me. I have asked myself on many occasions in this House whether we can have civilisation without legislation, and when we were dealing with the Industrial Relations Bill I observed that those on the Government Benches were very concerned about the necessity for legislation in respect of the desires they then had. I want legislation to protect our people from the evils which industry brings to them to-day. Whilst in industry I lived with my people who had gone deaf, who had developed cataracts, who had gone blind and who had suffered all sorts of penalties. Those industries are now giving out to their members multiplied penalties so far as physique is concerned. I am therefore extremely concerned about this issue.

I was concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that there have been no prosecutions. I would ask him to pause and think about this matter. Trade unions have come to the position when they ask themselves, "Is a prosecution going to be effective? Can we be more effective?". And if the trade unions find that a strike is more effective than a prosecution, they will strike. Can you imagine anything being less effective than a £20 penalty on an employer for destroying the health of the men whom trade unions represent? You will recognise that I could go on at some length on this matter. I am not prepared to accept anything less than a £100 penalty for this offence, whatever my Front Bench may say. I think £100 is a parsimonious penalty on those who would destroy the health of the men who sent me to the Trades Union Congress and finally to this House.

I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who I know has a good deal of humanity about him, to think these things over and to consider in his wisdom whether he is not giving support for opposition to the Industrial Relations Act if he proposes a £20 penalty for an offence of this character. He should remember that no cases are unrelated, and if he insists in this argument now that £20 is enough, he will be in a very weak position when he sits on the Front Bench, representing the Government in this House, and comes to argue the consequences of the Industrial Relations Act. The amount shown here is so parsimonious as not to be worth a moment's discussion, much less the missing of a train, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.

VISCOUNT HANWORTH

We have of course no guarantee that legislation will follow the Robens Report at any reasonable time scale. I therefore feel that we should put this matter right and get a reasonable penalty into the Bill. There are many penalties that will have to be reconsidered if they are to be effective, in this and in other fields. I should therefore feel extremely sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, withdrew this Amendment, unless he first obtained from the Minister the assurance that he has asked for.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I think I ought to put this point to noble Lords opposite, because from the way they have put their arguments I do not believe that they really understand the matter. The medical inspectors of factories and what will be the employment medical advisers work on a voluntary basis. They have statutory powers behind them. The evidence is that the kind of inspections, the kind of examinations, that are carried out in dangerous and hazardous trades, are the very ones which the employers themselves want to have carried out. There has never been any difficulty for the inspectors in getting access. I am not talking of the factory inspectors at the moment; just now, I am talking of the medical advisers. In carrying out their statutory duties here they are unlikely to have any opposition. Of course this is an advisory service and in many of their cases where they request—and "request" is the word—that they may be allowed to come in, the requests are accepted. I am not aware that orders had to be made for entry. Where the requests are made, it may very well be because a medical adviser has some reason to think that there is something wrong with the health of a particular individual which may arise out of his work. The medical adviser may have got this information from the man's practitioner. He may receive information also from the school health service and may go along in those circumstances to examine a young person. Again, he may be carrying out or co-operating in a survey to find out whether there are health hazards. In that case such and such an inspector may be selected for the purpose. But these are circumstances in which employers do co-operate. What I am trying to say to noble Lords is that I think it would he a great mistake to try to turn this Bill into a kind of punitive Bill. This is the list, and this is not a minor point—

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

If the noble Lord says that we should not turn this into a punitive Bill, may I ask why there is a penalty in it in the first place? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that this fine is only 40 per cent. of the fine which one can have for not having a television licence?

LORD DRUMALBYN

I suppose the answer to why is there a penalty in the first place, is that this penalty is reproduced from the Factories Act. I do not ask noble Lords to look at any one of my arguments by itself, but to take the arguments together. There is the disparity that would arise with the factory inspectors and the fact that there does not appear to be any real need for an increase in the deterrent at the present time. It seems to me that in regard to the employment medical adviser—I am not talking about the factory inspector; that is not covered in the Bill—there is really no need for any increase in the fine. That being so, is it not better, rather than to deal with the matter piecemeal, to see the sort of scale of fines that Robens will suggest when he comes to report? I am always willing to consider the case that has been put up, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment to-day.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord is always perfectly straightforward with the House. He has not attempted to lure us by saying that he will consider it. Of course his argument simply amounted to saying "accept Amendment No. 1", which actually strikes out the penalty entirely, whereas of course, I am trying to insert a new penalty. I do not believe that this is good enough. I think we shall need to divide. It was said that everything is friendly and co-operative, and I do not doubt that in the majority of cases it is. But this is where the sanction of the law is sought, and presumably that is why the noble Lord's right honourable friend left this particular penalty in. It need not have been reproduced from the Factories Act. They have not reproduced all the sanctions. I think that the sum of £100 has a very important symbolic significance in this matter, and I certainly hope that the noble Lord will he required by the Committee to think heavily again by inserting this Amendment into the Bill.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Before the noble Lord puts the Question to the Committee, may I ask him a question? I take it that we should be voting on Amendment No. 1. But this is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 6, which is the vital Amendment, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has already referred. It was on Amendment No. 6 that I wanted to ask the noble Lord. The Amendment says: … where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory, the occupier of that factory shall he guilty of an offence. But the employment medical adviser might he obstructed by anybody; it may he by a workman. Why should the occupier of the factory be guilty of an offence? I am afraid I do not follow.

LORD DOUGLASS or CLEVELAND

Is it likely that a trade unionist is going to obstruct a factory inspector protecting his interests?

VISCOUNT SIMON

It is not a factory inspector; it is a medical employment adviser. Perhaps he wants to examine the workman and the workman does not want to be examined.

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

I can come in on this point because I have experience of it. That was forty years ago, and I have grown up. Not only have I grown up but the Government have grown up. This is the important thing. There was a distinct danger forty years ago that a medical examination would have put me out of a job because the medical examiner was employed by my employer and my employer did not want me. There was a distinct suspicion that he might have put me out of a job.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Of course the noble Lord realises that that situation could not arise under this Bill.

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

I am answering the question asked by my noble friend on the Liberal Benches and not by the Minister. I hope that he will be my noble friend before we finish. The trade unions, knowing that these things existed thirty or forty years ago, decided that the only method of dealing with this particular problem was to make themselves strong; and strong they have made themselves. If your Lordships have any doubts about this, look at the penalties under the Industrial Relations Act and compare them with the £20 penalty under this particular Bill, and observe the reaction from trade unionists when they read the two Acts and see the penalty that will be imposed for obstruction in the one case, and that in the other case when they are opposing something that the Government want in that particular Act.

LORD JANNER

Will the noble Lord excuse me for interrupting? It is a maximum penalty of £20, not a £20 penalty.

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

I am bobbing up and down like a belly dancer, but I do not mind. I do not want penalties; the trade union movement does not want penalties, and it does not need them because it is strong enough now to look after itself—make no mistake about that. But this Government are asking the trade unions to co-operate with them, and God knows! I have tried to co-operate with Governments over the last thirty years as a pretty influential official inside the T.U.C. All I want is to reach an agreement that where employers will not be reasonable, there shall be a penalty on them which will be commensurate with the offence they commit.

The T.U.C. are not very much bothered if this is not done because they can look after themselves. But I ask the question: can you have civilisation without legislation? If you want legislation, so far as the trade union movement is concerned it will have to be made equal when it applies in opposite directions. If employers are going to be offensive so far as this is concerned, there has to be a penalty on the employers. The Government cannot argue that there should not be a penalty on employers when they are seeking to impose a penalty on the trade unionists. That is the point I am trying to make. If the Government introduce the right sort of legislation, the right sort of penalty on the right sort of people, then they will come much nearer to reaching agreement with the trade unions than they will if they argue, as they are arguing to-day, that the right sort of a penalty for an offence against humanity is £20, and that the penalty so far as the Industrial Relations Act is concerned is hundreds of pounds. This sort of thing will not go down. I am appealing to the Government to work with us for the purpose of getting the right sort of provisions in all the Bills brought before this House.

LORD SHACKLETON

I do not think we want to continue this interesting discussion much longer. I would only say to the noble Viscount who asked a particular question that we have precisely restated the provisions that are in the Factories Act that apply in relation to the employer, the occupier, or the individual. It was pointed out that in certain respects there was misunderstanding, but rather than go further into this matter I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is all right. I think that the Committee should now come to a decision.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Before we come to a decision I think it is only right to point out again that the Amendment is defective as it now stands.

LORD SHEPHERD

It can be put right.

LORD DRUMALBYN

It does not seem to be good sense to pass now an Amendment which is incorrect.

VISCOUNT MONCK

May I ask my noble friend one question before we go into the Lobby? There is a certain amount of restlessness in what I might call the cheaper seats, and some of us do not see why the fine for a medical offence should be five times greater than for a factory inspector offence. At the same time, the suggestion has been made that when the Robens Report is made a new schedule of penalties could be suggested. If that is so, does that mean that this Bill should be amended to conform?

LORD DRUMALBYN

Yes.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord is very optimistic in assuming that it necessarily will. We hope that it will and that this will help the Amendments in the right direction; but it may be some years ahead.

4.19 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD SHACKLETON

We wish at this moment to ask the intentions of the Government; whether they intend to continue with this Bill, and indeed whether they will continue in office at all?

EARL JELLICOE

Perhaps I should rise to inform the noble Lord of what he must already know; that the intentions of this Government, as always, are entirely honourable.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Geddes of Epsom, L. Reigate, L.
Amherst, E. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Amulree, L. Hanworth, V. Sainsbury, L.
Annan, L. Henley, L. St. Davids, V.
Archibald, L. Heycock, L. Segal, L.
Arwyn, L. Hoy, L. Sempill, Ly.
Auckland, L. Hughes, L. Serota, Bs.
Beswick, L. Hylton-Foster, Bs. Shackleton, L.
Brockway, L. Jacques, L. Shepherd, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Janner, L. Shinwell, L.
Burton of Coventry, Bs. Jessel, L. Silkin, L.
Chalfont, L. Llewlyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. Simon, V.
Champion, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Somers, L.
Citrine, L. Longford, E. Stocks, Bs.
Cottesloe, L. Loudoun, C. Stonehaven, V.
Crook, L. McLeavy, L. Stow Hill, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Merthyr, L. Summerskill, Bs.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Moyle, L. Vivian, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Nunburnholme, L. Walston, L.
Effingham, E. Ogmore, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Evans of Hungershall, L. Onslow, E. Willis, L.
Fiske, L. Phillips, Bs. [Teller.] Wootton of Abinger, Bs.
Foot, L. Raglan, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Albemarle, E. Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Moyne, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Falkland, V. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Alport, L. Ferrers, E. Northchurch, Bs.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Gainford, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Balerno, L. Grimston of Westbury, L. Oakshott, L.
Belstead, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Rathcavan, L.
Blake, L. Robertson of Oakridge, L.
Bourne, L. Howard of Glossop, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Ironside, L. St. Helens, L.
Caccia, L. Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Sandford, L.
Conesford, L. Lansdowne, M. Sandys, L.
Courtown, E. Lothian, M. Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Craigavon, V. Macleod of Borve, Bs. Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Daventry, V. Mancroft, L. Sudeley, L.
de Clifford, L. Merrivale, L. Teviot, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Milverton, L. Thomas, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Molson, L. Vernon, L.
Dundee, E. Monck, V. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Ebbisham, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.] Wolverton, L.
Eccles, V. Young, Bs.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs.
LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move Amendment No. 2.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 25, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)").—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.27 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 5, after ("advisers") insert (", the number of whom shall be not less than one hundred and ten full time or their equivalent,")

The noble Baroness said: I hope that the Committee will consider this Amendment with the same sympathy as they extended to my noble friend who moved the last Amendment. This is a very important Bill and these Amendments have been put down after the most careful consideration. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, considers with perhaps a little more sympathy what I have to say and does not accuse me of tinkering with the Bill, he may prevent us going into the Division Lobbies again. There should be no ambiguity about the purpose of this Amendment, which is simply to ensure that the number of medical advisers shall be the same as the number proposed in the original Bill. The Committee will recall that the original Bill was introduced by the last Labour Government and was in many respects similar to this Bill. But there are two matters, one of which we have just divided upon, in respect of which the Government, for some extraordinary reason—because behind the scenes many of the same people must have been concerned in drafting the Bill—have decided to adopt a different policy.

My Amendment is a very simple one. I spoke very strongly on the Second Reading of this Bill—and I have every sympathy with my noble friend behind me—because, of course, this Bill is concerned with the high incidence of industrial injuries and industrial diseases in our country. One has only to read the Annual Reports of the Factory Inspector to realise (and I am sorry to say this) that ours is a shameful record in this respect. Yet here we have a Bill which in some respects will be responsible for increasing this tragic death rate. It is a quite extraordinary thing, but there has been one very serious omission from this Bill. The Government have completely omitted to mention industrial safety. In fact, there is no mention of industrial accidents at all; the Bill is concerned only with industrial diseases.

Furthermore, when one is considering how many doctors should be used, no doubt the Treasury came into the picture, and I am really shocked to find that the Treasury decreased the original amount of £1 million, which was calculated as the cost of the provisions of the last Bill, to £850,000. Everyone knows that, as a result of inflation, the Treasury, far from decreasing that £1 million, should have been concerned with increasing the cost attributed to this Bill. Is this one reason why the Government have decided to decrease the number of doctors? Under this Bill, 50 full-time doctors and the part-time equivalent of a further 50, making a total of 100, will be used. In the original Bill, 110 full-time doctors, or their equivalent, was considered the minimum number. Now the Government, in a Bill of this serious nature, have cut the number of medical advisers by nearly 10 per cent. This is an economy which should not be accepted by this House.

Then the Government say that to the 100 doctors (instead of the 110 proposed earlier) will be added some nurses. I agree that on Second Reading I said that, in the light of some of the reports on industrial injuries and industrial diseases, which are of such a serious nature, I believe that if we had nurses who had taken a course in industrial hygiene and industrial medicine, and flooded our factories with these women, they might well do better than some of the doctors had done in the past. But there is no question here of introducing 100 nurses. It seems that all the Government are doing is to introduce a few nurses as a substitute for the 10 per cent. of doctors whom they have eliminated by the provisions of this Bill. Therefore the talk of supporting staff is really a mention of the economy they have effected.

I think I have put the point as shortly and as plainly as I can. Here we have a Bill of first importance to our industrial workers, and the Government have seen fit to economise in money and, even more, to economise in medical personnel. If these two economies are effected, that must inevitably affect the quality of the service. I therefore ask your Lordships to support this Amendment. This new service will have a far-reaching effect in our great industrial towns; and nobody in this House would say that the industrial worker does not deserve the best medical service that we can possibly provide. I beg to move.

4.45 p.m.

LORD SEGAL

In rising to support my noble friend Lady Summerskill on this Amendment, I should like to remind the Minister of the words he himself used when introducing this Bill on Second Reading. If I may quote from his remarks he said: We estimate that at present about one-third of the factory population have their own works medical services. To cover the remaining two-thirds would, we estimate, need some 2,000 doctors and cost about £20 million".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/3/72, cot. 228] How far are the Government prepared to go to meet this need, which they themselves admit? This Bill provides for only the equivalent of 100 full-time medical officers. Already the Minister has stated that there are something like 50 works medical officers employed in their own factories. We all recognise the tremendous services that have been rendered to industrial medicine by the medical officers employed by private firms. Many of them are pioneers in industrial medicine; and I would have wished that the Minister had put forward some scheme for co-operation with the existing medical officers employed by private firms. Some of them have medical provisions of so high a standard that it is bound to minimise the work done by the medical officers employed under this new advisory service. What this Amendment asks for is not the equivalent of 2,000 doctors, which we know would be quite unattainable, but merely that an additional 10 medical officers should be added to the 100 already suggested by the Government. Surely that is the most modest request that any Amendment could possibly make.

I am concerned not only with the actual quantitative provisions of this Bill by the addition of the equivalent of 50 full-time medical officers. What is far more important is the qualitative factor; and I would ask the Minister whether he could not consider inserting in this clause some provision to ensure that the medical officers he intends to recruit should be men of some experience in medical practice—preferably with about seven years' or at least five years' experience in general practice, so that they fully understand the psychological background to industrial illness especially as it relates to the family circumstances and to the whole approach to the employee's background. There are so many factors here which are of vital importance to the Bill. In the regional medical service of the Ministry of Health it is a requirement that any doctor recruited into the service should have several years' experience of general practice; and in the case of this Bill I should like to see some provision made to ensure that the doctors recruited are men of some senior standing, preferably of some years' experience of medicine after qualification—and, if possible, recruited from the ranks of medical officers in any of the three Services. From my personal acquaintance I know that there is first-class material there, certainly in the medical branch of the Royal Air Force, which often has a close and intimate acquaintance with conditions in aircraft factories supplying the needs of the Service.

I would urge the Minister, when he comes to redraft some of the clauses of this Bill (which to my mind seriously need re-drafting) also to consider inserting, after the mention of there being not less than 100 full-time medical officers or their equivalent, the words, "of at least five years' professional standing". I think this factor is of vital importance to the success of this new medical advisory service, and if the Minister has set his heart on making this new venture in industrial medicine a real success, I would strongly urge him to consider the insertion of some words to the effect I have suggested.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Baroness has put her case very clearly, but I think she will be the first to recognise that the case she has put is somewhat unusual. It is very rare indeed in this kind of circumstance to specify the minimum number of employees; in fact, I understand that it is never done. I think the second thing she probably does not recognise is that calculations of the work-load have always to be made. This can vary from time to time, and it is not possible to make an exact mathematical calculation. The Department of Employment has based its staffing figures on the known work-load arising from statutory periodic medical examination and on the best estimate we have been able to make of the time involved on other duties of employment medical advisers.

The noble Lord, Lord Segal, said that better use should be made of the existing works medical officers. They, too, can be used. No doubt the calculations also take into account the fact that they can be used for the statutory periodic medical examination. It is not proposed to eliminate them altogether from that work. The one major change in the staffing from that proposed under the original Bill is in the employment of nurses. That is not to reduce the cost of the Bill or because we think that nurses are a cheap substitute for doctors. It is because we are sure, in accordance with current developments in medicine, that there are some things which are better done by nurses, and that they have a positive contribution to make to the work of the Service. I am sure the noble Baroness will support the Government in this and agree that the introduction of nurses is a good thing. We are starting with only a few nurses but we shall of course increase the number as the need arises.

Before the Committee makes up its mind on this matter I think it will be worth while if I explain in a little more detail the way in which the service will be organised and the basis on which these estimates were made. The service will be headed by a chief employment medical adviser and two deputies. They will work at headquarters and be supported by six other doctors, together with technical and administrative staff who will help both with the running of the service and also with providing services that need to be centralised—for example, the pathological laboratory, the planning and management surveys and an information service. The field organisation has been worked out on the basis of the distribution of industry, as I explained on Second Reading, together with the location of the Government training centres and industrial rehabilitation units and the spread of the estimated work-load. In calculating the work-load the Department is able to make a fairly exact estimate of the time which the employment medical advisers will need to spend on their statutory duties. Our estimate of the time they will spend on their advisory duties is necessarily far less precise, but it was assessed on the best available advice from works medical officers.

The full-time advisers will be based on the main centres of industry and population; the less industrialised parts of the country will be covered by the part-time advisers. Within this general structure it is proposed that there shall be substan- tial groups of full-time advisers in the major conurbations. This will allow the development of a degree of specialisation among those advisers which will be of considerable benefit to the service as a whole. At this stage, it is not possible to be precise about the exact division between full-time and part-time doctors, but our estimate is that when the service is in operation there will be about 78 full-time doctors and 42 part-time doctors.

I can assure the Committee that the need for additional employment medical advisers will be considered as the service develops. But surely it would be quite inappropriate to attempt to regulate the number of employment medical advisers in the service in the way proposed, which, as I say is, to the best of my knowledge, without precedent in the Civil Service. It could have some undesirable consequences. Among others it would mean that the service could not start to operate until there were a sufficient number of full-time and part-time doctors in post to give the equivalent service that 110 full-time doctors would give. It would also mean that if the service fell below 110 it would be unable to operate lawfully. This is the reason why this kind of thing is not specified in legislation.

I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will keep the staffing under review to ensure that the employment medical advisory service can do its job properly and efficiently on a countrywide basis. I can see no justification for restricting my right honourable friend's discretion as is proposed in the Amendment. We feel that it is better to start the service in a fairly modest way and build up as need arises. The staffing of the service will be kept under the closest supervision, and I can assure the noble Baroness that it will be increased as necessary to ensure that it is able to cope with its functions efficiently and well.

The noble Lord, Lord Segal, spoke about the qualifications and the training required. This aspect has been looked at very carefully. The vacancies will of course be advertised, and careful note will be taken of the qualifications of those applying. It may be that some recruits into the service will be obtained from works medical officers, but I think the noble Lord may rest absolutely assured that the very greatest care will be taken about this. In addition, as I explained on Second Reading, all those who are recruited will be given a period when they will go round with the existing medical adviser—the former medical inspector—and there will be special courses for them before they actually go into service. In fact there is a special allocation in the first year for this purpose. So I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured on this score. But I am afraid that, for the reasons I have given, we cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD SHACKLETON

I agree that it is an unusual thing to put a figure like this into a Bill of this kind. If I remember rightly, it was the previous Government which introduced the manpower tag, as well as the cash tag, on Bills for the information of Parliament. But I must confess to a feeling almost of depression at the noble Lord's speech. It never occurred to me that we should want to divide on this Amendment. We have put it down in order to probe the Government's intentions. The noble Lord tells us that this figure of 100 is an estimate. I think I am fair in saying that we cannot be exact in this matter, and I think I am interpreting him correctly. If we cannot be exact, why on earth have the Government altered the original figure of 110? If this sort of thing is done, it is bound to arouse suspicion.

I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Summerskill—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, confirmed this—and I should like to see a great extension of the use of trained nurses and sisters throughout industry. It is some satisfaction that the Bill includes certain proposals in this respect, and I welcome them. But I understand that it is not suggested (I do not think that the noble Lord used this argument) that this is meant to replace the 10 doctors, because that would be inconsistent with his argument that it is not possible to be precise. I note that there are going to be 110 supporting nursing, executive and clerical staff. Perhaps they thought it tidier to have 100 there and not to have 110 twice. I do not know.

But what is now causing me even more anxiety is another matter. The noble Lord was good enough to send me a letter with regard to a mistake that he made on Second Reading. He was good enough to apologise. I fully accept that Ministers in this House who have to cover so much ground occasionally get an argument wrong. It was a bit of a "howler", but I have the fullest sympathy for him. He was seeking to explain why the million pounds to which my noble friend Lady Summerskill referred had been reduced to £850,000. What he said in the House—and I am sure he will not mind my repeating this—was this. One of the reasons for this is the introduction of the selective system of examining young persons. If I remember aright, the original Bill represented a continuation of the system of examining all young persons entering factories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/3/72; col. 266.] I am amazed that I (or anybody else) failed to pick that up at the time. I am sure the noble Lord will admit that it was a bit of a "howler".

Then he had to produce other reasons as to how this saving was to be made—and I shall have something to say about this on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part? There are, for instance, reductions in laboratory costs from £200,000 to £70,000—owing partly to the development of improved methods by the medical laboratories and partly because of revised and more accurate estimates of the numbers of tests. He then said that this reduction has to some extent been offset by an increase in salary costs though this is not as great as it would have been because of the slight reduction in the number of doctors employed.

I am bound to say that I think that this is not an objective examination; it is not a decision in principle that 100 is better than 110. It is an attempt to save money at a time when it is apparent to us all that the needs are greater than we expected. There are the developing problems of particular forms of industrial poisoning such as in lead; and we have had, of course, the extraordinary examples of box girder bridges—quite apart from Avonmouth. I do not see that the Government have given a satisfactory explanation of the reduction in numbers. I really do not know what to do. I really should consult my noble friend on what to do, for the Government have given an inadequate explanation. The noble Lord has done his best. I am rather inclined to think that we probably ought to divide. The Government are not going to get this Bill through very quickly. There will have to be other alterations. If my noble friend wants to divide, I think we should agree to do so, unless we can be given some reasons which we have not been given. But I think this figure is put in simply in order to make the sums come out.

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

May I support this Amendment? I have worked in an industry where the impact of noise on the ears has been such that 80 per cent. of steelworkers to-day suffer from industrial deafness, which is not defined by the medical profession. It is not defined because not enough doctors understand it. Here we are arguing about a handful of doctors and what they are going to cost. We on this side are arguing as to whether we can understand the problem, much less deal with it. Do we understand this particular problem? Let us take pneumoconiosis, a matter which miners always raise in discussions on industrial diseases. They do so because this is an evident example of where lungs are destroyed by dust. How many other industries have employees whose lungs are destroyed by dust? Is it not more serious now—because of the toxic materials these people are handling which have been proved to cause cancer? We do not even begin to understand that particular problem. All that this Amendment asks is to obtain enough qualified people to understand the problem—not to deal with it for that legislation will have to come after. We are talking about the cost of a handful of doctors, no more.

My feelings are so strong after a lifetime in industry and with sympathetic employers. When you come to safety matters I would say that if I put to the employer in the steel industry that I wanted to employ another half dozen doctors there would have been no question. They would have been delighted. But when we talk to the Government about employing a handful of doctors in the whole industry we get resistance. Why cannot the Minister accept the inevitability of the arguments put forward instead of quibbling technically about the cost? I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I have always tried to be reasonable in this House. I have sat silent many times when I have wished to resist. But here we are dealing with the health of our fellow men, with the existence in decent circumstances of people who are employed in industries where we do not understand the problems. We are asking your Lordships' help to understand these problems. I would divide even if the Committee were to go against us to-day because I guarantee that before the next Election the country will come with us.

LORD SEGAL

May I add a further word? The Minister's explanation of the working of this service was hardly as forthcoming as it might have been. He said that of the 100 doctors—equivalent full-time doctors—some 28 will be part-time. But will these 28 be sufficient to cope with the work that will devolve upon them? Can he give an assurance that the salaries and terms of service of these doctors will be such as to attract men of high standing and with the necessary qualifications to ensure the service will be a success? In addition, the Minister made great play of the 110 supporting staff. He spoke of fully trained nurses being able to work on their own in certain factories. What proportion of the 110 supporting staff are likely to he State registered nurses? Of those who are fully qualified nurses, how many are likely to be needed to attend with the doctors during their actual examinations? How many are likely to be given full responsibility to work on their own? Can he give us some figures? Will 20 or 30, or half the 110 ancillary staff be State registered nurses. The Minister's explanation adds to the suspicion that this service is being launched on a totally inadequate basis and that it will fail in its work. I am afraid that there may be serious repercussions throughout the working population of this country. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming than he has been so far.

LORD ARWYN

I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend with reference to pneumoconiosis. I do not think that noble Lords realise that the figure for pneumoconiosis is going up in leaps and bounds. It is not only the diagnosis of the disease but its prevention. I think it is the responsibility of the Minister. I do not think that any man who ever worked underground would like to start his career there again. One of the points we must watch in the recruitment of young men is that the danger of pneumoconiosis is increasing every year. How are we going to induce these young men to go down to what may be certain death or disablement?

LORD DRUMALBYN

I wonder whether I could say at this stage that it seems to me that the Opposition at the present time are putting forward a very strange argument. Are they seriously suggesting that we would start off on a scheme of this kind with the intention that it would be inadequate? That is virtually what they are suggesting.

LORD SHACKLETON

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Why in that case did the Opposition, when we intro-traduced a similar Bill, criticise it on the ground that 110 was not enough?

LORD DRUMALBYN

It may well be that Oppositions do not always understand the full considerations. One must look at this sensibly. This is a scheme that has been carefully devised to provide what is thought to be necessary at any rate to get off the ground with this system. If we were to impose a particular level of doctors, anyone who has been in Government knows that as soon as a minimum is mentioned it is apt to be taken as a maximum. That really is not good sense. I hope noble Lords will not press this Amendment because clearly it would not improve the Bill in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, suggested that it was I who had been talking about the expenditure. I never mentioned the expenditure. It was the Front Bench opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who did that. What I said was that here we had worked out what the service needs to get off the ground. This surely is common sense.

Then, secondly, I gave a full assurance that we should recruit further for what was needed. What more can we do than that? I do feel that noble Lords should help us to get this service going. Clearly it would delay it if a minimum were set which proved to be difficult to attain right away. I hope that noble Lords will co-operate with us in getting this service, which is a valuable service, off the ground. It is not a service of diagnosis but a service of investigation. It is with prevention in mind that we set this service up, and I hope, for that reason, that the noble Baroness, who knows these problems well, will not press the Amendment.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I must confess that it is because the noble Baroness knows the problems so well that she feels she must press the Amendment. I was very disappointed with the noble Lord's winding up. I cannot blame him, because he has no case. We are asking for 110 doctors, the number contained in the last Bill, which the noble Lord's predecessor when his Party were on this side said was not enough. Now the Government have reduced the 110 to 100. We are saying that, for the sake of these unfortunate workers, we should keep to the original number, and also return to the original £1 million instead of making this miserable reduction. In view of the noble Lord's quite astonishing refusal to accept what are humane arguments, I must press the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Is the noble Baroness right in saying that the figure of 110 was actually written into the Bill? That is what she said.

A NOBLE LORD

No.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Then why write the figure into this Bill?

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

When the noble Lord opened his argument he almost suggested to the Committee that I was imagining the figure. The figure of 100 is in the Explanatory Memorandum. The noble Lord is quibbling. I am sure that noble Lords who were listening heard the noble Lord say that he wondered where this figure came from, and that it is not in the Bill. But here it is in the Explanatory Memorandum. That I feel was an attempt to deceive the Committee, and I am rather shocked that the noble Lord should stoop to that.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I really cannot accept that, and I am rather sad that the noble Baroness should try to end the debate in that way. Does she for a moment dispute that it is extremely unusual, not to say completely unprecedented, to put a figure in this way into the Bill? I am not talking of the Explanatory Memorandum. This, I am told, is unprecedented, and it is what the noble Baroness is asking us to do. I cannot advise my noble friends to do something of that sort.

LORD SHACKLETON

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. It was declared in the same way in the Explanatory Memorandum to the previous Bill that 110 was the figure. The point is that the Government have reduced the number. I am sure that the noble Lord need not get upset. I do not think he has deliberately deceived the Committee, but I think that

5.14 p.m.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).

inadvertently he may have done so. I am sure that my noble friend meant nothing personal of that kind, and certainly I do not. But it was the Opposition in another place who said that 110 was not enough and pressed the previous Government on it. I only intervene to clear up the position with regard to the noble Lord.

5.6 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS
Gardiner, L. Ogmore, L.
Garnsworthy, L. Peddie, L.
Amulree, L. Geddes of Epsom, L. Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]
Annan, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Sainsbury, L.
Archibald, L. Henley, L. St. Davids, V.
Arwyn, L. Hoy, L. Segal, L.
Beswick, L. Hughes, L. Serota, Bs.
Brockway, L. Jacques, L. Shackleton, L.
Chalfont, L. Janner, L. Shepherd, L.
Champion, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.] Shinwell. L.
Davies, of Leek, L. Stocks, Bs.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Stow Hill, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Mais, L. Summerskill, Bs.
Evan's of Hungershall, L. Milford, L. Walston, L.
Fiske, L. Moyle, L. Wootton of Abinger, Bs.
Foot, L. I Nunburnholme, L. I Wynne-Jones, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Falkland, V. Northchurch, Bs.
Alport, L. Ferrers, E. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Gainford, L. Oakshott, L.
Balerno, L. Grenfell, L. Rankeillour, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Grimston of Westbury, L. Reigate, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Roberthall, L.
Belstead, L. Rochdale, V.
Birdwood, L. Hanworth, V. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Blake, L. Hylton-Foster, Bs. St. Aldwyn E. [Teller]
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Inchyra, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Sempill, Ly.
Caccia, L. Jessel, L. Simon, V.
Conesford, L. Killearn, L. Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Cottesloe, L. Lansdowne, M. Stonehaven V.
Courtown, E. Leicester, E. Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Crawshaw, L. Long, V. Sudeley, L.
Daventry, V. Lothian, M. Thomas, L.
de Clifford, L. Loudoun, C. Vernon, L.
Denham, L. Mancroft, L. Vivian, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Milverton, L.
Dundee, E. Molson, L. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Ebbisham, L. Monck, V. Waldegrave, E.
Effingham, E. Mowbray and Stourton L. [Teller] Wolverton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs. Young, Bs.
Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment to Clause 1 standing in my name. It would probably be appropriate if I were to take Amendments 4 and 5 together. The first of these Amendments refers to page 3, line 11, leaving out paragraph (c). The second Amendment refers to page 3, line 21, inserting at the end the words on the Marshalled List. The reason for this Amendment is fairly obvious. It asks that the expenses of ordinary individuals who are working in or around factories or in places coming within the scope of this Bill shall be defrayed and also that their remuneration shall be paid by the employer in respect of the time occupied in attending for medical examination, so that they do not suffer a diminution in earnings by any such attendance. The employer should also be asked to pay any travelling expenses which may be incurred. We hope thereby to increase the amount provided for under the Bill, because, as we pointed out during the Second Reading, expenditure under the Bill has been reduced from almost £1 million to £850,000. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who always looks carefully at these things, was kind enough to inform the House, when the estimate of £850,000 was given, that he calculated that there would be, in simple terms, less examination of children and that this would result in a saving. The examination is apparently about the same, but the argument now is that because of the advance that has been made and also because of the reduction in costs which has been achieved under the Bill, there has been a substantial reduction in laboratory costs from some £200,000 to some £75,000. That is largely owing to the development of improved methods by the Department's medical laboratories. A revised estimate of the number of tests has also been possible.

I do not want to prolong the proceedings unduly, but I must declare an interest here in pharmaceuticals and in laboratories with modern techniques. I am delighted to hear that such massive savings have been made in the Government laboratories—if they have really been made. To-day the electronic machines and machines which are used in radio-active isotopes, and so on, cost a terrific sum, amounting in some cases to tens of thousands of pounds. I am delighted to hear that there have been savings here, but I would nevertheless urge that any such savings should go towards improving the service and not to cutting it down. The argument is fairly obvious. We are asking that workers of all kinds—trade unionists and others, blue and white collar workers, those who are erudite and those who use their hands—should not lose money by submitting to these medical examinations.

I have mentioned this before: I remember some first-class Rugby players in my Rugby-playing days in South Wales who at twenty-five years of age were finished because of having contracted pneumoconiosis, working on the anthracite seams. I remember that there were some young giants and fine players of twenty or twenty-one years of age, and many of those miners would carry on working simply because there was no other occupation open to them, although they knew that by doing so they were signing their own death warrants. I do not want to exaggerate, but there is no doubt that if a worker fears that he is going to lose a day's pay and also will have to pay his own out-of-pocket expenses (which could amount to a considerable sum) because of attending for a medical examination he will sometimes refuse to undergo an examination which is really necessary for his health. I hope the Government will try to find some answer to this problem because of the money that has allegedly been saved. Since they are finding it possible to dish out sums of money in this Budget—and I do not wish to make derogatory remarks about that—I believe that enough money could be found to pay the expenses of those who have to have medical examinations. If I said any more, I should merely be reiterating the obvious.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I only want to add to what my noble friend has stated, that any employer who questions the justice of this provision demonstrates that he is indifferent to the hazards to which workers are exposed. The exploratory investigations of an individual at a hospital will be pursued only when the doctor has already established the fact that there is a suspicion—perhaps some clinical manifestation—that the worker is suffering from some disease contracted in the course of his work. Surely if that is the case it should be the employer's responsibility to pay the man for the half-day, the day or two days which he may have to take off from his work in order to confirm that the medical adviser is right or wrong in his suspicion that the man is suffering from an industrial disease which—and I want to emphasise this—has been contracted in the course of his work. Furthermore, if it is decided not to pay this man, and the man delays going for his medical examination despite his doctor's advice, his condition will be aggravated. Surely the small sums involved in this little provision are morally justified. I do not like to mention the word "morals" because it seems a little pious; but here is a moral justification for paying the man, who we have just heard is suffering from incipient pneumoconiosis, his pay for the day when he goes for an X-ray.

I hope that there will be no need to have a Division on this Amendment. This man has contracted his complaint while furthering the financial interest of his employers. Surely the employer should be the person who helps the man to obtain quickly a diagnosis and help towards treatment. This is the man who is clinically suspect before he goes to the doctor. He is not a hypochondriac; he is not a man who likes hanging around hospitals—and we all know the type—or who likes to visit every doctor that he possibly can. This is a man who the medical adviser in the first place says should have some further examination in order to confirm the diagnosis.

5.23 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Perhaps the noble Lord does not quite understand the full ramifications of this matter, and I am sure that noble Lords would wish me to explain the situation as I see it. One has to differentiate very sharply between different sorts of examination which will be undertaken by the employment medical advisory service. First of all, wherever possible examinations will be conducted at the worker's place of employment. I understand that no difficulty has arisen about this in the past. This is the normal rule so far as statutory periodic medical examinations, designed to safeguard the health of individuals working in potentially dangerous processes, are concerned, and it will continue to be so. It will also be the normal practice for all other non-statutory examinations—they will be examined in the factory. But there will be some cases where it is not possible and the need for such non-statutory examinations will arise in different circumstances.

It may be that the employment medical adviser will wish to examine workers who are working with a process which is hazardous but which is not controlled by regulations—for example, mercury—and he may also want to do so because it arises from a potential new hazard, such as, for example, enzyme washing powders. Then again there are examinations carried out for the purposes of a survey, as I have already mentioned, of a particular industry or process. This type of examination is intended to relate the medical state of workmen to environmental conditions so that the criteria for environmental control can be defined. This is a joint effort by the employment medical advisory service and the industrial hygiene unit of the Factory Inspectorate. In such a case examination of all persons engaged in a particular type of occupation is unnecessary. That would be wasteful and it would yield no more information than samples drawn on a statistical basis. There have been good examples of this. I must give the background to this matter so that the noble Lord can judge whether or not his Amendment is right. There have been two examples: first, the Surrey of Respiratory Diseases in Foundrymen. That Report was published earlier this year. Secondly a survey of workers in the pottery industry. The field work has been completed on that survey and the results are now being examined.

Also there is the matter of the examination of young persons who have been identified by the school health service as not being unconditionally fit for employment. A medical examination may be necessary to see how they are shaping up to their jobs, and in such a case they may be sent to hospital. Noble Lords will have seen that the amounts involved are not very great. It is not a question of the amount involved; it is a question of principle. We want most of these examinations—all if possible—to be undertaken with the full co-operation and help of the employers concerned. We expect that in the main that cooperation will be forthcoming. But if an employer found that he had to pay the travelling expenses and loss of earnings of a worker who was called for such an examination, it might alter the atmosphere of the examination. We must consider this matter in the perspective of the type of work that the Employment Medical Advisory Service is going to do. Far from their looking on this examination as something that was beneficial both to themselves and to their workers, many employers would feel that it had turned into a penalty. This feeling might lead them to resist the proposal for an examination.

It is true that the employment medical adviser has statutory powers under Clause 3 of the Bill to require the factory occupier to permit examinations to be carried out, but we regard these as "fall-back" powers which we should not wish to invoke except in the case of necessity. We do not think we shall have to invoke them very often. Probably noble Lords have not realised that the burden of these expenses would fall very unevenly. As noble Lords know, we have decided not to charge employers for the selective medical examination of young persons who have entered their employment because it would not be fair as between one employer and another. It would be illogical if employers did not have to pay for the medical examination but had to pay for travelling expenses and loss of earnings of the employee who went for the medical examination outside the factory. In the same way, many of the other examinations which the employment medical advisers will be carrying out will be related to work carried out by particular employers, not necessarily those who are working on the most dangerous substances. I have quoted, for instance, the example of surveys covering foundries and potteries. The burden of such surveys falls not on all employers in a particular industry, but simply on those selected in the test samples. Would not it be wrong then to add to the burden of providing the testing ground by charging the cost of travelling and maintenance and subsistence to the employer?

One has to bear in mind that the results of these examinations will benefit all employers and all employees, and therefore the right thing to do is to spread them in the usual way by having them paid by the Government rather than asking the employer to pay them. Of course the point is: What is going to be paid? I will come to that. Before I do so, may I ask this rather rhetorical question? I wonder what the noble Lord would do if the employer refused to pay, because the Amendment actually includes no sanction for this.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

Clause 3.

LORD DRUMALBYN

No; the Amendment itself provides no sanction for the employer not actually paying this charge. Noble Lords would probably like to know the amount of the rate of subsistence and earnings which will be paid under this Bill. Of course, as usual these are general rates and I think I should say right away that they are not normally subjected to income tax. They are the standard Government rates laid down by the Civil Service Department and are payable, for instance, under National Insurance arrangements. For loss of earnings, compensation is subject to a present maximum of £2.37½ for a half day and £4.75 for a full day. These rates are kept under review and they were last reviewed in November, 1971. Fares are payable of course, as usual in Government arrangements, at the cheapest available public transport rates. This is what has been done and I do not think that the noble Lord has made out a case for changing this in these terms. Again, by far and away the bulk of the examinations will be done within the factories; there will be the occasional cases that will be sent for examination outside either in the interest of the employee or in the interest of employers and employees as a whole; in other words, for the purposes of research. In those circumstances, it would be a needless complication to start making differentiations, and I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to leave the Bill as it is.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

Before the noble Lord reclines comfortably to listen to my noble friend, may I make this point? The hypothetical question was put to this side of the Committee on a previous Amendment: what would you do if the employer refused? I presume that that would be covered under Section 146 of the Factories Act which provides for a fine. I assume it would be obstructing a medical adviser. I was considering that as a sanction if the employer refused. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but some of us have thought of the possibility of some form of sanction if the employer did not pay the expenses of the workman or one of his salaried people. However, I will leave it at that at the moment.

5.33 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

In some respects I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but I have more sympathy with the general principle that has been outlined by my noble friends. I do not think there is anything between us when we say that any man or woman, an employee, who is required to undertake an examination, for whatever purpose, should not suffer as regards salary or wages; nor should he or she have to bear the expense of travel. I should think there is nothing between us. This should be paid for. But if we look at subsection (7) we see it is permissive: The Secretary of State may pay—

  1. (a) to employment medical advisers … and
  2. (b) to other persons".
Paragraph (c) deals with persons who are attending a medical examination. It is at this moment purely permissive. I wonder therefore whether the noble Lord could go some way to meet us, in that this particular subsection should not be permissive but should be mandatory; in other words, any person who is called upon to undertake an examination, not only for himself but for the company in which he is involved, shall be paid for any loss of income or any expenses involved. That perhaps would meet some of the fears that we have on this side of the Committee.

I have a feeling that where medical advisers are carrying out a survey of a particular industry it would not be unreasonable if the cost was borne by the industry itself. I think that is what my noble friend had in mind. I can however recognise the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he was explaining that where a survey involves only an isolated number of companies—or where an industry is selected as an act of policy, or by an administrative decision—it would perhaps be unfair that a particular selected firm or industry should have to bear the cost, where others did not. I should have thought that this could be overcome if we had the mandatory payment either by the State to these individuals who may be examined or, as we are suggesting in our Amendment, by the industry where it is an industrial survey. But where it is a broader scheme and where firms are being particularly selected, there could be an exemption by which in that particular case the costs are borne by the State.

It is my interpretation that there is little between noble Lords on that side of the Committee and noble Lords on this side. I certainly would not wish this issue to be pressed this evening, although I am quite willing for it to be as a matter of principle. Is it possible for the noble Lord to give an assurance that workers who are involved in an examination, either for their own sake or for the sake of a company or industry, will have their costs fully reimbursed? I think he should be prepared to see whether some flexibility is possible where an administrative decision has been taken merely to select a number of companies, and not the industry as a whole, and unfairness would be involved. I would be willing to suggest to my noble friend that we gave the noble Lord the opportunity to see whether he could meet us (shall I say?) 80 per cent. of the way; and I am certain that we should very willingly consider any suggestion the noble Lord cared to make to us.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

I am grateful to my noble friend for further developing that point, because, as has been pointed out, there is not so much difference between us. But I would ask the Minister to look at subsection (7), which provides: The Secretary of State may pay—"; and then, in line 18: the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine. Subsection (8) provides: Any expenses of the Secretary of State under this section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. In other words, we should like it to be categorically stated and made crystal clear that remuneration would be there. In view of the fact that we have had quite a useful and penetrating little debate on this issue, it would be remiss of me to press this Amendment, but before it is withdrawn completely I should like the Minister to say how far he thinks he can go with us in helping a little and in answering my noble friend who has just spoken from the Front Bench.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Davies of Leek, for their helpful attitude in this matter, and in return I can certainly give an absolute assurance that travelling expenses and loss of earnings in accordance with the agreed scale will be paid, even though the Bill is framed in a permissive way. After all, there would not be a service at all if the Secretary of State did not pay the medical advisers their salaries, and the expenses fall exactly on the same basis as the other payments.

We have some experience of this already. For example, I can quote cases where workers can have an X-ray at the instigation of a medical adviser. If the facilities of a Department of Health and Social Security pneumoconiosis medical panel are used far the X-rays, then the clerk to the panel arranges for the payment of the expenses to the worker, and the Department of Health and Social Security later recovers the sum from the Department of Employment. So arrangements of this kind are already in existence. I cannot of course guarantee that there will be no loss to any particular worker: it would be foolish of me to seek to do so. What they will get is the standard rate. In some cases these rates may be more than the workers are paid, as with the war-time allowances for a half-day and a full day. But this, I imagine, will be a matter for trade union negotiation. All I can say (and I have asked carefully about this) is that no difficulty has arisen in the past. I certainly undertake to look at this again in order to make quite certain of the situation.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the conciliatory spirit in which he has replied to this Amendment, and consequently I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

5.43 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

This is the most important clause in the Bill, and although I do not want to delay the Committee there are one or two questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn; and it may be that my noble friend Lady Summerskill also has a point that she wishes to make.

When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was good enough to write to me about the financing of this Bill, and correcting his earlier mistake (which he did very freely; and I fully accept his apologies), he said one rather alarming thing; and this has run through some of the discussion. I mentioned it earlier, and it is the substantial reduction in laboratory costs from £200,000 to £75,000, owing partly to the development of improved methods by the Department's medical laboratory and partly to a revised and more accurate estimate of the number of tests. This is a very big reduction. I understand that testing is, if anything, getting more expensive, unless these new machines for the atomic absorption test, and so on, are so efficient that there is a real increase in productivity. But the impression we all had was first that there was a need for more monitoring—and on that I do not think any of us would disagree—and, secondly, that there was likely to be need for more laboratories because there would be more testing to he done.

The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, made an interesting speech on Second Reading in relation to the Health Service, and in the long run, no doubt, as the possibility of an occupational health service is developed, we may see a change; or it may be that other laboratories than those under the control of the Department of Employment will be involved. One is surprised that where one would expect costs to go up, rather than down, they have gone down very considerably indeed. I did not give the noble Lord notice that I was going to raise this point, and it may be that he can seek another opportunity to give the explanation. I am not suggesting that he did not understand what he wrote to me, but that he may have just accepted the figures. I am now querying the figures and asking how they were arrived at.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I should like to raise a point with the Minister. Somebody with a tremendous amount of information on this matter, a staff manager of a London office, has been listening to the discussion to-day, and he has said—and I quote: I have found the discussion on the Bill most interesting, but it does not go far enough. I feel also that there will be practical difficulties in implementing the link-un between school medical services and careers officers and employers where school-leavers are concerned. I suspect that these will be a particular problem where private schools are involved, since, so far as I am aware, such schools are not tied in to the school medical service and rarely use the employment services. I do not know whether the Minister can make any comment on that point about the private schools.

LORD DRUMALBYN

If I may take the second point first, there is an organisation of doctors at private schools, and I understand that that organisation has undertaken to notify all its members—who are presumably all the doctors in private schools—of the requirements. There is no statutory cover. Young people at private schools are not covered by the education authority machinery, and many of them stay on to a later age—and this Bill applies to young persons up to the age of 18. But, of course, a considerable number of them will leave before the age of 18. I think that doctors in private schools, with the advice they are given from their organisation, will be able to watch this carefully and do on a non-statutory basis what is being done on a statutory basis elsewhere. There is no reason why they should not be in touch with the employment medical adviser in their area.

I should have liked to be able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in greater detail. I am told that the £75,000 that is carried for the extra laboratory work in hospitals will be carried on the Vote of the Health Departments. This is immaterial, because it is a cost just the same. I should like to confirm what I am about to say, but I have no doubt that the further study that has been given to this, and to the whole organisation of testing, has resulted in economies through the greater use of the Health Service laboratories. I should imagine that this is one of the things that has been done. I might remind your Lordships that on Second Reading I was pressed not to expand too greatly the laboratories of the employment medical advisory service itself. I was told this would be wasteful. I should like to confirm this, but I imagine that part of the economies will come from the better organisation that has been set up here. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and let him know anything further that I can on this matter.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am grateful. Perhaps the noble Lord ought to tell the House what the result of his inquiry is. I think what he is saying is that this saving is not really a saving but a transfer elsewhere.

LORD DRUMALBYN

No.

LORD SHACKLETON

Presumably this £125,000-worth of work that is done in a laboratory under the Health Service cannot just be done in that way without some extra cost. I do not propose to get into an argument about whether it should come under the Health Service or the Department of Employment. I happen to think at this stage that the association between factory inspectors and factory medical advisers is so close, and the Act under which they operate requires this—

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am sorry if I have given the noble Lord a false impression. There is the central laboratory of the employment medical advisory service. This has to be paid for on the Vote. What I was trying to convey was that we have tried to give the total cost irrespective of which Vote it was borne on. There is not a saving merely because costs have been transferred to the Health Service; there might be a saving because the Health Service laboratories are spread widely round the country and it may be very much cheaper and more effective to use them.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord says that there may be, but in fact he is saying it is £125,000 cheaper. I cannot really say that I am very satisfied, and I am extremely doubtful if the noble Lord is satisfied with his own answer. I think he might go into this further. We shall be having another stage. There has been concern about this. I have consulted one or two of my friends on this, and I thought it right to press it. I will not press the noble Lord further now.

On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, I am a little bothered about the private schools situation. The noble Lord says that he is sure the doctors will co-operate. If I remember rightly, we are providing in this Bill formally for the school health service—my noble friend Lady Scrota will know more about this than I do—to co-operate in this, but there is no provision for private schools. There are a very large number of children in private schools which do not come under the service, and I doubt whether their medical services are anything like as good in some cases as the public school health services. No doubt some schools have excellent services, but I suspect others may not, and particularly in the case of the day schools it will largely depend on the general practitioner. I expect again that the noble Lord cannot go much further now. I cannot honestly see the answer to this. I do not propose to complicate his life by suggesting an Amendment, which no doubt might be defective. He might perhaps give it further thought to see whether something more positive can be said at a later stage. He did mention certain action. He may be able to make it a bit stronger and convincing to everybody, and give publicity to the desirability of it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I should be very glad to go into this matter further and on the next occasion give the House more precise information.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

This Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, or rather the other way round. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

Obstruction of employment medical adviser

".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 £100, and where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory, the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence."—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

5.57 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 7: After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

Buildings containing materials hazardous to health

".The Factories Act 1961 shall have effect as if in section 146(1)(a) there were inserted at the end the words "and any part of any building of which a factory forms part and in which he has reasonable cause to believe that materials are stored or used which are hazardous to health"."

The noble Lord said: I am hopeful the Government have an answer to this question. I beg to move the insertion of this new clause to amend the Factories Act so that the definition of a factory for the purposes of this Bill will include any part of any building of which a factory forms part and in which he"— that is the medical adviser— has reasonable cause to believe that materials are stored or used which are hazardous to health". Any noble Lord who is an employer and has wrestled with the Factories Act—and I seem to remember that Redgrave was the standard book one always consulted on this issue—will know that a factory is a remarkable thing; it covers practically everything. I remember finding once that a bacon-slicing room constituted a factory. And that is quite right. Looking through the interpretation clauses of the 1961 Act, one finds that Clause 175, which goes on through ten subsections, lists what a factory is, but I cannot find, even though there is a definition "within the curtilage of a factory", that unless it is tied to one of these many processes this particular type of storage space is necessarily included. It may be; I am not saying it is not; but it is not always automatically part of a factory. I appreciate that the medical advisers will not necessarily be going poking around, but there may be some part of what most of us would have assumed was a factory, or a building very close by, where there happens to be some very poisonous substance. May I ask the noble Lord whether or not the medical adviser would be able to go into this storage space under the power of access that he has under the Factories Act? I hope he would be able to. Before I go any further, perhaps the noble Lord would care to comment. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I understand that the noble Lord does not intend to press this Amendment. It has, as he may realise, technical objections with which I do not need to bother the Committee. I think the best answer I can give to the noble Lord is this. First of all the job of an employment medical adviser—and I take it that the noble Lord is moving this Amendment to cover the employment medical adviser and not the factory inspector—is not to examine the premises but to examine the people in the premises. But it will obviously be part of the duty of employment medical advisers, as indeed of factory inspectors, to be alert to the possibility of hazards to health and to advise on suitable precautions, in consultation if necessary with the public health inspector.

It looks as though this Amendment is seeking to give employment medical advisers a public health function which for many years has rested with the local authorities under the various Public Health Acts. I am told that here there really is no reason to duplicate. We have not found over the years that medical inspectors of factories—they will become employment medical advisers—have needed a power on these lines in relation to possible health hazards and this is probably because most places where materials that could be hazardous to health are stored are warehouses attached to a factory or are warehouses where mechanical power is used. They would therefore be factories under the Factories Act and the employment medical adviser would have automatic right of entry to them. So, we need not give employment medical advisers extra powers to enter non-factory premises unless we are reasonably sure that they will need them to carry out their duties; and there is no clear evidence of the need for the powers suggested in the Amendment.

We have found it difficult to envisage the sort of case the noble Lord has in mind. I do not know whether he has any particular case in mind where a danger to health has arisen over which there has been difficulty. But so far as we can see the Public Health Acts would deal with the situation, and so far as the employment medical advisers' duties are concerned it is always possible for them to ask to be admitted to any factory or warehouse where there is a person employed for whom they think there is a hazard of some description.

LORD SHACKLETON

I certainly do not want to press this Amendment to a Division, because, quite frankly, I do not know quite enough about the subject to feel confident in doing so. But the basic argument is, first of all, that there might be a store containing some very poisonous substance, say, fluorocetamide. This is both very sinister and very poisonous. It is very sinister because it is extraordinarily difficult—and I just picked on this one example; I had not thought about it before—to diagnose fluorocetamide poisoning. The noble Lord will remember a particular incident arising from the polluting of land, and only a very alert vet spotted the trouble. It may be that a medical adviser is concerned with certain health factors. He may have an instinct. There may be nobody actually working in the store. I absolutely agree that this is hypothetical, and the noble Lord may be right in saying that no difficulty would arise. I have forgotten whether the industrial hygiene laboratories or groups or the local authority health people look at this.

The Amendment seemed to me to be reasonable, although I put it down mainly for testing. I was a little concerned at the noble Lord saying that they are concerned with people and not, so to speak, with premises. It is because of the nature of the premises that the risks arise to the people. Anyone who has worked with a good industrial medical officer has seen his concern in certain matters, and it would be a pity if it were considered that a medical adviser was not, so to speak, to concern himself. I note the noble Lord's emphasis—and I notice that this emphasis has been placed by Ministers throughout the progress of the Bill. I shall not press him any further, but I should like him to think this over because I think there is here a rather awkward spectrum and, in a sense, my Amendment brings it out. I certainly would not wish to press the Amendment. If the noble Lord does not want to say anything more, I would just withdraw it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I intervene for one moment, to say that there is a distinction of functions here, and what we visualise and what we are sure will happen is—and after all doctors are people with inquiring minds; they want to find the cause and reasons—that if an employment medical adviser finds that there is some form of poisoning that he cannot account for in the factory or, for that matter, that the G.P. cannot account for in the home atmosphere, and perhaps it affects more than one person, I should have thought he would simply pick up the telephone and call in the Public Health Officer. It is this kind of link that will go on. I am told that this is not really a power that would be required and that there is the distinction of functions here but I shall, in the light of the explanation the noble Lord has given, very willingly look into this further.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. The case I am making may be largely a theoretical one. I am very grateful. He says he will look into it. I take his point about the division of functions. I hope, indeed as lie stressed, that they will not be watertight. There will be close cooperation. There seems to me to be a principle. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, which is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

Forward to